6 ms·

Scientific discourse is based on the assumption that all parties have the basic reading comprehension to look at the primary data. I'm not really worried about

Scientific discourse is based on the assumption that all parties have the basic reading comprehension to look at the primary data. I'm not really worried about creationism or climate stabilism competing given those conditions. And if those aren't the conditions, it's not scientific discourse.

wolco 7y ago
See you are part of that group. If data was presented today that conflicted with your existing views you would try to label and disprove it. Science must be neutral. Proof of climate stabilism through existing feedback processes may happen or not. We won't know until the data says this. If science is not neutral it becomes religion. Even gravity is just a theory.
- duckMuppet 7y ago
  Well said. I'm not sure the good religious folks here who are evidently big believers in the Rona calamity can fully comprehend your ideas though. For most here, i suspect it's a bridge to far.
  - wolco 7y ago
    That science should be neutral? I would hope some would be seeking that path. The idea that science is evolving with every experiment/test we attempt. To freeze on a single point of view is belief (religion) instead of fact (science). Hopefully that bridge isn't too far for most.
- hannasanarion 7y ago
  This comment shows a shocking lack of scientific literacy. You can't "disprove" data. Data are the root facts that science is based on, and all data from trustworthy sources is treated the same by all scientists. Nobody ever "disproves" data. What can be proven or disproven are hypotheses, the truths about underlying mechanisms of the world that we seek to learn about through data. A hypothesis about how something behaves can be proven or disproven with data, the data itself is absolute truth. A good hypothesis explains the data that we see, a bad one will be contradicted by data collection. There is no such thing as "just a theory". In common parlance sure, but in scientific speech "theory" is a technical term that refers to a hypothesis that has stood up to all feasible tests that could have disproven it. Gravity is a phenomenon, observed by lots of data, all of which discovered so far confirms the theory of general relativity, upgraded from hypothesis after gravitational bending of light (which the hypothesis predicted)was observed in 1919.
  - drummer 7y ago
    Data can be fake or manipulated though. And in the case of covid-19, a lot of the data is highly questionable. "The figures are questionable Angelo Borrelli, the head of Civil Protection, who announces the latest figures every day at 6 p.m., said Saturday night that the 793 new deaths have been caused “by and with” the coronavirus. “We count all the dead, we make no distinction between with and by the coronavirus.” However, one wonders whether these daily figures reflect the situation correctly. The dead are said to have almost all had one or more other diseases, which leaves a question mark as to exactly how deadly the coronavirus is. At the same time, it has become clear that a large number of people who die at home (which is often a retirement home) do not undergo a coronavirus test." https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2020/03/22/als-italie-het-voorland-is-wat-staat-nederland-te-wachten-a3994528 https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2020/03/22/als-italie-het-voorland...
    - hannasanarion 7y ago
      That paragraph is questioning the conclusion: how deadly the virus is, not the data: how many people died and how. Seeking an alternate explanation for the data, which is what scientists do, is not the same as denying the data, which is what zealots do.
      - drummer 7y ago
        It also questions the data, for example, the fact that even elderly dying at home without having been tested at all for COVID-19 (!!!) being counted as COVID-19 deaths. This is something I come across in more countries including the USA where various doctors have protested against policies that almost force them to include COVID-19 on death certificates. It's as if they want to artificially inflate the numbers to make COVID-19 seem a lot worse than it is. Watch this interview with Dr. Dan Erickson and Dr. Artin Massihi of Bakersfield, CA.: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cmjYRJXKixY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cmjYRJXKixY
    - snowwrestler 7y ago
      While it is academically interesting to try to apportion blame between COVID-19 and underlying conditions, the basic fact on the ground is an anomalous rise in illnesses requiring critical care and resulting in death. This has been true since the first alarm bells in China, and has spread to other nations in a way that is easily observed first-hand, clearly reported by front-line medical staff, and consistent with the spread of a new disease. That obvious data is what populations and governments are reacting to, not some calculated IFR.
- dwaltrip 7y ago
  Do you understand the challenge you are taking upon yourself when you are trying to argue that climate change is not a severe concern? Might as well argue that the Earth is flat. You might think that we are all just wrong. But here's the thing. The vast, vast majority of scientifically literate people in the world believe that climate change is an enormous risk to human prosperity. There might be some disagreement on exactly what the nature of the risk is. But everyone agrees it is a huge problem that must be confronted. Because we are the overwhelming majority, you need to convince us using very articulate, compelling arguments and the highest-quality analysis. And you need to deal with the fact that most people will assume you are either ignorant or ideologically motivated to misinterpret the evidence -- because, to our eyes, that's exactly what people who compose comments like yours are (and it gets really old after a while). By posting angsty messages that offer no value from a scientific standpoint, you are admitting defeat from the start.
  - wolco 7y ago
    I'm not even making the point climate change is not severe or that gravity doesn't exist. Just that we need to be open enough to accept a new conflicting theory and not fight against it.
    - dwaltrip 7y ago
      We should only consider an alternative theory if there are compelling reasons to do so.
- magicalhippo 7y ago
  > If data was presented today that conflicted with your existing views you would try to label and disprove it. Trying to disprove new data that conflicts with your existing views is fine, as long as you can accept the new data if it holds up to scrutiny. It isn't about being right, it's about accepting to be wrong.
ravitation 7y ago
Others are not so discerning in what they think is scientific discourse.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- SuoDuanDao 7y ago
  If anyone who feels that way would like to suggest a neologism for the sort of discourse I describe, I'd be open to using it - I do feel the term 'scientific discourse' has been watered down a fair bit.
  - ravitation 7y ago
    My point wasn't that I necessarily have a different view on what scientific discourse is; my point was that someone who is less discerning might see a discussion of one of the views you listed and see valid scientific discourse. The issue is not that scientists, or discerning non-scientists, will take those views seriously, it's that others might (or will, or do). Hence the issue is not with defining scientific discourse, it's with educating a population to be able to apply that definition (or formulate their own functional individual ones).

wolco 7y ago

See you are part of that group. If data was presented today that conflicted with your existing views you would try to label and disprove it. Science must be neutral. Proof of climate stabilism through existing feedback processes may happen or not. We won't know until the data says this. If science is not neutral it becomes religion. Even gravity is just a theory.

duckMuppet 7y ago
Well said. I'm not sure the good religious folks here who are evidently big believers in the Rona calamity can fully comprehend your ideas though. For most here, i suspect it's a bridge to far.
- wolco 7y ago
  That science should be neutral? I would hope some would be seeking that path. The idea that science is evolving with every experiment/test we attempt. To freeze on a single point of view is belief (religion) instead of fact (science). Hopefully that bridge isn't too far for most.
hannasanarion 7y ago
This comment shows a shocking lack of scientific literacy. You can't "disprove" data. Data are the root facts that science is based on, and all data from trustworthy sources is treated the same by all scientists. Nobody ever "disproves" data. What can be proven or disproven are hypotheses, the truths about underlying mechanisms of the world that we seek to learn about through data. A hypothesis about how something behaves can be proven or disproven with data, the data itself is absolute truth. A good hypothesis explains the data that we see, a bad one will be contradicted by data collection. There is no such thing as "just a theory". In common parlance sure, but in scientific speech "theory" is a technical term that refers to a hypothesis that has stood up to all feasible tests that could have disproven it. Gravity is a phenomenon, observed by lots of data, all of which discovered so far confirms the theory of general relativity, upgraded from hypothesis after gravitational bending of light (which the hypothesis predicted)was observed in 1919.
- drummer 7y ago
  Data can be fake or manipulated though. And in the case of covid-19, a lot of the data is highly questionable. "The figures are questionable Angelo Borrelli, the head of Civil Protection, who announces the latest figures every day at 6 p.m., said Saturday night that the 793 new deaths have been caused “by and with” the coronavirus. “We count all the dead, we make no distinction between with and by the coronavirus.” However, one wonders whether these daily figures reflect the situation correctly. The dead are said to have almost all had one or more other diseases, which leaves a question mark as to exactly how deadly the coronavirus is. At the same time, it has become clear that a large number of people who die at home (which is often a retirement home) do not undergo a coronavirus test." https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2020/03/22/als-italie-het-voorland-is-wat-staat-nederland-te-wachten-a3994528 https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2020/03/22/als-italie-het-voorland...
  - hannasanarion 7y ago
    That paragraph is questioning the conclusion: how deadly the virus is, not the data: how many people died and how. Seeking an alternate explanation for the data, which is what scientists do, is not the same as denying the data, which is what zealots do.
    - drummer 7y ago
      It also questions the data, for example, the fact that even elderly dying at home without having been tested at all for COVID-19 (!!!) being counted as COVID-19 deaths. This is something I come across in more countries including the USA where various doctors have protested against policies that almost force them to include COVID-19 on death certificates. It's as if they want to artificially inflate the numbers to make COVID-19 seem a lot worse than it is. Watch this interview with Dr. Dan Erickson and Dr. Artin Massihi of Bakersfield, CA.: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cmjYRJXKixY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cmjYRJXKixY
  - snowwrestler 7y ago
    While it is academically interesting to try to apportion blame between COVID-19 and underlying conditions, the basic fact on the ground is an anomalous rise in illnesses requiring critical care and resulting in death. This has been true since the first alarm bells in China, and has spread to other nations in a way that is easily observed first-hand, clearly reported by front-line medical staff, and consistent with the spread of a new disease. That obvious data is what populations and governments are reacting to, not some calculated IFR.
dwaltrip 7y ago
Do you understand the challenge you are taking upon yourself when you are trying to argue that climate change is not a severe concern? Might as well argue that the Earth is flat. You might think that we are all just wrong. But here's the thing. The vast, vast majority of scientifically literate people in the world believe that climate change is an enormous risk to human prosperity. There might be some disagreement on exactly what the nature of the risk is. But everyone agrees it is a huge problem that must be confronted. Because we are the overwhelming majority, you need to convince us using very articulate, compelling arguments and the highest-quality analysis. And you need to deal with the fact that most people will assume you are either ignorant or ideologically motivated to misinterpret the evidence -- because, to our eyes, that's exactly what people who compose comments like yours are (and it gets really old after a while). By posting angsty messages that offer no value from a scientific standpoint, you are admitting defeat from the start.
- wolco 7y ago
  I'm not even making the point climate change is not severe or that gravity doesn't exist. Just that we need to be open enough to accept a new conflicting theory and not fight against it.
  - dwaltrip 7y ago
    We should only consider an alternative theory if there are compelling reasons to do so.
magicalhippo 7y ago
> If data was presented today that conflicted with your existing views you would try to label and disprove it. Trying to disprove new data that conflicts with your existing views is fine, as long as you can accept the new data if it holds up to scrutiny. It isn't about being right, it's about accepting to be wrong.

ravitation 7y ago

Others are not so discerning in what they think is scientific discourse.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
SuoDuanDao 7y ago
If anyone who feels that way would like to suggest a neologism for the sort of discourse I describe, I'd be open to using it - I do feel the term 'scientific discourse' has been watered down a fair bit.
- ravitation 7y ago
  My point wasn't that I necessarily have a different view on what scientific discourse is; my point was that someone who is less discerning might see a discussion of one of the views you listed and see valid scientific discourse. The issue is not that scientists, or discerning non-scientists, will take those views seriously, it's that others might (or will, or do). Hence the issue is not with defining scientific discourse, it's with educating a population to be able to apply that definition (or formulate their own functional individual ones).