4 ms·
> there is actually no difference between how science works in astronomy and climate change – or any other scientific discipline for that matter. We make observ
by zeteo 15y ago
> there is actually no difference between how science works in astronomy and climate change – or any other scientific discipline for that matter. We make observations, run simulations, test and propose hypotheses, and undergo peer review of our findings.
Things change a lot when your scientific theories need to be transformed into policies, though. If these same authors had also proposed, say, spending a significant proportion of world GDP to send a spaceship to the said diamond planet, their theories would be received more critically, I imagine.
- ars 15y agoThat sentence isn't even correct. There is a MASSIVE difference between simulation based science and experiment based science. I consider simulation based science interesting as theory (theoretical science), but it should NEVER be taken as accepted fact.
- me_again 15y agoClimate science isn't entirely based on simulation. For example, long-term geological records show a correlation between CO2 and global temperatures - see http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/360/1793/659.short http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/360/1793/659.... for example.
- nl 15y agoI consider simulation based science interesting as theory (theoretical science), but it should NEVER be taken as accepted fact. It depends on the field and the degree of accuracy. For example, hydrodynamic simulations are pretty much accurate for standard(ish) shapes. Same with lighting simulations (ie, ray tracing).
- ars 15y agoThose are based on experiments. Only after the experiments were the simulations added. And with those it's possible to compare a simulation and a realization and improve the accuracy of the simulation. i.e. the science is based on experiments, not simulations. After the science was learned, simulations were added, but the science was not learned from the simulation.