5 ms·

To answer your questions: Probably yes, and certainly yes. The intelligent design movement has made a whole documentary film about their systematic exclusion fr

by crux_ 17y ago

To answer your questions: Probably yes, and certainly yes. The intelligent design movement has made a whole documentary film about their systematic exclusion from the scientific process, for pete's sake! For a specific example, a biology journal associated with the Smithsonian published an intelligent design paper -- and as a result, its publisher was immediately forced out, and the newly installed publisher printed a complete retraction. Further, many evolutionary biologists don't just work to prevent ID papers from being published; they actively advocate shutting down any journals that do publish it... The thing is, if you believe that evolution is on solid footing, and the ID movement's attempts to cast doubt on it are junk science, then all of the above is perfectly appropriate -- but if you believe that evolution is actually a flawed theory, then all of the above is evidence of ideologically driven 'bad science'! The parallels continue.

Nwallins 17y ago
> The intelligent design movement has made a whole documentary film about their systematic exclusion from the scientific process, for pete's sake! And so on with Astrology, Alchemy, and the Humours theory of medicine. These things are not science and do not deserve the dignity and resources of scientific consideration. ID is an unverifiable postulation (with no explanatory power) about the origins of the universe, whereas the IPCC kerfuffle is all about scientists wanting to do science, review the data, etc.
- crux_ 17y ago
  Thank you for the opportunity to (re-)make my point. Think if someone had said these exact words about climate sceptics: "These things are not science and do not deserve the dignity and resources of scientific consideration." Outrageous, unscientific arrogance. If you believe the sceptics have a point. But if you don't, it's completely justified (although politically unwise to say out loud).
  - Nwallins 17y ago
    In my mind, the question is not whether the skeptics have a point -- it's whether they are doing science. We are presuming that the IPCC is doing science and that the skeptics are doing science. The skeptics may be wrong, and they may not have a point, but they are doing science. Drawing an analogy to evolution skeptics of the ID variety confounds the issue, because there is no presumption of science being done by the skeptics. I suggest you choose a more faithful analogy. EDIT, in consideration of > "These things are not science and do not deserve the dignity and resources of scientific consideration." That is a bold claim by anti-skeptics, and the burden of proof is on them. Claiming that ID is not science is not so bold, and I can back that up if you really need such.
    - crux_ 17y ago
      > The skeptics may be wrong, and they may not have a point, but they are doing science. If they were really doing science, you'd think they could get something published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal instead of just blogging, wouldn't you? ;) (Aaaand we've come full circle!)
      - stonemetal 17y ago
        Publishing has nothing to do with weather or not they are doing science. It has to do with the methodology they employ.
      - Nwallins 17y ago
        OK, so we are down to the crux of the issue. ;) The claim, then, is that the skeptics are not doing science. That is easily refutable, e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_McIntyre http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_McIntyre and http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/12/13/centre-of-the-storm/print/ http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/12/13/centre-of-the-storm/print... Thus, in contrast to evolution skeptics of the ID variety, climate skeptics give much more credence to the idea that the target of their skepticism is flawed at best, and doing bad science at worst.
        crux_ 17y ago
jerf 17y ago
No, you got it backwards. It wasn't those challenging the consensus redefining "peer review", it was the scientific consensus in this case. Consensus was manufactured. You cite examples in the opposite direction. (One can argue about what the real breakdown of opinions on global warming are with the real scientists, but it's objective truth that it is not 100% agreement within the science, or even close to that.)
- nollidge 17y ago
  > it's objective truth that it is not 100% agreement within the science, or even close to that. Source? If the IPCC is at all representative of climate scientists at large, then I'd say they're pretty close to 100%.

by crux_ 17y ago

Nwallins 17y ago

> The intelligent design movement has made a whole documentary film about their systematic exclusion from the scientific process, for pete's sake! And so on with Astrology, Alchemy, and the Humours theory of medicine. These things are not science and do not deserve the dignity and resources of scientific consideration. ID is an unverifiable postulation (with no explanatory power) about the origins of the universe, whereas the IPCC kerfuffle is all about scientists wanting to do science, review the data, etc.

crux_ 17y ago
Thank you for the opportunity to (re-)make my point. Think if someone had said these exact words about climate sceptics: "These things are not science and do not deserve the dignity and resources of scientific consideration." Outrageous, unscientific arrogance. If you believe the sceptics have a point. But if you don't, it's completely justified (although politically unwise to say out loud).
- Nwallins 17y ago
  In my mind, the question is not whether the skeptics have a point -- it's whether they are doing science. We are presuming that the IPCC is doing science and that the skeptics are doing science. The skeptics may be wrong, and they may not have a point, but they are doing science. Drawing an analogy to evolution skeptics of the ID variety confounds the issue, because there is no presumption of science being done by the skeptics. I suggest you choose a more faithful analogy. EDIT, in consideration of > "These things are not science and do not deserve the dignity and resources of scientific consideration." That is a bold claim by anti-skeptics, and the burden of proof is on them. Claiming that ID is not science is not so bold, and I can back that up if you really need such.
  - crux_ 17y ago
    > The skeptics may be wrong, and they may not have a point, but they are doing science. If they were really doing science, you'd think they could get something published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal instead of just blogging, wouldn't you? ;) (Aaaand we've come full circle!)
    - stonemetal 17y ago
      Publishing has nothing to do with weather or not they are doing science. It has to do with the methodology they employ.
    - Nwallins 17y ago
      OK, so we are down to the crux of the issue. ;) The claim, then, is that the skeptics are not doing science. That is easily refutable, e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_McIntyre http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_McIntyre and http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/12/13/centre-of-the-storm/print/ http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/12/13/centre-of-the-storm/print... Thus, in contrast to evolution skeptics of the ID variety, climate skeptics give much more credence to the idea that the target of their skepticism is flawed at best, and doing bad science at worst.
      - crux_ 17y ago

jerf 17y ago

No, you got it backwards. It wasn't those challenging the consensus redefining "peer review", it was the scientific consensus in this case. Consensus was manufactured. You cite examples in the opposite direction. (One can argue about what the real breakdown of opinions on global warming are with the real scientists, but it's objective truth that it is not 100% agreement within the science, or even close to that.)

nollidge 17y ago
> it's objective truth that it is not 100% agreement within the science, or even close to that. Source? If the IPCC is at all representative of climate scientists at large, then I'd say they're pretty close to 100%.