7 ms·

I have learned a long time ago to look for words like 'likely', 'might', 'could' 'potentially' to differentiate between pure speculation and sensationalization

I have learned a long time ago to look for words like 'likely', 'might', 'could' 'potentially' to differentiate between pure speculation and sensationalization and then actual scientific evidence. This is no different. These things might happen, but so does an astroid hitting earth in an hour. That's not science. Science doesn't deal in probability but rather in explanations. And you can either explain exactly how it will happen or you can't. The rest is catastrophizing. Yes the climate is changing, yes it will have an impact. But there are currently no scientifically demonstrated (not just speculated) consequences of climate change, we don't know how to deal with.

ben_w 4y ago
While I would absolutely agree that journalists engage in catastrophism… > Science doesn't deal in probability but rather in explanations. And you can either explain exactly how it will happen or you can't. Science absolutely does deal with probabilities. It's much easier to find correlations than causations, but even with causation, there are unknowns. In the case of the global climate, while we can say CO2 raises the global temperature, we don't know what specific temperature will break any specific system on lists like this, the best we can do is give a graph of probability against temperature; while the article linked to does not have such a graph, that says more about the BBC than about the actual science.
- ThomPete 4y ago
  Science is about creating explanations. The laws of nature is not probabilistic. Probabilities are used when we have a limited set like a deck of cards. But it's not used to create scientific explanations.
  - ben_w 4y ago
    > The laws of nature is not probabilistic Today's your lucky day, you're one of the 10,000 who learn about quantum mechanics (fundamentally random) and chaos theory (sensitivity to initial conditions such that even classical mechanics might as well be fundamentally random) for the first time today: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory https://xkcd.com/1053/ https://xkcd.com/1053/ Edit: Also, p-values: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-value https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-value
    - ThomPete 4y ago
      I understand quantum mechanics very well which is why I understand that the Everett interpretation is how we move forward.
      - ben_w 4y ago
        Why do you then assert "The laws of nature is" [sic] "not probabilistic"?
        ThomPete 4y ago
        Because that's what the Everett interpretation deals with.

ben_w 4y ago

While I would absolutely agree that journalists engage in catastrophism… > Science doesn't deal in probability but rather in explanations. And you can either explain exactly how it will happen or you can't. Science absolutely does deal with probabilities. It's much easier to find correlations than causations, but even with causation, there are unknowns. In the case of the global climate, while we can say CO2 raises the global temperature, we don't know what specific temperature will break any specific system on lists like this, the best we can do is give a graph of probability against temperature; while the article linked to does not have such a graph, that says more about the BBC than about the actual science.

ThomPete 4y ago
Science is about creating explanations. The laws of nature is not probabilistic. Probabilities are used when we have a limited set like a deck of cards. But it's not used to create scientific explanations.
- ben_w 4y ago
  > The laws of nature is not probabilistic Today's your lucky day, you're one of the 10,000 who learn about quantum mechanics (fundamentally random) and chaos theory (sensitivity to initial conditions such that even classical mechanics might as well be fundamentally random) for the first time today: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory https://xkcd.com/1053/ https://xkcd.com/1053/ Edit: Also, p-values: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-value https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-value
  - ThomPete 4y ago
    I understand quantum mechanics very well which is why I understand that the Everett interpretation is how we move forward.
    - ben_w 4y ago
      Why do you then assert "The laws of nature is" [sic] "not probabilistic"?
      - ThomPete 4y ago
        Because that's what the Everett interpretation deals with.