4 ms·

Science is about seeking the truth, not "mass" numbers. I'll take a well-informed, nuanced opinion of Dyson, a colleague of Einstein and Feynman, over "The out

by Radim 8y ago

Science is about seeking the truth, not "mass" numbers. I'll take a well-informed, nuanced opinion of Dyson, a colleague of Einstein and Feynman, over "The outcome is death, and it’s the end of most life on the planet" (actual quote! the hubris) social scientist any day of the week. I realize this is an emotional, politically charged topic. It's unlikely anyone's changing their mind, one way or another.

StavrosK 8y ago
> Science is about seeking the truth, not "mass" numbers. Oh yes, how convenient that this argument is used to basically say "scientific consensus is wrong, science goes by truth, not by consensus". How odd that scientific consensus always seems to converge around the truth. > I'll take a well-informed colleague of Einstein and Feynman over "The outcome is death, and it’s the end of most life on the planet" (actual quote! the hubris) social scientist any day of the week. And all those colleagues say the situation is dire.
- catawbasam 8y ago
  The consensus per ipcc is that agw is very unlikely to lead to human extinction.
  - StavrosK 8y ago
    That doesn't mean it's fun.
    - rbanffy 8y ago
      Or that more than a couple million could possibly survive and repopulate the Earth.
      - AstralStorm 8y ago
        This is banking on the assumption that ocean ecosystems will adapt to vastly acidified and warmer waters... (Or that we will help them via introducing GM species.) Later effects would be acidified soil. In large enough amounts, the results look like this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Triangle_(region) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Triangle_(region)
        rbanffy 8y ago
        Again, we are talking about human extinction. The stakes are pretty high and I'm sure at least one group would set aside the resources to preserve a minimum viable number of humans (and a lot of fertilized eggs) along with enough environment to sustain them long enough. Extinction implies all humans will die. That's very unlikely, even if the planet takes a very significant hit.
ahmedalsudani 8y ago
> I'll take a well-informed, nuanced opinion of Dyson, a colleague of Einstein and Feynman ... I'm sorry, but being a colleague of Einstein and Feynman is not a qualification. Einstein famously rejected quantum mechanics because he felt that God would not create a world where it can be true. Feynman (a personal hero of mine) did not brush his teeth because he thought there was not sufficient scientific evidence that it helps keep them healthy. History is full of brilliant people who make mistakes. Freeman Dyson has not done sufficient research to reach the conclusion that he has, and he certainly hasn't gone back to look at how the predictions have panned out (both from the climate change camp and other one). He is a charlatan when it comes to climate science. It is not wise to worship any single person and accept their claims uncritically, and an appeal to an authority is usually a weak argument.
- Radim 8y ago
  I agree with most of what you said. (with the caveat that unless you're an expert yourself, common sense and appeal to authority are about all you have) > Freeman Dyson has not done sufficient research to reach the conclusion that he has Out of curiosity, which conclusion is particular are you talking about? Let's be specific—the strawmen have received enough beating today already.

by Radim 8y ago

StavrosK 8y ago

> Science is about seeking the truth, not "mass" numbers. Oh yes, how convenient that this argument is used to basically say "scientific consensus is wrong, science goes by truth, not by consensus". How odd that scientific consensus always seems to converge around the truth. > I'll take a well-informed colleague of Einstein and Feynman over "The outcome is death, and it’s the end of most life on the planet" (actual quote! the hubris) social scientist any day of the week. And all those colleagues say the situation is dire.

catawbasam 8y ago
The consensus per ipcc is that agw is very unlikely to lead to human extinction.
- StavrosK 8y ago
  That doesn't mean it's fun.
  - rbanffy 8y ago
    Or that more than a couple million could possibly survive and repopulate the Earth.
    - AstralStorm 8y ago
      This is banking on the assumption that ocean ecosystems will adapt to vastly acidified and warmer waters... (Or that we will help them via introducing GM species.) Later effects would be acidified soil. In large enough amounts, the results look like this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Triangle_(region) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Triangle_(region)
      - rbanffy 8y ago
        Again, we are talking about human extinction. The stakes are pretty high and I'm sure at least one group would set aside the resources to preserve a minimum viable number of humans (and a lot of fertilized eggs) along with enough environment to sustain them long enough. Extinction implies all humans will die. That's very unlikely, even if the planet takes a very significant hit.

ahmedalsudani 8y ago

> I'll take a well-informed, nuanced opinion of Dyson, a colleague of Einstein and Feynman ... I'm sorry, but being a colleague of Einstein and Feynman is not a qualification. Einstein famously rejected quantum mechanics because he felt that God would not create a world where it can be true. Feynman (a personal hero of mine) did not brush his teeth because he thought there was not sufficient scientific evidence that it helps keep them healthy. History is full of brilliant people who make mistakes. Freeman Dyson has not done sufficient research to reach the conclusion that he has, and he certainly hasn't gone back to look at how the predictions have panned out (both from the climate change camp and other one). He is a charlatan when it comes to climate science. It is not wise to worship any single person and accept their claims uncritically, and an appeal to an authority is usually a weak argument.

Radim 8y ago
I agree with most of what you said. (with the caveat that unless you're an expert yourself, common sense and appeal to authority are about all you have) > Freeman Dyson has not done sufficient research to reach the conclusion that he has Out of curiosity, which conclusion is particular are you talking about? Let's be specific—the strawmen have received enough beating today already.