4 ms·

But then I wonder, how do you enforce the latter rule? ('the "opposite side" has to provide evidence of the same high standard'). Generally it seems like a lot

But then I wonder, how do you enforce the latter rule? ('the "opposite side" has to provide evidence of the same high standard'). Generally it seems like a lot of the media at least, which serve as a gatekeeper of sorts for which information gets disseminated to the broader public, do not really seem capable of or interested in enforcing such a rule. Policymakers, who should be quite interested in climate studies, might be more persuadable to having standards, at least when they're not in some interest group/ideological pocket. (EDIT: of course, journals could serve as enforcers, but then the "opposite" should have to publish their science in well-policed journals. The OP's article claims that this generally isn't the case) (EDIT: disclaimer, I am not trying to argue against the broader point that data should be open)

wolfgke 10y ago
I think it is easy (in the sense: takes little time) to check if the opposite side provides the data and source code of the computer program that lead them to the conclusions. If not, one can simply give out this reason. If they do, on the other hand, I consider it as sufficiently scientifically intesting to analyze what different kind of model their program used (that lead to different conclusions) and why this model is better/worse etc.
- ajford 10y ago
  The problem is that budgets for science are controlled by the relatively uneducated (as is seemingly the case for most legislators), at least when it relates to the fields of science. And they are often easily swayed by unreviewed and unverified articles in public magazines/newspapers/blogs/etc. Even more so for the public, who hold a strong sway over legislators due to elections and what-not. So it is in no way easy to force the opposition to uphold the stringent requirements of science, when they are clearly ignoring many of the facts staring them in the face (at least in the case of climate change deniers).
  - conjectures 10y ago
    Indeed. Though I think we need to resist the slide towards post-truth politics.
- frankquist 10y ago
  That seems to be a sane way to go about it; but that is what you would do. Question is: would others. The broader argument that Bertil makes (I think) is that these decisions aren't being made based on aversion to your individual choice of behavior but based on aversion of a sort of media/public opinion war where one group isn't acting in good conscience and where the battlefield is not level (because the "opposite side" is well-financed and avoids peer review). I am not necessarily agreeing or disagreeing with that, but if you accept that premise, for the level on which the debate would be pursued to strongly increase, it would be necessary that someone held up both sides to the same standard.

wolfgke 10y ago

I think it is easy (in the sense: takes little time) to check if the opposite side provides the data and source code of the computer program that lead them to the conclusions. If not, one can simply give out this reason. If they do, on the other hand, I consider it as sufficiently scientifically intesting to analyze what different kind of model their program used (that lead to different conclusions) and why this model is better/worse etc.

ajford 10y ago
The problem is that budgets for science are controlled by the relatively uneducated (as is seemingly the case for most legislators), at least when it relates to the fields of science. And they are often easily swayed by unreviewed and unverified articles in public magazines/newspapers/blogs/etc. Even more so for the public, who hold a strong sway over legislators due to elections and what-not. So it is in no way easy to force the opposition to uphold the stringent requirements of science, when they are clearly ignoring many of the facts staring them in the face (at least in the case of climate change deniers).
- conjectures 10y ago
  Indeed. Though I think we need to resist the slide towards post-truth politics.
frankquist 10y ago
That seems to be a sane way to go about it; but that is what you would do. Question is: would others. The broader argument that Bertil makes (I think) is that these decisions aren't being made based on aversion to your individual choice of behavior but based on aversion of a sort of media/public opinion war where one group isn't acting in good conscience and where the battlefield is not level (because the "opposite side" is well-financed and avoids peer review). I am not necessarily agreeing or disagreeing with that, but if you accept that premise, for the level on which the debate would be pursued to strongly increase, it would be necessary that someone held up both sides to the same standard.