3 ms·

I think when "science" has been infused with power, so that it is no longer the truth of an idea that gives it legs (the "marketplace of ideas") but an idea's a

I think when "science" has been infused with power, so that it is no longer the truth of an idea that gives it legs (the "marketplace of ideas") but an idea's ability to produce power, then "science" will get all sorts of weird results. Power corrupts even "science." We began infusing science with power in the early 1900s. Over time, the ideas that win are those that are powerful (politically), even if untrue (or only weakly true, relative to what is being claimed). There's every reason to believe that "climate science"[0] is weakly true, but that its ability to attain scientific consensus is primarily that it is much more powerful than competing theories that explain the same evidence. Climate science gives you control over multi-trillion dollar economies. Other theories do not.[1] One way to gauge the trustworthiness of "climate science" purely as an idea is to imagine an alternative: suddenly, the Sun starts putting out less energy and the Earth cools. In fact, enough less energy that we are expecting a 1.5 deg Celsius decline in global temperature in ten years. Ask yourself: what is your confidence level that additional man-made CO2 emissions will be able to counteract this so that the average temperature doesn't actually drop? If I'm honest, it's extremely low. I don't trust "climate scientists" to be able to warm the Earth on demand by injecting more CO2 into the air. [0] "Climate science" is basically the idea that CO2 (functionally) acts like a thermostat for the Earth's climate at the extremely low concentration levels we see today (due to hypothesized "positive feedback loops" interacting badly with man-made CO2-induced warming). Man is a significant cause of the increased CO2 we see today. [1] A (powerless) competing theory (because it gives no control over multi-trillion dollar economies) is that the Sun functionally acts like a thermostat for the Earth, that CO2 is incapable of heating the Earth at the extremely low concentration levels we see today—or levels 20x as high we've seen in the past 100,000 years—and that we see more CO2 in the past during warm periods (again: caused by the Sun heating the Earth) because the CO2 capacity of the oceans is lower when the temperature is higher, meaning CO2 is released into the atmosphere as the Earth warms, and moves back into the oceans as it cools. Also, there are no "positive feedback loops" in the Earth that would cause is to uncontrollably heat up due to tiny changes in CO2 levels. The only thing that actually heats or cools the Earth at the level of "climate" is the Sun. Man is a significant cause of the increased CO2 we see today, but that increased CO2 is too insignificant to cause warming by itself. If the Earth is warming (or cooling), it's because of the Sun.

wittycardio 5y ago
Science is infused with power because it has been consistently shown to work, not because of the Machiavellian maneuvers of scientists. Unless you have hard proof stop with your climate denialist nonsense, your word is utterly meaningless
- erichocean 5y ago
  > Science is infused with power No, science was infused with power for that reason 100+ years ago, back when it really was a "marketplace of ideas" and truth was the only way for an idea to win. (That's why it "worked" back then.) Now that "science" has been infused with power, it has become political and powerful ideas that are wrong (or only weakly right) beat out true ideas that aren't as powerful. It is what is. Science 100+ years ago was like a large, pristine, clean lake, and it took a long time for the toxic waste that is power to pollute it. Today, though, power wins every single time.
  - wittycardio 5y ago
    Please provide evidence for any of your claims
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - erichocean 5y ago
      How about all of them? > The heat source for our planet is the sun. Source: https://www.weather.gov/jetstream/heat https://www.weather.gov/jetstream/heat > Carbon dioxide content in air is only 0.03%, but it is highly soluble in water unlike oxygen and one volume of CO2 dissolves in equal volume of water, the solubility being higher at low temperature. Source: https://www.fao.org/3/AC183E/AC183E06.htm https://www.fao.org/3/AC183E/AC183E06.htm > Social science [is] any branch of academic study or science that deals with human behaviour in its social and cultural aspects. > Strictly speaking, the social sciences, as distinct and recognized academic disciplines, emerged only on the cusp of the 20th century. Source: https://www.britannica.com/topic/social-science https://www.britannica.com/topic/social-science > The Progressive Era (1896–1916) was a period of widespread social activism and political reform across the United States of America that spanned the 1890s to World War I. > Some Progressives strongly supported scientific methods as applied to economics, government, industry, finance, medicine, schooling, theology, education, and even the family. > The Progressives were avid modernizers, with a belief in science and technology as the grand solution to society's flaws. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Era https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Era ----- The Progressive Era is when the social sciences were created and then used to inform the actions of government. This gave those "sciences" power, and moved power to experts (which come from academia) and away from politicians. (At least, that was the goal.) Broadly speaking, any academic discipline with the word "science" tacked onto it is a social science, though harder sciences (e.g. biology) can be infused with power as well (c.f. Lysenkoism in the USSR). The Progressive Era goal makes intuitive sense: if you need to know what to do about a problem, ask the experts. The experts are in academia, and academia has this great track record for discovering the truth (aka the "marketplace of ideas"). Unfortunately, adding power to academia polluted that marketplace so that now ideas with power (that are only weakly true) outcompete strongly true ideas that do not confer power. Consider today how difficult it is for anyone to go against The Science™. I mean, who would even want to? If "science" truly still was a "marketplace of ideas", no one would. Now that it's actually become a "marketplace of powerful ideas", everyone should be suspect: Is this idea really true? Or is it merely powerful (and only weakly true)? Actually, there are science disciplines that aren't infused with power. Those disciplines have no policy component, i.e. politicians can (and do) ignore them. Astronomy is a good example. In the USSR, all of their hard sciences were still useful after the USSR fell. But those Progressive Era "social sciences" from the USSR? They're all garbage. Useless. Because they were "science infused with power", which doesn't reliably produce truth—only power.

wittycardio 5y ago

Science is infused with power because it has been consistently shown to work, not because of the Machiavellian maneuvers of scientists. Unless you have hard proof stop with your climate denialist nonsense, your word is utterly meaningless

erichocean 5y ago
> Science is infused with power No, science was infused with power for that reason 100+ years ago, back when it really was a "marketplace of ideas" and truth was the only way for an idea to win. (That's why it "worked" back then.) Now that "science" has been infused with power, it has become political and powerful ideas that are wrong (or only weakly right) beat out true ideas that aren't as powerful. It is what is. Science 100+ years ago was like a large, pristine, clean lake, and it took a long time for the toxic waste that is power to pollute it. Today, though, power wins every single time.
- wittycardio 5y ago
  Please provide evidence for any of your claims
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - erichocean 5y ago
    How about all of them? > The heat source for our planet is the sun. Source: https://www.weather.gov/jetstream/heat https://www.weather.gov/jetstream/heat > Carbon dioxide content in air is only 0.03%, but it is highly soluble in water unlike oxygen and one volume of CO2 dissolves in equal volume of water, the solubility being higher at low temperature. Source: https://www.fao.org/3/AC183E/AC183E06.htm https://www.fao.org/3/AC183E/AC183E06.htm > Social science [is] any branch of academic study or science that deals with human behaviour in its social and cultural aspects. > Strictly speaking, the social sciences, as distinct and recognized academic disciplines, emerged only on the cusp of the 20th century. Source: https://www.britannica.com/topic/social-science https://www.britannica.com/topic/social-science > The Progressive Era (1896–1916) was a period of widespread social activism and political reform across the United States of America that spanned the 1890s to World War I. > Some Progressives strongly supported scientific methods as applied to economics, government, industry, finance, medicine, schooling, theology, education, and even the family. > The Progressives were avid modernizers, with a belief in science and technology as the grand solution to society's flaws. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Era https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Era ----- The Progressive Era is when the social sciences were created and then used to inform the actions of government. This gave those "sciences" power, and moved power to experts (which come from academia) and away from politicians. (At least, that was the goal.) Broadly speaking, any academic discipline with the word "science" tacked onto it is a social science, though harder sciences (e.g. biology) can be infused with power as well (c.f. Lysenkoism in the USSR). The Progressive Era goal makes intuitive sense: if you need to know what to do about a problem, ask the experts. The experts are in academia, and academia has this great track record for discovering the truth (aka the "marketplace of ideas"). Unfortunately, adding power to academia polluted that marketplace so that now ideas with power (that are only weakly true) outcompete strongly true ideas that do not confer power. Consider today how difficult it is for anyone to go against The Science™. I mean, who would even want to? If "science" truly still was a "marketplace of ideas", no one would. Now that it's actually become a "marketplace of powerful ideas", everyone should be suspect: Is this idea really true? Or is it merely powerful (and only weakly true)? Actually, there are science disciplines that aren't infused with power. Those disciplines have no policy component, i.e. politicians can (and do) ignore them. Astronomy is a good example. In the USSR, all of their hard sciences were still useful after the USSR fell. But those Progressive Era "social sciences" from the USSR? They're all garbage. Useless. Because they were "science infused with power", which doesn't reliably produce truth—only power.