4 ms·

Science is never settled, already there they start the misinformation which is being used so often these days. These kind of articles are so misguided yet peop

• jhanschoo 8y ago
  > Science is never settled, already there they start the misinformation Science is never settled, but arrives at increasingly accurate approximations of reality. If climate science's best approximation is doom, the rational collective response is not ignorance, but simultaneously to explore and exploit (address) the problem. Exploration by better modeling of the climate, and exploitation by pursuing known best solutions to the problem. To use a personal example of a complex system, if a person should show signs of cancer, or a virulent disease, even if medicinal knowledge is not sufficiently advanced to flawlessly diagnose the symptom, drastic action even under imperfect information is very reasonable. In the case that drastic corrections were not necessary with respect to the climate, this nevertheless furthers the global society's resilience and response for when such drastic correction is needed. > These kind of articles are so misguided yet people are so hysterical they actually think the individual can do things. Without contending whether or not 'the individual can do things', the article does not give me that impression. Whereas indeed the article advocates individuals to change their individual behavior, the article is written for an audience of many. When advocacy articles like these acquire a sufficiently large megaphone, like the BBC, they cause significant collective action. > But right now everyone is coming up with all sorts of irrational solutions to a problem that havent been properly defined and even if it was going to be as catastrophic as some have built themselves up to believe, flying less is going to have no useful effect. The problem is the recent increase in global temperature corresponding to the recent increase in greenhouse gas production. To use the personal analogy, the elimination of mutated cells causing the tumors. > Only way out of this is through the very technology that have created the cars, products etc. to begin with. I think that this is a very irrational or ignorant notion. Collective action plays a very important part in very many big problems. For example, the abolition of slavery and women' suffrage are made possible (in the former case) by technology, but collective action was needed to enable these events. Some people echo the irrational notion you seem to express that that just because individual action is useless then so is collective action, and so therefore the individual action should not be pursued. But this is clearly not the case, since collective action happens. If it seems that most big changes are performed by organizations and institutions and not individuals, this nevertheless does not negate the thesis that collective action effects changes, since sufficiently developed and mature collective action tends to organize when able, so that they are more self-sustaining.
  • ThomPete 8y ago
    "Science is never settled, but arrives at increasingly accurate approximations of reality." Not necessarily and that's certainly not settled. Kuhns paradigms is another way to think about it than Poppers idea of building knowledge as bricks that create a house. I am not convinced knowledge works the way we normally think about it. Furthermore "climate science" is not actually following the scientific principles as it's not falsifiable for obvious reasons. "Climate science" is metascience in the sense that it builds on and interprets data which has its own set of issues besides the issues with data modeling. There are plenty of examples of mistakes, false predictions, cheating with the data etc. that anyone who wants to have an opinion on this should be really really really careful how much we actually can demonstrate vs. how much is speculated. Just taking it on faith that the scientific community is in agreement about a lot of the details is simply misguided. There are plenty of theories around natural fluctuations even big ones like this (and bigger) so the trick IMO is not discussion whether humans are affecting it as we can't change that and will not change that, in fact, if we did it probably would lead to more death than the consequences of flooding and it certainly will lead to more poor people without any means to deal with the ever-changing climate. You and others seem to be of the impression that nature is fundamentally friendly and safe towards us and we are destroying it, my position is that nature is fundamentally hostile and dangerous and that we are using technology to be safer from it. Yes, that has consequences but I take those any day compared to becoming paralyzed by trying to solve a problem that is many times more complex than any other things we have ever solved before. CopX is a great example of just how little our global initiatives help. Flying less, eating less meat isn't the solution to the problem, more actual science, engineering and entrepreneurship and making people richer so they start caring about their close environment is.
    • jhanschoo 8y ago
      > Furthermore "climate science" is not actually following the scientific principles as it's not falsifiable for obvious reasons. >"Climate science" is metascience in the sense that it builds on and interprets data which has its own set of issues besides the issues with data modeling. Yes, findings about climate are not reproducible in the straight and narrow sense of the scientific method, but there are methods to reason about these findings. Consider the utility of epidemiology, and how it informs medicine and health policies. > There are plenty of examples of mistakes, false predictions, cheating with the data etc. that anyone who wants to have an opinion on this should be really really really careful how much we actually can demonstrate vs. how much is speculated. Just taking it on faith that the scientific community is in agreement about a lot of the details is simply misguided. I take it that there is a broad consensus that climate change is man-made and that carbon emissions are very likely a huge driver of it. Many scientific professional organizations have issued statements about it. Many governments see the need to at least pay lip service to it. > Kuhns paradigms No, paradigm shifts help develop new and more accurate theory, but old theories still hold. Newtonian mechanics doesn't become obsolete even if a more accurate quantum picture has been developed. Even the primitive, less precise, yet intuitive Aristotelian notion of motion can be useful in many contexts, e.g. game physics that need to enable an unreal amount of control yet feel psychologically natural. > in fact, if we did it probably would lead to more death than the consequences of flooding and it certainly will lead to more poor people without any means to deal with the ever-changing climate. I don't see how the thrust of this statement is consistent with the immediate statement before > IMO is not discussion whether humans are affecting it as we can't change that and will not change that, > nature is fundamentally friendly and safe towards us and we are destroying it, my position is that nature is fundamentally hostile and dangerous and that we are using technology to be safer from it I don't see how any general disposition of nature towards human society has any relevance toward my claim that solutions toward climate change must include an aspect that is not just technological products and services. > Flying less, eating less meat isn't the solution to the problem, more actual science, engineering and entrepreneurship and making people richer so they start caring about their close environment is. > Flying less, eating less meat isn't the solution to the problem. I contend that they can be an important part of the solution to the problem. If it becomes sufficiently socially unacceptable, these activities will see a significant decrease. Many citizens already considers many activities taboo and immoral due to the influence of their society; online fraud, adultery, taking more than their fair share of an obvious common good when they don't need it; it is possible to frame excessive air travel or meat consumption as immoral. > more actual science, engineering and entrepreneurship and making people richer so they start caring about their close environment is. Similarly, I contend that collective agitation is important to enable the means that you cite. "more actual science, engineering and entrepreneurship" is enabled by voting for governments interested in funding research. The availability of science is enabled by the collective action of researchers and sponsors advocating for open access. The success and feasibility of entrepreneurship is enabled by voting for governments interested in limiting monopolies and anti-competitive behavior. The collective signaling of consumers that they are ready for alternatives encourage the establishment of businesses to cater to these alternatives, and to cater to them more efficiently. Without this signaling, one is less certain if there is a market for it, and hence such lines of business becomes riskier. My second last point on societal attitudes argues against your position that an abstract notion of technology is necessary to tackle environmental problems. My last point argues against your position that it is sufficient.