3 ms·

Nobody is demanding science be perfect, scientific knowledge is gained and revised through inductive leaps based on new evidence, hence it by definition can nev

Nobody is demanding science be perfect, scientific knowledge is gained and revised through inductive leaps based on new evidence, hence it by definition can never be considered perfect. What is reasonable to demand, and in fact fundamental to the institution of science itself, is that scientists operate with the humility necessary for a discipline that is fundamentally open to new evidence and revised theories. Instead what we are treated with (from climate science in particular) is “Science”, supposedly ordained as hard truth by an infallible “peer review”, and we are told we may not question the data itself, nor the statistical models, not even the draconian government interference into our lives conveniently suggested by the government sponsored “Science”, lest we be castigated as knuckle dragging “science deniers” with some secretive motivation to defend the fossil fuel industry or some other conspiratorial accusation based on zero evidence.

marcus_holmes 8y ago
To be fair, the IPCC reports were (I haven't read the latest one yet) broken into the Science and Political parts. The Science part was full of error bars and "probably" and "estimated". Generally good science being done by people trying to discover the truth, though there was a noticeable hesitance about publishing any implication that the models might be wrong. The Political part was full of certainty and unambiguous calls to action in the face of overwhelming evidence that the world was going to hell in a decade. The media only ever reported on the Political part. The Science part was worth reading to get some perspective.
abdullahkhalids 8y ago
I don't know what you are talking about. The actual scientific papers are extremely clear on their results and how reliable their results are. Otherwise they get rejected by peer review. Obviously when those results are translated by the media, they are simplified and exaggerated. Which is how the media treats science as much as it treats politics, economics and every other story. Moreover, climate science is in the hard science phase of maturity now. Which means that its unlikely that new data or new theories will results in major changes to what we think will happen. In other words, new data and new theories will only make minor course corrections to what we predict about the future. Earth's climate is still headed towards catastrophic changes due to human activity and anyone sane should be willing to bet their live savings on this.

marcus_holmes 8y ago

To be fair, the IPCC reports were (I haven't read the latest one yet) broken into the Science and Political parts. The Science part was full of error bars and "probably" and "estimated". Generally good science being done by people trying to discover the truth, though there was a noticeable hesitance about publishing any implication that the models might be wrong. The Political part was full of certainty and unambiguous calls to action in the face of overwhelming evidence that the world was going to hell in a decade. The media only ever reported on the Political part. The Science part was worth reading to get some perspective.

abdullahkhalids 8y ago

I don't know what you are talking about. The actual scientific papers are extremely clear on their results and how reliable their results are. Otherwise they get rejected by peer review. Obviously when those results are translated by the media, they are simplified and exaggerated. Which is how the media treats science as much as it treats politics, economics and every other story. Moreover, climate science is in the hard science phase of maturity now. Which means that its unlikely that new data or new theories will results in major changes to what we think will happen. In other words, new data and new theories will only make minor course corrections to what we predict about the future. Earth's climate is still headed towards catastrophic changes due to human activity and anyone sane should be willing to bet their live savings on this.