6 ms·

"Science is never settled, but arrives at increasingly accurate approximations of reality." Not necessarily and that's certainly not settled. Kuhns paradigms i

"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.
- ThomPete 8y ago
  "Yes, findings about climate are not reproducible in the straight and narrow sense of the scientific method" Full stop. And this is the most important misconception which most people don't understand. They actually think the science is settled and that it's provable through the scientific process. It's not not by any stretch. The problem is that this discussion, even the one we are having right now is mostly a politically based discussion not a scientific based one and yet non-scientists, people who have never even looked at the claims they support, will shame you for being a climate-denier for even suggesting it's not as simple as claimed. The claims are much more extreme than what the science support. "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." But that's not what you actually find. The 97% concensus actually include the socalled climate deniers, think about that for a while. You can't expect people to just buy something on faith when you can't actually prove your theory. Even if they are wrong, even if the claim about the consensus was right you can't actually expect them to just take it on faith, the very opposition of what science is based on. Science does not actually build on consensus it builds on falsification if you don't have falsification you have something else and much less precise than science, yet it's sold as if it's not and as long as this is not acknowledged you will not be able to have a rational discussion let alone solution. You don't even have agreement about what the problem will be, only a set of potential outcomes which is what you do in scenario planning. It's not science. Geologists are scientists and can measure but the people interpreting the date ads a layer of abstraction, interpretation and errors that's so large that it's actually antiscientific to use the "science says" argument. There IS disagreement, not even about whether the climate is changing but what it means and how much. If you don't think many climate scientists play lip-service to their donors (the politicians) then you haven't looked close enough. So there are all sorts of reasons not to just take anything by these organisations even if you agree that there is a problem and that the climate is changing. In other words you don't have to become a climate catastrophist just because you agree that climate is always going to be challenge to humans. "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." No old theories don't still hold. They are still useful in limated scope but they don't hold as complete theories which means that things that might look like one thing isn't actually what it looks like. In Newtons world speed of gravity is infinite, in einsteins it's not, in quantum physics non-locality “disproves” the speed of light as the most fundamental force. Three different paradigms the two latter btw both proven to the extent we can prove things but fundamentally contradictory. In other words, Newton + Einstein + Bohr accumulates but there are fundmaental shifts that completely changes the reality they are trying to explain. "I don't see how the thrust of this statement is consistent with the immediate statement before" What is it that you don't see? Are you going for a gotcha momement or are you actually trying to understand what I am saying. Can you be more concrete about what it is that you don't understand? "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." Because to understand why you won't find the solution by some human "cometogetherness/political" movement you have to understand why that won't happen. "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." You can frame anything anyway you want right untill you have to live by that framing then it all falls apart. You have hundreds of millions of people if not billions who would do anything to become just a fraction as rich as you and me and do not care one ounce about their climate footprint and what you consider immoral. It's a position you can have when you have the choice and even then you are not actually able to keep it yourself as you are using some sort of computer right now and thus adding to the very problem you talk about. "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 does not know if there is a market for it." That's actually not even close to true which China is a pretty clear example of.

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.

ThomPete 8y ago
"Yes, findings about climate are not reproducible in the straight and narrow sense of the scientific method" Full stop. And this is the most important misconception which most people don't understand. They actually think the science is settled and that it's provable through the scientific process. It's not not by any stretch. The problem is that this discussion, even the one we are having right now is mostly a politically based discussion not a scientific based one and yet non-scientists, people who have never even looked at the claims they support, will shame you for being a climate-denier for even suggesting it's not as simple as claimed. The claims are much more extreme than what the science support. "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." But that's not what you actually find. The 97% concensus actually include the socalled climate deniers, think about that for a while. You can't expect people to just buy something on faith when you can't actually prove your theory. Even if they are wrong, even if the claim about the consensus was right you can't actually expect them to just take it on faith, the very opposition of what science is based on. Science does not actually build on consensus it builds on falsification if you don't have falsification you have something else and much less precise than science, yet it's sold as if it's not and as long as this is not acknowledged you will not be able to have a rational discussion let alone solution. You don't even have agreement about what the problem will be, only a set of potential outcomes which is what you do in scenario planning. It's not science. Geologists are scientists and can measure but the people interpreting the date ads a layer of abstraction, interpretation and errors that's so large that it's actually antiscientific to use the "science says" argument. There IS disagreement, not even about whether the climate is changing but what it means and how much. If you don't think many climate scientists play lip-service to their donors (the politicians) then you haven't looked close enough. So there are all sorts of reasons not to just take anything by these organisations even if you agree that there is a problem and that the climate is changing. In other words you don't have to become a climate catastrophist just because you agree that climate is always going to be challenge to humans. "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." No old theories don't still hold. They are still useful in limated scope but they don't hold as complete theories which means that things that might look like one thing isn't actually what it looks like. In Newtons world speed of gravity is infinite, in einsteins it's not, in quantum physics non-locality “disproves” the speed of light as the most fundamental force. Three different paradigms the two latter btw both proven to the extent we can prove things but fundamentally contradictory. In other words, Newton + Einstein + Bohr accumulates but there are fundmaental shifts that completely changes the reality they are trying to explain. "I don't see how the thrust of this statement is consistent with the immediate statement before" What is it that you don't see? Are you going for a gotcha momement or are you actually trying to understand what I am saying. Can you be more concrete about what it is that you don't understand? "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." Because to understand why you won't find the solution by some human "cometogetherness/political" movement you have to understand why that won't happen. "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." You can frame anything anyway you want right untill you have to live by that framing then it all falls apart. You have hundreds of millions of people if not billions who would do anything to become just a fraction as rich as you and me and do not care one ounce about their climate footprint and what you consider immoral. It's a position you can have when you have the choice and even then you are not actually able to keep it yourself as you are using some sort of computer right now and thus adding to the very problem you talk about. "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 does not know if there is a market for it." That's actually not even close to true which China is a pretty clear example of.