>> That principal is completely unscientific. > What do you mean by this? I mean that (and as somebody who believes climatic change is real) the PP is unscien

>> That principal is completely unscientific. > What do you mean by this? I mean that (and as somebody who believes climatic change is real) the PP is unscientific. It makes intuitive sense to people but deep down it makes no sense at all. It can be used to create infinite technological conservationism for example. Let's look at Pascal's Wager. Directly from Wikipedia it is: 1. Pascal argues ... if God does not actually exist, such a person will have only a finite loss (some pleasures, luxury, etc.). 2. Pascal argues ... whereas they stand to receive infinite gains (as represented by eternity in Heaven) and avoid infinite losses (eternity in Hell). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager The precautionary principal is Pascal's Wager because it follows the same logic. 1. If Climate Change does not exist, then people will only suffer a finite loss (some types of technology, luxury, taxes). 2. Whereas they receive for practical purposes infinite gains if the planet continues to be a livable environment for humans and avoid infinite losses (the earth broiled to completion aka Venus-Earth aka actual hell). Anything can be justified under Pascal's Wager, from charity to the Crusades, depending on the rhetorical power and motivation of people trying to persuade us to do things. It is worth noting for example, that the precautionary principal was used in arguments that succeeded in the ban of the use of nuclear energy in my country and many others in Europe, but that nuclear is now returning as people realize it's a good fit for preventing further CO2 emissions. Whether you believe in climate change or not is not important here, you have got to find this disconcerting! How can a technology destroy and save the earth at the same time? The answer is that the world is a complex system and not every choice we make reduces to a dualism. > The principle as I understand it is about what is a good idea to do, not a statement of what will or will not happen in a given situation. It is neither a good heuristic for policy nor a scientific principal. This is because as I've said, it is illogical. It generates contradictory conclusions. My hunch is that there exists a class of intellectual ideas that predictably lead to a form of civilizational scale suicide. You see it in the present with the Hale-Bop people, with ISIS today, with the Khmer Rouge and so forth. There is a precautionary principal logic behind their evil, which boils down to the simple: If We Don't Do This (terrible deed) Then It Will Be Worse Later. I don't think that the people who use the PP in debates understand that they inevitably go to the same place as Ted Kazinksy if they take the principal seriously and not merely for rhetorical affect. > What would it mean for something that plays a similar role to be scientific? It is simple: it must not fail the test of being able to repeatedly make predictions and test them. There are lots of things that are not science but clothed in scientism by people trying to advance their aims, often with ulterior motives. > As such, I wouldn't expect it, or things that handle the same questions, to be scientific. Then you're particularly clear headed and we don't disagree but believe me many people in the world think the PP is a scientific principal. In another post somebody described this quality as the 'truth-adjacent'. It's something that happens when you mix science with politics or the media get hold of something.