4 ms·

The point is that the questions I outlined become increasingly less scientific. There are genuine scientific questions, but there are lots of others that are ki

The point is that the questions I outlined become increasingly less scientific. There are genuine scientific questions, but there are lots of others that are kind-of scientific, and others that are not scientific at all. Climate activists won't admit that. This shuts down the possibility for a reasonable discussion because one party (the activists) is overwhelmingly guilty of acting and arguing in bad faith.

tzs 9y ago
What does it mean to be less scientific? For instance, I believe that there are fewer experiments that confirm general relativity than there are that confirm quantum mechanics, so does that mean GR is less scientific than QM? Does this mean GR-skeptics are on firm scientific ground? No, it does not. The evidence for GR is overwhelming. That QM may have even more evidence does not cast doubt on GR. Both GR and QM have overwhelming evidence, and there is no meaningful sense in which one can say that one is less scientific than the other. > This shuts down the possibility for a reasonable discussion because one party (the activists) is overwhelmingly guilty of acting and arguing in bad faith No, what shuts down the possibility for reasonable discussion is people discarding 90% of the experiments and measurements, and then claiming that there is no evidence. It's not the activists that are doing this.
- jamez1 9y ago
  When you start to enter the realm of modelling, especially of complex systems with feedback loops, you aren't really conducting science any more. Unfortunately the brand of science is used to promote these models, which is disingenuous. These models aren't like physics models, they are like economic models.
  - quantum_magpie 9y ago
    Unlike economic models, however, the climate systems have boundary conditions and underlying assumptions based on real science -- physics.
- humanrebar 9y ago
  > What does it mean to be less scientific? I'm not a fan of the "less scientific" phrasing, but the point of science is to be convincing to even a skeptic. That's why reproducibility (try it yourself in your own lab!), statistical analysis (there's basically no chance this is a coincidence!), control groups (it's not just an endemic property of the lab), random sampling (it's not selection bias) and other things are so important. In some kinds of inquiry, it becomes difficult or impossible to apply certain standards. It's flat out unethical and immoral to not treat a man's syphilis just to have better quality evidence. So if you're studying syphilis, you need to find other ways to be convincing. It's impossible to have a statistically significant sample of Earths or a control group of Earths, so the bar for convincing is also higher in climate science. "Less scientific" probably means "doesn't have access to many standard scientific techniques, so stronger evidence in other ways is essential to be convincing".
  - tptacek 9y ago
    Wait, no, it's not "the point of science" to be "convincing to even a skeptic". Scientific reasoning is not a vote, or a talent show.
    - humanrebar 9y ago
      > Scientific reasoning is not a vote, or a talent show. Sure it is. It evolved from "natural philosophers" showing off their work to each other. People have always been able to convince themselves of things, but scientific rigor is about convincing other people (i.e., being objective).
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
      - idlewords 9y ago
        The hallmark of scientific objectivity is not convincing other people, but making correct (and testable) statements about reality.

tzs 9y ago

What does it mean to be less scientific? For instance, I believe that there are fewer experiments that confirm general relativity than there are that confirm quantum mechanics, so does that mean GR is less scientific than QM? Does this mean GR-skeptics are on firm scientific ground? No, it does not. The evidence for GR is overwhelming. That QM may have even more evidence does not cast doubt on GR. Both GR and QM have overwhelming evidence, and there is no meaningful sense in which one can say that one is less scientific than the other. > This shuts down the possibility for a reasonable discussion because one party (the activists) is overwhelmingly guilty of acting and arguing in bad faith No, what shuts down the possibility for reasonable discussion is people discarding 90% of the experiments and measurements, and then claiming that there is no evidence. It's not the activists that are doing this.

jamez1 9y ago
When you start to enter the realm of modelling, especially of complex systems with feedback loops, you aren't really conducting science any more. Unfortunately the brand of science is used to promote these models, which is disingenuous. These models aren't like physics models, they are like economic models.
- quantum_magpie 9y ago
  Unlike economic models, however, the climate systems have boundary conditions and underlying assumptions based on real science -- physics.
humanrebar 9y ago
> What does it mean to be less scientific? I'm not a fan of the "less scientific" phrasing, but the point of science is to be convincing to even a skeptic. That's why reproducibility (try it yourself in your own lab!), statistical analysis (there's basically no chance this is a coincidence!), control groups (it's not just an endemic property of the lab), random sampling (it's not selection bias) and other things are so important. In some kinds of inquiry, it becomes difficult or impossible to apply certain standards. It's flat out unethical and immoral to not treat a man's syphilis just to have better quality evidence. So if you're studying syphilis, you need to find other ways to be convincing. It's impossible to have a statistically significant sample of Earths or a control group of Earths, so the bar for convincing is also higher in climate science. "Less scientific" probably means "doesn't have access to many standard scientific techniques, so stronger evidence in other ways is essential to be convincing".
- tptacek 9y ago
  Wait, no, it's not "the point of science" to be "convincing to even a skeptic". Scientific reasoning is not a vote, or a talent show.
  - humanrebar 9y ago
    > Scientific reasoning is not a vote, or a talent show. Sure it is. It evolved from "natural philosophers" showing off their work to each other. People have always been able to convince themselves of things, but scientific rigor is about convincing other people (i.e., being objective).
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - idlewords 9y ago
      The hallmark of scientific objectivity is not convincing other people, but making correct (and testable) statements about reality.