Quotes About Consensus

majoritarianism.

In fact, what is amazing about this find is that scholars of every stripe—conservative Christians, liberal Christians, believers in Judaism, and secular Jewish scholars—agreed en masse that the special had missed the mark and hadn't come close to making its case.

Democracy must be something more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.

All it really seems to prove is that if you assemble a number of like-minded people, who share a certain view of sheltering and how it should be done, a test will confirm that they agree with each other most of the time about what sheltering means.

the IPCC now spoke comfortably of consensus and endorsed those mysterious concepts of sustainability and energy that renewed itself. We even thought that this way somehow we could save the planet and grow richer as well, a more pleasing outcome than the uncomfortable truth.

Everybody says it, and what everybody says must be true.

The tendency of democracies is, in all things, to mediocrity.

What is preserved by the constancy of numerical boundaries, of course, is the possibility that all contestants can agree on an eventual winner.

Diversity and independence are important because the best collective decisions are the product of disagreement and contest, not consensus or compromise.

The biggest danger to American stability," Johnson argued, "is the politics of principle, which brings out the masses in irrational fights for unlimited goals, for once the masses begin to move, then the whole thing begins to explode. Thus it is for the sake of nothing less than stability that I consider myself a consensus man.

Clay had been able, decade after decade, to quell rancor and bring opposing parties together in compromise. Time and again, he resisted "extremes of opinion" in both North and South. "Whatever he did, he did for the whole country.

If he is mad, I can agree with him.' 'He isn't mad,' said Jerott.

Please all, and you will please none.

In trying to please all, he had pleased none.

Virtually everyone in the world believes that climate change is real and is caused by human beings, except Republicans in the United States. Especially the people who would know best: 97 percent of climate scientists agree that climate change is real and caused by human activity, and I suspect the other 3 percent are being paid by the fossil fuel industry".

Virtually everyone in the world believes that climate change is real and is caused by human beings, except Republicans in the United States.

The 'economy of number' proposed by Peano is an economy of signs whose paradigm is algebraic, whose transparency is consensual, and whose operational effectiveness is therefore not in doubt. He thus participates forcefully in that movement of thought, victorious today, that wrests mathematics from its antique philosophical pedestal and represents it to us as a grammar of signs where all that matters is the making explicit of the code.

Scientific journals must remain the preserve of articles capable of affecting the consensus of the scientific public. Books are the place for opinions, speculations, and fanciful accounts of ricocheting planets.

In any society where government does not express or represent the moral community of the citizens, but is instead a set of institutional arrangements for imposing a bureaucratized unity on a society which lacks genuine moral consensus, the nature of political obligation becomes systematically unclear.

The book review pages of those journals are the graveyards of constructive academic philosophy, and any doubts as to whether rational consensus might not after all be achievable on modern academic moral philosophy can be put to rest by reading them through regularly.

What this brings out is that modern politics cannot be a matter of genuine moral consensus. And it is not. Modern politics is civil war carried on by other means, and Bakke was an engagement whose antecedents were at Gettysburg and Shiloh.

Truth is truth, no matter who else believes it.

Scientists disagree among themselves but they never fight over their disagreements. They argue about evidence or go out and seek new evidence. Much the same is true of philosophers, historians and literary critics.

And you finally get to a consensus, where you get a sense of what really ought to be done, and then they give it to me and then I draw it. I mean draw it in the sense, the philosophical sense.