6 ms·

The core of science is debate. There is no singular truth for most things in the scientific world, and lots and lots of shades of "the truth". We're straying v

by Alupis 5y ago

The core of science is debate. There is no singular truth for most things in the scientific world, and lots and lots of shades of "the truth". We're straying very far away from a nation that believes in actual science - and we're replacing it with some quansi-religion called "Science" - a belief system where nobody is allowed to think or say anything that might contradict or challenge "the truth". How many times have you read a headline saying something along the lines of "Scientists say..."? As-if all scientists have come to exactly the same conclusion, when the reality is it was one person or one group saying something. What exactly even is a scientist? Are computer scientists qualified to speak about climate change? Probably not... yet we never know exactly what types of scientists are proclaiming things - just trust them, they're scientists! There is very little actual consensus in the scientific community about anything... eggs are bad for you - no wait, eggs are good for you - no wait, only 1 egg a day - eat as many eggs as you can! Nobody agrees on eggs - how can we have agreement on far more important and challenging-to-study things like the climate? The truth is there is no consensus so censoring half (or more) of the discussion is downright absurd.

lapetitejort 5y ago
> There is very little actual consensus in the scientific community about anything Scientists agree that at low velocities, the force of an object equals the mass times the acceleration. This is just one point of agreement. There are others that I can't list here. You may be surprised at the amount of info that scientists agree upon.
- molbioguy 5y ago
  It's not sufficient to cherry pick an example of agreement to refute the original comment. There are obviously many things scientists agree on, but there are also many complicated things scientists disagree on, especially when it comes down to the details. The key point is that the public tends to treat science and scientists as monolithic in their views. The truth is far different and there is an enormous amount of diversity in thought and lots of debate within the scientific community on many, many topics.
- zdragnar 5y ago
  Not that I entirely disagree with you, but.... It is easy to fabricate consensus on objective issues when you wrap them in subjective language, such as "at low velocities". Who is the objective authority on what constitutes "low"? You are. It is subject to your own interpretation, as is the consensus- a different point of view might cap "low" as being higher than what you do, and as such will see no such consensus, or see the consensus as blatantly wrong.
tmp_anon_22 5y ago
When did the United States as a nation uniformly believe in science?
- bowmessage 5y ago
  "believe in science" What does this even _mean_?
  - markdown 5y ago
    That you have faith in the ability of the scientific method to ultimately reveal objective truths about the universe.
    - Cederfjard 5y ago
      And, I guess, that you believe that there’s a scientific establishment that adheres to that method, and that the results it generates are disseminated faithfully to society at large.
    - ekianjo 5y ago
      Why do you need to have faith ? The scientific method is all about proof.
      - nickff 5y ago
        At some point, you just have to believe, if you want to go much deeper, you get into epistemology. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology
        angelzen 5y ago
        That is precisely the point where Science ends. The notion that Science can and should provide a full account of the Universe in all its complex glory is a very strange idea, conveniently promoted by those holding the credential purse strings, aka the Science hierarchy.
hanniabu 5y ago
If you don't back up claims with actual science then it's not part of the scientific method. Should flat-earthers be given equal authority too?
- version_five 5y ago
  > Should flat-earthers be given equal authority too? That's not the relevant question to this discussion (and also basically a strawman). The question is, should being a "flat earther" be banned from online monopolies as misinformation? As objectively stupid as it might be (even though I don't think anyone actually believes it) I think it would be extreme overreach to start trying to shut down youtube videos positing the earth is flat
  - squarefoot 5y ago
    > I think it would be extreme overreach to start trying to shut down youtube videos positing the earth is flat I tend to agree. Demonetizing them and barring them from promoting any other products should be enough to discourage those crooks who don't believe themselves in flat Earth, but make videos, books and merchandise about it to cash on gullible users.
  - hanniabu 5y ago
    > That's not the relevant question to this discussion (and also basically a strawman). It's not strawman, it's on the same level in the science spectrum as decisively not scientific at all. It's meant to (hopefully) help them understand how stupid of a suggestion they're proposing by offering an equally stupid example. > The question is, should being a "flat earther" be banned from online monopolies as misinformation? No, the question is should we reward them for their misinformation content and the answer is no.
  - magicalist 5y ago
    > start trying to shut down youtube videos Not getting ad revenue is not having your video shut down. Set up patreon if you want income making "more CO2 is good, actually" videos (you probably should regardless of content).
mc32 5y ago
I’m okay with demonetization for things with less proof than the main alternative. What I would be against is censorship: denying the voice.
- CheezeIt 5y ago
  Either is for the purpose of central control of discourse.
  - mc32 5y ago
    My view is no one has a right to “monetization” on someone else's platform. Admittedly it is has a “chilling effect” but I’m more concerned that we should allow debate instead of being concerned we should be able to make money off of the debate.
    - dragonsky 5y ago
      I think you are right and debate is needed, but unfortunately on online platforms debate is really hard to keep civil and respectful. On platforms like HN where the audience is somewhat selective and moderation is possible you can have a reasonable debate, however on platforms like YouTube where views are money it can be difficult for creators to not play to the algorithm and go for the click-bate title with the emotive thumbnail with content that will attract the most views. I think YouTube, by removing the money making imperative is at least removing that driver from the equation whilst leaving the possibility of still posting controversial material and allowing debate.
joe_the_user 5y ago
The core of science is debate. There is no singular truth for most things in the scientific world, and lots and lots of shades of "the truth". Science isn't done by youtube video battles but by debates in scholarly journals. Youtube is a medium for popularizing whatever content. Youtube seems well in its rights in banning content it considers harmful and in this case I'd agree with this ban. That's not to say youtube's effective monopoly isn't concerning. I'd rather see ten providers but I'd like to see them all ban climate change, antivax and similarly noxious content - make people interested in the subject read long texts instead. Video isn't good medium for sustained, coherent debate. In this instance, it's a means of broadcasting shallow propaganda to morons, or put less insultingly, those not using rational facilities to decide things.
- creato 5y ago
  They're not even banning the content, they're just not showing ads on it.
  - ekianjo 5y ago
    They recently removed videos against Covid vaccines.
    - munk-a 5y ago
      Those videos lead to deaths - so that's completely reasonable. America has pretty much plateaued in terms of vaccination rates and that is prolonging a disaster. If we're going to ban instructional bomb construction videos then I think anti-vax stuff is perfectly acceptable as well. I really don't understand where this miscomprehension that you should be able to say anything you want on private platforms comes from - there have always limits even on public speech, and private platforms have traditionally refused to print or publish items that go too strongly against their corporate beliefs. This even extends into print media and editorial boards.
      - t0bia_s 5y ago
        How could video lead to death? I though it works only in horror films.
wetpaws 5y ago
You can debate, you are just not getting ad revenue for this.
nicce 5y ago
> We're straying very far away from a nation that believes in actual science One big issue is using the term ”believe”. It is not matter of belief, it is a matter of understanding, wrapping theorems and facts. We need to understand the science. We have already 10 000 gods, so let’s not make science equated to the religion and reduce its power with that.
- curiousgeorgio 5y ago
  > It is not matter of belief, it is a matter of understanding, wrapping theorems and facts. That's true of most of the "hard sciences" like physics and chemistry. Climatology, however, is unfortunately full of beliefs and incredibly lacking when it comes to theorems and facts. Part of that is just due to the inherent difficulty associated with making inferences about climate history using a relatively limited amount of data from modern, accurate instruments. Add to that some extremely biased incentives in the institutions and governments funding climate research, and you're no longer in the same ballpark as the other hard sciences. I'm not saying it's all wrong or that the climate isn't changing (I think it is to some degree), but the one thing climatology has proven most convincingly over the years is that its prevailing predictions tend to be wrong – and not by an insignificant margin.
- dragonsky 5y ago
  I am so tired of people implying that they believe in science. Science is not a religion requiring belief. Science is a way of postulating that something may be real given the a available evidence. A true scientist should be ready to change their understanding of “real” when presented with new evidence. Belief or faith is trusting something is real without evidence and is the antithesis of science.
  - t0bia_s 5y ago
    Define evidence, please.
    - nicce 5y ago
      Evidence is just data which is collected with the best available methods. With eyes, ears or some engineered equipment. If perspective changes, we did not have enough data. The knowledge comes when hard science is applied on this data, e.g math or logic.
Craighead 5y ago
Please, go away and stop using the Internet. Your kind is literally unable to fathom what a false equivalence is to begin with. Don't dare to lecture others on cult like behavior. No, the core of science is not debate, the core of science is peer reviewed published research, for which there are (shocker) way WAY more research that has withstood publication and review that speaks to the validity of human activity lead climate change. The time has come for you and your cult to take your place on obsolescence island, where you can frolick and "debate" about science meanwhile everyone else will solve the actual problem and save our species from causing a mass extinction event.
curiousgeorgio 5y ago
> The truth is there is no consensus so censoring half (or more) of the discussion is downright absurd. I agree with your point, though even if there is consensus on a topic, we should still be able to have open discussion without censorship. If you assume consensus is infallible, you'll be wrong sometimes. If dissenting voices are silenced, it's even worse: you'll be wrong, and not know that you're wrong. In the cases where consensus is right, you're only adding fuel to the conspiracy theories when you censor opposing views. In summary: freedom of speech - even wrong and unpopular speech - is essential to our continual pursuit of truth. To pretend that our world is somehow different today (as if misinformation or wrong ideas didn't exist before the internet) is just ignorance. How many times does history have to show us where the road of censorship leads?
- nemo44x 5y ago
  Sad this is being downvoted. When you assume anyone or any consensus is infallible you have kings and endless appeals to the authority. The reason we have made unbelievable scientific progress is because we follow sone rules: 1) no one is an authority on the truth. 2) no one is infallible. 3) we can change our minds when new evidence occurs This doesn’t mean everyone’s opinion is equal or that truth doesn’t exist. Credibility is important. Method is important. Reproducibility is important. Consensus is important. It’s more difficult today because of the ease of mass communication. But in the end we are better off taking the long, difficult, and often infuriating road to finding the truth. The alternative is an inquisition and worse. The truth will always rise to the top, eventually, this way even if we are wrong along the way.
zamalek 5y ago
While I agree with you in terms of true unknowns such as dark matter/energy (science does need more diversity of ideas), climate change science is comprehensive and conclusive. Any other ideas are absurd: we know the human contribution to climate change cause, have measured the anticipated effect, and found irrefutable causality. Disputing human climate change is like disputing the surface temperature of the sun. These are measured facts, not theories.
- CheezeIt 5y ago
  What’s conclusive is that more greenhouse gases means higher temperatures. What’s not conclusive is the doomsaying and specific claims about the future and present. A great example of this is California’s governor blaming forest fires on climate change, and another one is the signs predicting certain glaciers would melt.
  - zamalek 5y ago
    That's fantastic sharpshooting. One instance of assumption (that wildfires are caused by climate change) doesn't refute the human impact on climate change. In addition, science has not yet made a conclusion on the forest fires (the governor may well be proven right), and the Siberian feedback loop is a wildfire and was caused by climate change. The governor ignorantly commented on an unknown. Deniers deny known facts. There is a huge difference.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - CheezeIt 5y ago
      > In addition, science has not yet made a conclusion on the forest fires (the governor may well be proven right), That is impossible. Climate's a chaotic system, you can't back-predict the timing of droughts. And we already know that with or without human greenhouse gases, California has droughts. There is not some alternate history where California’s forest management practices wouldn't let these kinds of fires happen.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
random314 5y ago
> The core of science is debate. The core of science is not debate. It is a cluster of related items such as falsifiability, empiricism, mathematical modeling, reproducibility etc. It is most certainly not debate. You are confusing politics with science, which in many cases is a very deliberate right wing stance. > There is very little actual consensus in the scientific community about anything... eggs are bad for you This is also false. Argument by analogy with nutrition science is a cop out, because it is unethical to run controlled experiments on human subjects without appropriate consent. However, nutrition is important for society and we make do with weaker correlational studies on biased samples which can evolve or get overturned in the future. Climate modeling is very unlike nutritional or social science and can by modeled consistently.
- ekianjo 5y ago
  Climate can be modeled consistently ? You must have missed the hundreds of models that predicted nothing and that we conveniently hide from view to cherry pick the ones that worked. Completely ridiculous statement.
  - random314 5y ago
    Can you link to 5 of these peer reviewed published models that predict nothing?
HeyZuess 5y ago
> There is very little actual consensus in the scientific community about anything... eggs are bad for you - no wait, eggs are good for you - no wait, only 1 egg a day - eat as many eggs as you can! Nobody agrees on eggs - how can we have agreement on far more important and challenging-to-study things like the climate? Yes and if you ask Philip Morris, cigarettes are good for you and there is some evidence to the "benefits" of smoking by scientists. That doesn't mean smoking is healthy, nor is there a general consensus that it is good. The weighted evidence points to smoking being bad for you. Now while I don't fully agree with the global warming fanatics, I am still sitting on the fence personally but leaning towards there being a problem, I don't see why a group of publishers and advertisers are not able to determine whether they want to be associated with the global warning deniers, given that there is such weighted evidence against them.
belltaco 5y ago
>The truth is there is no consensus so censoring half (or more) of the discussion is downright absurd. Demonetization != banning or censorship.
visarga 5y ago
> Nobody agrees on eggs - how can we have agreement on far more important and challenging-to-study things like the climate? On the other extreme, 2+2=4 is considered a hegemonic narrative: > “Nope the idea of 2+2 equaling 4 is cultural and because of western imperialism/colonization, we think of it as the only way of knowing,” (Brittany Marshall) > “2+2=4: A perspective in white, Western mathematics that marginalizes other possible values.” (James Lindsay) So the main problem is trust. Some groups trust science and others think it's being used in bad faith, so they reject it completely.
Barrin92 5y ago
Virtually every statement in this post is wrong. There's plenty of consensus in scientific fields, that's the point of scientific work, building consensus by means of agreed upon methodology. The core of science isn't 'debate' whatever that means, but work within theoretic or empirical disciplines done by people trained in methods that have proven to produce results, i.e. 'scientists'. If there is disagreement, it needs to be justified and articulated in a way that meaningfully builds on the knowledge of the field in question. nobody in science pays attention to 'disagreement' from people who don't understand the body of knowledge they're disagreeing with. Youtube commenters or video creators don't practice science, they commentate on science, and thus whatever banning happens there has exactly zero influence on the actual course of scientific work which is done by a small percentage of people educated enough to actually have anything to say of value and contribute to the actual body of knowledge that collectively is 'science'. America as a nation is scientifically illiterate exactly because of the thing you're advocating, that every clown should have a voice simply because they can open their mouth and make noises.

by Alupis 5y ago

lapetitejort 5y ago

> There is very little actual consensus in the scientific community about anything Scientists agree that at low velocities, the force of an object equals the mass times the acceleration. This is just one point of agreement. There are others that I can't list here. You may be surprised at the amount of info that scientists agree upon.

molbioguy 5y ago
It's not sufficient to cherry pick an example of agreement to refute the original comment. There are obviously many things scientists agree on, but there are also many complicated things scientists disagree on, especially when it comes down to the details. The key point is that the public tends to treat science and scientists as monolithic in their views. The truth is far different and there is an enormous amount of diversity in thought and lots of debate within the scientific community on many, many topics.
zdragnar 5y ago
Not that I entirely disagree with you, but.... It is easy to fabricate consensus on objective issues when you wrap them in subjective language, such as "at low velocities". Who is the objective authority on what constitutes "low"? You are. It is subject to your own interpretation, as is the consensus- a different point of view might cap "low" as being higher than what you do, and as such will see no such consensus, or see the consensus as blatantly wrong.

tmp_anon_22 5y ago

When did the United States as a nation uniformly believe in science?

bowmessage 5y ago
"believe in science" What does this even _mean_?
- markdown 5y ago
  That you have faith in the ability of the scientific method to ultimately reveal objective truths about the universe.
  - Cederfjard 5y ago
    And, I guess, that you believe that there’s a scientific establishment that adheres to that method, and that the results it generates are disseminated faithfully to society at large.
  - ekianjo 5y ago
    Why do you need to have faith ? The scientific method is all about proof.
    - nickff 5y ago
      At some point, you just have to believe, if you want to go much deeper, you get into epistemology. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology
      - angelzen 5y ago
        That is precisely the point where Science ends. The notion that Science can and should provide a full account of the Universe in all its complex glory is a very strange idea, conveniently promoted by those holding the credential purse strings, aka the Science hierarchy.

hanniabu 5y ago

If you don't back up claims with actual science then it's not part of the scientific method. Should flat-earthers be given equal authority too?

version_five 5y ago
> Should flat-earthers be given equal authority too? That's not the relevant question to this discussion (and also basically a strawman). The question is, should being a "flat earther" be banned from online monopolies as misinformation? As objectively stupid as it might be (even though I don't think anyone actually believes it) I think it would be extreme overreach to start trying to shut down youtube videos positing the earth is flat
- squarefoot 5y ago
  > I think it would be extreme overreach to start trying to shut down youtube videos positing the earth is flat I tend to agree. Demonetizing them and barring them from promoting any other products should be enough to discourage those crooks who don't believe themselves in flat Earth, but make videos, books and merchandise about it to cash on gullible users.
- hanniabu 5y ago
  > That's not the relevant question to this discussion (and also basically a strawman). It's not strawman, it's on the same level in the science spectrum as decisively not scientific at all. It's meant to (hopefully) help them understand how stupid of a suggestion they're proposing by offering an equally stupid example. > The question is, should being a "flat earther" be banned from online monopolies as misinformation? No, the question is should we reward them for their misinformation content and the answer is no.
- magicalist 5y ago
  > start trying to shut down youtube videos Not getting ad revenue is not having your video shut down. Set up patreon if you want income making "more CO2 is good, actually" videos (you probably should regardless of content).

mc32 5y ago

I’m okay with demonetization for things with less proof than the main alternative. What I would be against is censorship: denying the voice.

CheezeIt 5y ago
Either is for the purpose of central control of discourse.
- mc32 5y ago
  My view is no one has a right to “monetization” on someone else's platform. Admittedly it is has a “chilling effect” but I’m more concerned that we should allow debate instead of being concerned we should be able to make money off of the debate.
  - dragonsky 5y ago
    I think you are right and debate is needed, but unfortunately on online platforms debate is really hard to keep civil and respectful. On platforms like HN where the audience is somewhat selective and moderation is possible you can have a reasonable debate, however on platforms like YouTube where views are money it can be difficult for creators to not play to the algorithm and go for the click-bate title with the emotive thumbnail with content that will attract the most views. I think YouTube, by removing the money making imperative is at least removing that driver from the equation whilst leaving the possibility of still posting controversial material and allowing debate.

joe_the_user 5y ago

The core of science is debate. There is no singular truth for most things in the scientific world, and lots and lots of shades of "the truth". Science isn't done by youtube video battles but by debates in scholarly journals. Youtube is a medium for popularizing whatever content. Youtube seems well in its rights in banning content it considers harmful and in this case I'd agree with this ban. That's not to say youtube's effective monopoly isn't concerning. I'd rather see ten providers but I'd like to see them all ban climate change, antivax and similarly noxious content - make people interested in the subject read long texts instead. Video isn't good medium for sustained, coherent debate. In this instance, it's a means of broadcasting shallow propaganda to morons, or put less insultingly, those not using rational facilities to decide things.

creato 5y ago
They're not even banning the content, they're just not showing ads on it.
- ekianjo 5y ago
  They recently removed videos against Covid vaccines.
  - munk-a 5y ago
    Those videos lead to deaths - so that's completely reasonable. America has pretty much plateaued in terms of vaccination rates and that is prolonging a disaster. If we're going to ban instructional bomb construction videos then I think anti-vax stuff is perfectly acceptable as well. I really don't understand where this miscomprehension that you should be able to say anything you want on private platforms comes from - there have always limits even on public speech, and private platforms have traditionally refused to print or publish items that go too strongly against their corporate beliefs. This even extends into print media and editorial boards.
    - t0bia_s 5y ago
      How could video lead to death? I though it works only in horror films.

wetpaws 5y ago

You can debate, you are just not getting ad revenue for this.

nicce 5y ago

> We're straying very far away from a nation that believes in actual science One big issue is using the term ”believe”. It is not matter of belief, it is a matter of understanding, wrapping theorems and facts. We need to understand the science. We have already 10 000 gods, so let’s not make science equated to the religion and reduce its power with that.

curiousgeorgio 5y ago
> It is not matter of belief, it is a matter of understanding, wrapping theorems and facts. That's true of most of the "hard sciences" like physics and chemistry. Climatology, however, is unfortunately full of beliefs and incredibly lacking when it comes to theorems and facts. Part of that is just due to the inherent difficulty associated with making inferences about climate history using a relatively limited amount of data from modern, accurate instruments. Add to that some extremely biased incentives in the institutions and governments funding climate research, and you're no longer in the same ballpark as the other hard sciences. I'm not saying it's all wrong or that the climate isn't changing (I think it is to some degree), but the one thing climatology has proven most convincingly over the years is that its prevailing predictions tend to be wrong – and not by an insignificant margin.
dragonsky 5y ago
I am so tired of people implying that they believe in science. Science is not a religion requiring belief. Science is a way of postulating that something may be real given the a available evidence. A true scientist should be ready to change their understanding of “real” when presented with new evidence. Belief or faith is trusting something is real without evidence and is the antithesis of science.
- t0bia_s 5y ago
  Define evidence, please.
  - nicce 5y ago
    Evidence is just data which is collected with the best available methods. With eyes, ears or some engineered equipment. If perspective changes, we did not have enough data. The knowledge comes when hard science is applied on this data, e.g math or logic.

Craighead 5y ago

Please, go away and stop using the Internet. Your kind is literally unable to fathom what a false equivalence is to begin with. Don't dare to lecture others on cult like behavior. No, the core of science is not debate, the core of science is peer reviewed published research, for which there are (shocker) way WAY more research that has withstood publication and review that speaks to the validity of human activity lead climate change. The time has come for you and your cult to take your place on obsolescence island, where you can frolick and "debate" about science meanwhile everyone else will solve the actual problem and save our species from causing a mass extinction event.

curiousgeorgio 5y ago

> The truth is there is no consensus so censoring half (or more) of the discussion is downright absurd. I agree with your point, though even if there is consensus on a topic, we should still be able to have open discussion without censorship. If you assume consensus is infallible, you'll be wrong sometimes. If dissenting voices are silenced, it's even worse: you'll be wrong, and not know that you're wrong. In the cases where consensus is right, you're only adding fuel to the conspiracy theories when you censor opposing views. In summary: freedom of speech - even wrong and unpopular speech - is essential to our continual pursuit of truth. To pretend that our world is somehow different today (as if misinformation or wrong ideas didn't exist before the internet) is just ignorance. How many times does history have to show us where the road of censorship leads?

nemo44x 5y ago
Sad this is being downvoted. When you assume anyone or any consensus is infallible you have kings and endless appeals to the authority. The reason we have made unbelievable scientific progress is because we follow sone rules: 1) no one is an authority on the truth. 2) no one is infallible. 3) we can change our minds when new evidence occurs This doesn’t mean everyone’s opinion is equal or that truth doesn’t exist. Credibility is important. Method is important. Reproducibility is important. Consensus is important. It’s more difficult today because of the ease of mass communication. But in the end we are better off taking the long, difficult, and often infuriating road to finding the truth. The alternative is an inquisition and worse. The truth will always rise to the top, eventually, this way even if we are wrong along the way.

zamalek 5y ago

While I agree with you in terms of true unknowns such as dark matter/energy (science does need more diversity of ideas), climate change science is comprehensive and conclusive. Any other ideas are absurd: we know the human contribution to climate change cause, have measured the anticipated effect, and found irrefutable causality. Disputing human climate change is like disputing the surface temperature of the sun. These are measured facts, not theories.

CheezeIt 5y ago
What’s conclusive is that more greenhouse gases means higher temperatures. What’s not conclusive is the doomsaying and specific claims about the future and present. A great example of this is California’s governor blaming forest fires on climate change, and another one is the signs predicting certain glaciers would melt.
- zamalek 5y ago
  That's fantastic sharpshooting. One instance of assumption (that wildfires are caused by climate change) doesn't refute the human impact on climate change. In addition, science has not yet made a conclusion on the forest fires (the governor may well be proven right), and the Siberian feedback loop is a wildfire and was caused by climate change. The governor ignorantly commented on an unknown. Deniers deny known facts. There is a huge difference.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - CheezeIt 5y ago
    > In addition, science has not yet made a conclusion on the forest fires (the governor may well be proven right), That is impossible. Climate's a chaotic system, you can't back-predict the timing of droughts. And we already know that with or without human greenhouse gases, California has droughts. There is not some alternate history where California’s forest management practices wouldn't let these kinds of fires happen.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

random314 5y ago

> The core of science is debate. The core of science is not debate. It is a cluster of related items such as falsifiability, empiricism, mathematical modeling, reproducibility etc. It is most certainly not debate. You are confusing politics with science, which in many cases is a very deliberate right wing stance. > There is very little actual consensus in the scientific community about anything... eggs are bad for you This is also false. Argument by analogy with nutrition science is a cop out, because it is unethical to run controlled experiments on human subjects without appropriate consent. However, nutrition is important for society and we make do with weaker correlational studies on biased samples which can evolve or get overturned in the future. Climate modeling is very unlike nutritional or social science and can by modeled consistently.

ekianjo 5y ago
Climate can be modeled consistently ? You must have missed the hundreds of models that predicted nothing and that we conveniently hide from view to cherry pick the ones that worked. Completely ridiculous statement.
- random314 5y ago
  Can you link to 5 of these peer reviewed published models that predict nothing?

HeyZuess 5y ago

> There is very little actual consensus in the scientific community about anything... eggs are bad for you - no wait, eggs are good for you - no wait, only 1 egg a day - eat as many eggs as you can! Nobody agrees on eggs - how can we have agreement on far more important and challenging-to-study things like the climate? Yes and if you ask Philip Morris, cigarettes are good for you and there is some evidence to the "benefits" of smoking by scientists. That doesn't mean smoking is healthy, nor is there a general consensus that it is good. The weighted evidence points to smoking being bad for you. Now while I don't fully agree with the global warming fanatics, I am still sitting on the fence personally but leaning towards there being a problem, I don't see why a group of publishers and advertisers are not able to determine whether they want to be associated with the global warning deniers, given that there is such weighted evidence against them.

belltaco 5y ago

>The truth is there is no consensus so censoring half (or more) of the discussion is downright absurd. Demonetization != banning or censorship.

visarga 5y ago

> Nobody agrees on eggs - how can we have agreement on far more important and challenging-to-study things like the climate? On the other extreme, 2+2=4 is considered a hegemonic narrative: > “Nope the idea of 2+2 equaling 4 is cultural and because of western imperialism/colonization, we think of it as the only way of knowing,” (Brittany Marshall) > “2+2=4: A perspective in white, Western mathematics that marginalizes other possible values.” (James Lindsay) So the main problem is trust. Some groups trust science and others think it's being used in bad faith, so they reject it completely.

Barrin92 5y ago

Virtually every statement in this post is wrong. There's plenty of consensus in scientific fields, that's the point of scientific work, building consensus by means of agreed upon methodology. The core of science isn't 'debate' whatever that means, but work within theoretic or empirical disciplines done by people trained in methods that have proven to produce results, i.e. 'scientists'. If there is disagreement, it needs to be justified and articulated in a way that meaningfully builds on the knowledge of the field in question. nobody in science pays attention to 'disagreement' from people who don't understand the body of knowledge they're disagreeing with. Youtube commenters or video creators don't practice science, they commentate on science, and thus whatever banning happens there has exactly zero influence on the actual course of scientific work which is done by a small percentage of people educated enough to actually have anything to say of value and contribute to the actual body of knowledge that collectively is 'science'. America as a nation is scientifically illiterate exactly because of the thing you're advocating, that every clown should have a voice simply because they can open their mouth and make noises.