RE: The War on intelligence, facts, and science, marche... - 9/4/2017 1:52:42 PM
|
|
|
AtUrCervix
Posts: 2111
Joined: 1/15/2016
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: heavyblinker
quote:
ORIGINAL: AtUrCervix
I don't believe I said that at all. In fact....I'm absolutely certain of it.
Any decision made with limited data is fallible, and by virtue....destined to fail.
I don't believe you said THAT before, which is why I was asking what you meant.
And if the data is known to be limited, then that is something that will be taken into consideration... but there are degrees of 'limited' to consider as well.
quote:
ORIGINAL: AtUrCervix
Hmmmm....kinda sounds to me like what he said was..."just one (limited) aspect of a complete discussion...is hardly enough to deduce / create public policy"
His point is that he wants to reject science whenever it conflicts with business, religion, etc.
I am not exactly sure what you would consider a 'complete' discussion, but what you are saying here is how we get to 'teach the controversy'.
quote:
ORIGINAL: AtUrCervix
I'm sure they say exactly what you state they said. I'm not even remotely clear on the point you're attempting to make. Bloodletting was once "science". Flat Earth was once "science". Ingesting mercury for flu was once "science".
Is man contributing to global warming? Only the least intelligent of humans would deny that. Again...your point?
My point is that you said NO ONE denies it, but plenty of people do.
I really hope you're not going to compare climatology to bloodletting, or suggest that because some less-than-accurate theories once dominated certain areas of science, that no science can ever be fully trusted.
So why did we ultimately reject Flat Earth, bloodletting, etc.?
Because of religion? Because of politics?
No, it was because the science improved... it corrected itself.
Better theories emerged and replaced the inferior ones.
quote:
ORIGINAL: AtUrCervix
I'm not giving the right or the left any credit. I should have said any right "thinking" person doesn't debate that, however....the original premise is inherently misleading...only in as much as some would interpret the statement:
"Science, as has often been said, is true whether you believe in it or not. It is a constantly
self-correcting, unbiased system, one through which our collective understanding of the cosmos
advances with each discovery."
Break it down to its components and once you do....you can see the flaw:
Maybe science doesn't deal in 'truths', but the rest seems pretty accurate.
quote:
ORIGINAL: AtUrCervix
Science, as has often been said, is true whether you believe in it or not.
Who's science? Yours? Mine? That which has been undeniably "proven"? By whom? What science that we "know" today....will be proven wrong just 50 years from today? Einstein was a postal clerk. Is he a "scientist" now only because his thesis has been proven accurate? How about all those "scientists" of the 1300's who said the world was round? Are they only now scientists because indeed, we all know the earth is round? They were Heretics at one point in "science". Who's science do we use to prove....your.....point? Who's point should we attempt to prove or disprove if yours is at some point found lacking? I would argue that far more things than solely "science" are factors. Does science prove or disprove God? Is God therefore not valid? If God is in fact valid....does that disprove science? One side of ANY discussion....is not enough. In my lifetime, science has proven that cyclamates were good, and proven they cause cancer. Science, when I was a child "proved" that saturated fats were better for you....now....they're proven to be unhealthy. Who's science would you have us use....in every circumstance?....or....would you argue, as I do....having lived a while...that science is fallible....that science does NOT have all the answers and that....as stated above....science is one aspect of a discussion (on any topic)...and it should be considered as part of any solution....or even description of a problem needing repair / discourse or....study.
Anyone whose job or hobby is to follow the scientific method with the intent to make discoveries about the world around us is a scientist. I don't get your point... people who practice medicine are doctors, people who bring you your mail are postal workers, people who teach in schools are teachers. There are good teachers and bad teachers, but they are all teachers. Some have impressive credentials, some do not. Not everyone is going to do quality work, and they will usually develop a reputation that reflects their performance. Science does not label people heretics, that is a religious term. The word is 'whose'. Science tends to move forward based on a consensus view. If the consensus view is challenged by new evidence, then a new consensus appears. There are strong and weak consensus views. Science will never prove or disprove God, because it is impossible to measure, analyze or observe God. God has no discernable properties. If God exists, I don't know if it disproves science... you would have to ask God. You would also have to be sure that you understood his meaning and that it really was God and not some super-powerful alien playing a trick on you, which is probably impossible. Science doesn't 'belong' to anyone, so it isn't a question of 'whose science' we should use. Again, it is self-correcting, which is why saturated fats grew to be regarded as unhealthy, but I am not familiar with the studies on saturated fats, so I don't know how reliable they are. If an oil company 'scientist' keeps performing an experiment to study the effects of CO2 on the atmosphere, changing the conditions until they get the result they desire, it isn't science, it is propaganda. It is really difficult to talk about 'every discussion' without going into specifics, but I am certain that science informing policy is not as problematic as you seem to think it is.
quote:
ORIGINAL: AtUrCervix
I would submit Jesus would have fit that category. Gutenberg would be another. Some may even argue that Oprah once fit that role.
Except for Oprah, those people are no longer on this planet.
And I am pretty confident that the author was using that term to refer to the decision-makers.
quote:
ORIGINAL: AtUrCervix
The sound of ignorance was (and is) very often the prevailing belief system Some would (some do) argue that Catholicism is the biggest lie on Earth. "Informed discussion" presumes data. It further presumes correct data. Just because the loudest voice professes to carry the best of all.....doesn't preclude someone like Hitler from taking power, while also destroying lives.
Who's information provides "informed discussion"?
Being loud doesn't mean someone is informed, or that their 'science' is better than someone else's. In fact, it probably means that they are just bad at their jobs, or in the case of the deniers, hopelessly corrupt.
The right regularly mocks and chastises real climatologists while trumpeting the work of Roy Spencer and Richard Lindzen... they are hacks, but they get so much coverage in RWNJ news that they've become heroes.
But that has nothing to do with actual science-- their more outrageous claims have been thoroughly debunked and accepting their theories as the most valid is not scientific.... only political.
Informed discussion tends to arise when two people who thoroughly understand a subject come together and discuss it.
If the subject is Catholicism, then a Catholic priest or religious scholar would probably be more informed than someone who had never studied or practiced Catholicism.
If the subject is climate change, an appropriately accredited, practicing climatologist with a solid rep will be more informed than a right-wing politician who thinks Jesus will save us anyways.
If one of the practicing, accredited climatologists is corrupt, then it will be an informed discussion, but not an honest or truly scientific one.
An uninformed opinion is not the equal of an informed one.
A known liar is not the equal of someone with integrity.
Pretty impressive, frankly. Flawed in a few places but...generally...impressive.
Nice job.
|
|
|
|
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread