4 ms·

https://youtu.be/CoxxGhLFbw4?t=2m30s https://youtu.be/CoxxGhLFbw4?t=2m30s He argues that "climate science" is not real science because it has "science" in the

https://youtu.be/CoxxGhLFbw4?t=2m30s https://youtu.be/CoxxGhLFbw4?t=2m30s He argues that "climate science" is not real science because it has "science" in the name. I'm serious.

Cyph0n 10y ago
Hmm so in that case, "political science", "materials science", "veterinary science", "biomedical science", "actuarial science", etc. etc. are all not "real" science. Very convincing argument, I have to say.
- kafkaesq 10y ago
  His whole reasoning in that section in the video is just stilly. The reason some subjects have "science" in them and others don't is usually just a matter of convention or linguistic accident -- it really doesn't have that much import (and in any case, no bearing at all on the substantive issues behind climate change). And yet, he's trying to draw the conclusion that there's some kind of a deep, revealing "tell" behind it. Pseudo-intellectual tripe which we're supposed to take seriously (because he's a billionaire, I guess).
- pjscott 10y ago
  He says that "it's often a tell that they're bluffing," which is a far cry from the universal condemnation of anything with 'science' in the name that you seem to be assuming. Please make an attempt to understand, then argue.
  - Cyph0n 10y ago
    "Often", huh. Are you really arguing for that mate?
meric 10y ago
Christian science is not real science because it has "science" in the name either. If climate science is real science, it's because another reason than because it's labeled science.
- comex 10y ago
  The claim is not "climate science isn't (real because it has science in the name)", but "(climate science isn't real) (because it has science in the name)". That is, the name is being used as a reason to discount it.
jasin 10y ago
I wonder what he thinks of computer science.
- zeroer 10y ago
  That's not really a science either. While there are things like experiments and the scientific method, most of computer science is a confluence of mathematics and engineering.
defgeneric 10y ago
This comes from his philosophy BA at Stanford, which is a department largely of the analytic school. He is, broadly speaking, positivist. The idea of science we have is closer to the German Wissenschaft which has a more encyclopedic meaning, more about the organization of knowledge, and less strict in it epistemology which in the analytic school is very narrow and in its crude expression simply empiricist.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- kafkaesq 10y ago
  Sounds nice, but if you listen to what he actually said in that video it's pretty darn loopy and contorted thinking, no matter how you slice it. And when directly asked, he does say that he thinks climate science is "more pseudo-science" than a real science.

https://youtu.be/CoxxGhLFbw4?t=2m30s https://youtu.be/CoxxGhLFbw4?t=2m30s He argues that "climate science" is not real science because it has "science" in the name. I'm serious.

Cyph0n 10y ago

Hmm so in that case, "political science", "materials science", "veterinary science", "biomedical science", "actuarial science", etc. etc. are all not "real" science. Very convincing argument, I have to say.

kafkaesq 10y ago
His whole reasoning in that section in the video is just stilly. The reason some subjects have "science" in them and others don't is usually just a matter of convention or linguistic accident -- it really doesn't have that much import (and in any case, no bearing at all on the substantive issues behind climate change). And yet, he's trying to draw the conclusion that there's some kind of a deep, revealing "tell" behind it. Pseudo-intellectual tripe which we're supposed to take seriously (because he's a billionaire, I guess).
pjscott 10y ago
He says that "it's often a tell that they're bluffing," which is a far cry from the universal condemnation of anything with 'science' in the name that you seem to be assuming. Please make an attempt to understand, then argue.
- Cyph0n 10y ago
  "Often", huh. Are you really arguing for that mate?

meric 10y ago

Christian science is not real science because it has "science" in the name either. If climate science is real science, it's because another reason than because it's labeled science.

comex 10y ago
The claim is not "climate science isn't (real because it has science in the name)", but "(climate science isn't real) (because it has science in the name)". That is, the name is being used as a reason to discount it.

jasin 10y ago

I wonder what he thinks of computer science.

zeroer 10y ago
That's not really a science either. While there are things like experiments and the scientific method, most of computer science is a confluence of mathematics and engineering.

defgeneric 10y ago

This comes from his philosophy BA at Stanford, which is a department largely of the analytic school. He is, broadly speaking, positivist. The idea of science we have is closer to the German Wissenschaft which has a more encyclopedic meaning, more about the organization of knowledge, and less strict in it epistemology which in the analytic school is very narrow and in its crude expression simply empiricist.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
kafkaesq 10y ago
Sounds nice, but if you listen to what he actually said in that video it's pretty darn loopy and contorted thinking, no matter how you slice it. And when directly asked, he does say that he thinks climate science is "more pseudo-science" than a real science.