We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Tuesday, March 19. 2013
Bailey argues that it's because of moral presumptions, biases really. I'd agree that that is a factor, but he doesn't consider peoples' healthy skepticism about the Truth du Jour. Science offers theories, not facts. Educated people know that Science is not a religion, and few scientists claim Truth.
Few things that were believed to be "scientific truths" 50 years ago are believed today, and the same will apply 50 years from today.
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
Well, it started off nicely enough.
But then it got down to the real nitty-gritty:
Climate change: The majority of climate scientists believe that human activity is causing the earth’s temperatures to increase.
He handed this one to the Dems for accuracy.
In other words, "science" isn't about the facts, it's about whatever the majority believes.
I guess he answered his own question, then, didn't he?
Also, that science doesn't operate by consensus. Every scientist can believe or support a theory and all can be proven completely wrong by the most unschooled observer.
That derives from the fact that the more you know about science or an area of science, the more you realize we don't know much about anything.
Not to mention, the pollution of science by "social science" which is faddish and if you wait long enough what is now bad will be good and the good will be bad but always we must impose the current fad lest we all die in a fiery desert fueled by the fat from our obese bodies and blanketed by our poisonous CO2 emissions. Social science and religion are so hard to tell apart these days.
Also, scientists are people. People are fallible. They are susceptible to the bandwagon appeal, and to where the money comes from. And, "The science is settled." is a false statement.
That always reminds me of the DDT "problem" that Rachel Carson invented. And this became the basis for Nixon forming the EPA. And how much truth to the "problem". None. I don't remember the name of the science "skeptic" , but he used to eat a spoonful of DDT before each of his speeches. Now he did die like we all will but he was well into his 80's. Now how many died or were maimed because it was kept off the market? Does it haunt any of the scientists? It sure doesn't haunt the politicians or the ZPG people. But its science.
Wish we could bring DDT back to get rid of our growing bed bug problem. Why do you think it wasn't a problem for so many years, people???
Instead we look for 'natural' ways to kill pests, which generally are feel-good measures, rather than things the actually kill the pests.
DDT is not dangerous. Wish some scientists would reintroduce that argument into our current society and get it back into use!
For some of the pest problems like bed bugs it is very much worth while to try using diatomaceous earth. Use the food grade. Also works on pets for fleas. But there are a lot of uses for DDT that have no alternate use that is as effective.
Rachel Carson may be responsible for more death and sufferring then Hitler, Stalin or Mao. Even today a couple million people die every year, most of them young children, from a mosquito borne disease that could be ended overnight with DDT. All of the experts and environmentalist know the science was flawed and also know that DDT could save millions of lives. But at this point it is no longer about environmentalism it is about power and to reverse their position on DDT and admit the enormous harm they have done over these last few decades would be to give up some of that power and maybe turn the tide of their power. So for the sake of power for the radical left millions must die. Simple as that.
The science pretty much is settled--CO2 absorbs energy in certain wavelengths. Every amount of CO2 holds 1 degree of heat, and doubling that amount (at least step) holds another.
That much is pretty much fact and is about at the level of "mostly pure water, at mean sea level, boils at 212 degrees F." (water boils at 100C isnt a fact, it's a tautology).
What is still under debate what effects that CO2 absorption does. What is the effect of tiny increases in temperature on the amount of water vapor in the air, and does that cause an unstoppable runaway problem?
Also under debate is the statistical methods (not the scientific methods) that folks like Mann, Hansen et. al. are using to model the climate.
The science is pretty much settled, it's all the stuff around the science.
First you start talking about "science" then you offer a fact based on observation. Erroneous in your detail BTW, but we get the point.
Then you associated that fact as being similar to another observed fact. So far no, "science" but scientific observation.
These observed facts are settled. Well, mostly, there is always the possibility more precise observations will alter them slightly, i.e., refinement.
Then back to "science" as a concept but then another observable fact, the increase in water vapor due to temperature increase is observable. Followed by the question, i.e., supposition that is the subject of science and the matter not shown to be supported by predicted observations, i.e., runaway feedback.
The statistical methods are only under debate because they've been shown to have been inadequate, as has been some data manipulations. But also because the models are not in agreement the real world observations.
What is also in debate is the measurement accuracy and validity used to inform the hypothesis. That is, there is substantial evidence that error sources were not properly accounted for, siting locations caused erroneous measurements and that interpolation of temperatures over the topography is not supported by observations showing localized effects. Due to questions about the validity of the data that fed the hypothesis and the failure of models created to forecast based on the hypothesis, there is debate as to the conclusions presented as "fact" by the "consensus" of scientists.
I was a certified, card carrying, bona fide, published biological scientist in the '50s, before I got bored with it and became a professional pilot. There was a saying back then: Scientific theories never die, but those that hold them dear do.
As a certified, card carrying, bonafied, published scientist, my thought is: bleh.
Shermer is a dishonest idiot.
Mooney is a dishonest idiot.
The article wasn't even well constructed.
And I'm pretty sure that science offers facts. Of course feel free to doubt that when you put your tongue on the terminals of that 9V battery.
People have decided plenty of times that something is true - then it became undecided again.
But yeah, political predisposition has an influence on how people approach these questions.
How many times have you read that salt/coffee/eggs/bacon/red meat/etc. is bad/good for you?
Can somebody explain the difference between scientifically untrue and just plain untrue?