3 ms·

I agree with you about the first paragraph. Do you think we need more Climate skeptics especially when there is a severe lack of them, and when there is an exce

I agree with you about the first paragraph. Do you think we need more Climate skeptics especially when there is a severe lack of them, and when there is an excessive dogmatism – i.e., you cannot challenge the status quo with the best of intentions and using the same materials/sources, there is a cultural pressure to conform and there is a dire need for strong arming climate catastrophy and apocolyptic motifs? I hope we can find common ground that when there is 100% dogmatism and 0% skepticism, it is not science anymore. It is like the medieval church. I take this further in my personal life without engaging in conspiracies and bad faith. Whenever there is an immense social pressure to conform to anything, let alone science, I get increasingly skeptic. There is a wisdom of crowds when a healthy amount skepticism is allowed. There is a madness of crowds when very little skepticism is allowed.

Comevius 4y ago
Science is models of reality. As we gain more understanding we increase the precision of our models. When we do the previous models don't become invalid, like Newton's laws of motions are not invalid because of quantum physics, indeed they are considered an approximation to it. The same goes for climate science, our models are increasing in precision. The social pressure is however in the opposite direction than you think. Nobody wants to be seen as crazy, and there is a pressure from the institutions to tone it down. Often the most conservative models are presented as plausible, selected by how actionable they are. Even the plausible models are unpleasant, not because scientists are crazy, but because the situation is that bad, and potentially much worst. Whether it's fixable, or can only be mitigated, or we can only try to adapt, it doesn't matter because we are not doing any of it. We are banking in everything turning out just fine, even if we continue pumping greenhouse gases in the atmosphere indiscriminately. This behavior is a suicidal one. What social pressure would exist to deal with the problem head-on anyway, we don't work like that. The real power is not being dogmatically sceptical, it's evaluation. Thinking about things and their relationships. There is a difference between poking holes, and throwing the whole tapestry away for the sake of being sceptical.
- systemvoltage 4y ago
  Thanks for a good discussion.

Comevius 4y ago

Science is models of reality. As we gain more understanding we increase the precision of our models. When we do the previous models don't become invalid, like Newton's laws of motions are not invalid because of quantum physics, indeed they are considered an approximation to it. The same goes for climate science, our models are increasing in precision. The social pressure is however in the opposite direction than you think. Nobody wants to be seen as crazy, and there is a pressure from the institutions to tone it down. Often the most conservative models are presented as plausible, selected by how actionable they are. Even the plausible models are unpleasant, not because scientists are crazy, but because the situation is that bad, and potentially much worst. Whether it's fixable, or can only be mitigated, or we can only try to adapt, it doesn't matter because we are not doing any of it. We are banking in everything turning out just fine, even if we continue pumping greenhouse gases in the atmosphere indiscriminately. This behavior is a suicidal one. What social pressure would exist to deal with the problem head-on anyway, we don't work like that. The real power is not being dogmatically sceptical, it's evaluation. Thinking about things and their relationships. There is a difference between poking holes, and throwing the whole tapestry away for the sake of being sceptical.

systemvoltage 4y ago
Thanks for a good discussion.