4 ms·

Let’s remind everybody that the truth is not decided by a vote One leading indicator that there's something fishy about the case for anthropogenic global warmi

by mhartl 17y ago

Let’s remind everybody that the truth is not decided by a vote One leading indicator that there's something fishy about the case for anthropogenic global warming is that people talk of a "scientific consensus" on the subject. There's a scientific consensus on Newtonian mechanics, too, but no one bothers to mention it.

netcan 17y ago
There is a scientific consensus on Darwinian evolution, and it gets mentioned all the time. That argument is used against non-scientists challenging scientific consensus.
- dantheman 17y ago
  Darwinian evolution provides the basis upon which all modern biology is constructed -- It is a positive theory, it enables research and conclusions. Whereas AGW is a conclusion.
  - netcan 17y ago
    I'm not sure what the relevance of that is. Yes, from a scientific perspective Darwinism is more important and interesting because it is very fundamental. Is that the difference you are referring to? What does that have to do with scientific consensus? Are you saying that scientific consensus is a convincing argument for "positive theories." *BTW, I agree with you that consensus, even scientific consensus is not watertight. It is however, something. It's limitations are the limitations of the scientific institution, which are many. Still, overall science produces knowledge about the world and is our best way of doing so. Scientific consensus is not unchallengeable but it is difficult to convincingly challenge and it does put a burden on the challenger.
    - dantheman 17y ago
      I don't know if it puts the burden on the challenger, as Feynman said the duty of the scientist is to bend over backwards to explain all the ways that you might be wrong. The climate scientists do not do this; in fact they claim to understand complex cyclical systems that they've observed a small fraction of. I think they've greatly overplayed their hand and were very sloppy in their thinking. So in this case, I'd say the burden is on them - they are making extraordinary claims that are difficult to verify. Climate science is extremely hard - lack of data, a huge complex non-linear system, lack of understanding of subsystems -- yet they claim to have it figured out.
- mhartl 17y ago
  There is a scientific consensus on Darwinian evolution, and it gets mentioned all the time. Yes, people should stop that. The evidence for evolution can stand on its own. I suspect the same is not the case for AGW.
  - camccann 17y ago
    The evidence for evolution can stand on its own. You've never tried to talk to a Creationist, have you?
    - mhartl 17y ago
      Of course I have, or at least I did in my misspent youth. Creationists are hard to convince. But you seem to suggest that, absent being able to convince a creationist with evidence, scientists should resort to naked argument from authority: "there's an overwhelming scientific consensus". But that doesn't work, either: few creationists have ever embraced evolution because of the "scientific consensus", and in the process it makes the actual arguments for evolution look weak.
camccann 17y ago
There's a scientific consensus on Newtonian mechanics, too, but no one bothers to mention it. It's also not relevant to any divisive political issues. If it were, you'd hear plenty about the consensus (in the negative sense, I guess, since Newtonian mechanics is fundamentally mistaken despite having good predictive value for some stuff). Nobody has time to personally verify the entire edifice of modern science from the ground up; what's commonly accepted as true in science is precisely the set of things for which a broad consensus among people in the field exists. It's not a perfect solution, but it's worked well so far. So, while the truth isn't decided by a vote, the best approximation of truth known to humanity pretty much is, and the people voting are experts in the field (which, I note, does not include Krugman or a variety of other people making very strong statements on the issue).

by mhartl 17y ago

netcan 17y ago

There is a scientific consensus on Darwinian evolution, and it gets mentioned all the time. That argument is used against non-scientists challenging scientific consensus.

dantheman 17y ago
Darwinian evolution provides the basis upon which all modern biology is constructed -- It is a positive theory, it enables research and conclusions. Whereas AGW is a conclusion.
- netcan 17y ago
  I'm not sure what the relevance of that is. Yes, from a scientific perspective Darwinism is more important and interesting because it is very fundamental. Is that the difference you are referring to? What does that have to do with scientific consensus? Are you saying that scientific consensus is a convincing argument for "positive theories." *BTW, I agree with you that consensus, even scientific consensus is not watertight. It is however, something. It's limitations are the limitations of the scientific institution, which are many. Still, overall science produces knowledge about the world and is our best way of doing so. Scientific consensus is not unchallengeable but it is difficult to convincingly challenge and it does put a burden on the challenger.
  - dantheman 17y ago
    I don't know if it puts the burden on the challenger, as Feynman said the duty of the scientist is to bend over backwards to explain all the ways that you might be wrong. The climate scientists do not do this; in fact they claim to understand complex cyclical systems that they've observed a small fraction of. I think they've greatly overplayed their hand and were very sloppy in their thinking. So in this case, I'd say the burden is on them - they are making extraordinary claims that are difficult to verify. Climate science is extremely hard - lack of data, a huge complex non-linear system, lack of understanding of subsystems -- yet they claim to have it figured out.
mhartl 17y ago
There is a scientific consensus on Darwinian evolution, and it gets mentioned all the time. Yes, people should stop that. The evidence for evolution can stand on its own. I suspect the same is not the case for AGW.
- camccann 17y ago
  The evidence for evolution can stand on its own. You've never tried to talk to a Creationist, have you?
  - mhartl 17y ago
    Of course I have, or at least I did in my misspent youth. Creationists are hard to convince. But you seem to suggest that, absent being able to convince a creationist with evidence, scientists should resort to naked argument from authority: "there's an overwhelming scientific consensus". But that doesn't work, either: few creationists have ever embraced evolution because of the "scientific consensus", and in the process it makes the actual arguments for evolution look weak.

camccann 17y ago

There's a scientific consensus on Newtonian mechanics, too, but no one bothers to mention it. It's also not relevant to any divisive political issues. If it were, you'd hear plenty about the consensus (in the negative sense, I guess, since Newtonian mechanics is fundamentally mistaken despite having good predictive value for some stuff). Nobody has time to personally verify the entire edifice of modern science from the ground up; what's commonly accepted as true in science is precisely the set of things for which a broad consensus among people in the field exists. It's not a perfect solution, but it's worked well so far. So, while the truth isn't decided by a vote, the best approximation of truth known to humanity pretty much is, and the people voting are experts in the field (which, I note, does not include Krugman or a variety of other people making very strong statements on the issue).