3 ms·

The article seems to be making it's definition of "fact" as a guide to policymakers on what should be accepted as fact. I think this is all a bit of a red herr

The article seems to be making it's definition of "fact" as a guide to policymakers on what should be accepted as fact. I think this is all a bit of a red herring. The question is how do policymakers deal with politically charged topics. And I personally haven't seen cases where more research or "science" is the answer, it's just crutch that people use to try and make their political point. The article mentions climate change, which is a great example of something that's been scienced to death. The future is unknowable, there will always be some "we can never know" component to it, but that doesn't necessitate more research to find a smoking gun that will shut down all sceptics, not does it require that since we can't prove it, we ignore it. Some mix of balance of probabilities plus public will easily passes the threshold for doing something. So do something. Sequester CO2, build dikes, if the whole thing comes to naught, it won't be the most wasteful thing government did. A pragmatic approach is what's needed, not some philosophical search for how we define truth, which just offsets the problem one layer and doesn't change the politics at all

akiselev 4y ago
At this point I think that the definition of truth is just another wedge issue introduced to the political teamsport - the process of searching for truth was already so noisy that it's best left to the people nearest to the feedback loops that help us iterate on solutions. Reading between the lines, this is a push to take power away from the bureaucrats in charge of the US (Western?) regulatory model (the so called "deep state") and move the "fact finding" process to somewhere the politicians could better influence it. Climate change is a perfect example because oil companies and armed forces worldwide have been operating under the assumption that it's real and its coming, largely because they're the ones who have to deal with, for example, the immediate effects of storm size on ship builders, ports, and deep sea mining equipment. We've got a Jekyll and Hyde government with a Navy that has been preparing for climate change since the 90s while half the country fights tooth and nail against the very concept. I think the pragmatic approach is to let the experts at the CDC, FDA, EPA, etc do the work they're qualified to do while working on checks and balances to prevent regulatory capture, politicization, and corruption.
becquerel 4y ago
What if climate change turns out to be a hoax and we made the world better for nothing?
- stavros 4y ago
  I, for one, would hate to live in a better world.
- subroutine 4y ago
  If climate change turns out to be wrong, nevermind a deliberate hoax, it would result in incalculable damage to the reputation of the entire scientific community for the next century.
  - wizzwizz4 4y ago
    As it should be. See how much they're sticking out their necks, and perhaps take this as seriously as they are?
  - jolancer 4y ago
    I mean we do live in the Holocene interglacial and the interglacial won't last forever. Obviously we have warmed the planet a great deal but I don't think that is going to stop the next ice age.
- locutous 4y ago
  This presumes that all efforts to curb climate change make the world better. Global regulation of fundamental economic development represents a shift to authoritarianism. That's not a positive move if you believe in individual liberty. It also represents a significant loss of wealth. We pay more for the same services.
SllX 4y ago
> The question is how do policymakers deal with politically charged topics. And I personally haven't seen cases where more research or "science" is the answer, it's just crutch that people use to try and make their political point. They bring their professional and political judgment to a competitive information environment and use the fractional share of power vested in them to inform the consensus to make or not make a particular policy. That or they beat the snot out of each other, but either way what gets done in a given legislative session is the product of whatever consensus they were able to make, however they were able to make it, with whatever information was in the room with them at the time.

akiselev 4y ago

At this point I think that the definition of truth is just another wedge issue introduced to the political teamsport - the process of searching for truth was already so noisy that it's best left to the people nearest to the feedback loops that help us iterate on solutions. Reading between the lines, this is a push to take power away from the bureaucrats in charge of the US (Western?) regulatory model (the so called "deep state") and move the "fact finding" process to somewhere the politicians could better influence it. Climate change is a perfect example because oil companies and armed forces worldwide have been operating under the assumption that it's real and its coming, largely because they're the ones who have to deal with, for example, the immediate effects of storm size on ship builders, ports, and deep sea mining equipment. We've got a Jekyll and Hyde government with a Navy that has been preparing for climate change since the 90s while half the country fights tooth and nail against the very concept. I think the pragmatic approach is to let the experts at the CDC, FDA, EPA, etc do the work they're qualified to do while working on checks and balances to prevent regulatory capture, politicization, and corruption.

becquerel 4y ago

What if climate change turns out to be a hoax and we made the world better for nothing?

stavros 4y ago
I, for one, would hate to live in a better world.
subroutine 4y ago
If climate change turns out to be wrong, nevermind a deliberate hoax, it would result in incalculable damage to the reputation of the entire scientific community for the next century.
- wizzwizz4 4y ago
  As it should be. See how much they're sticking out their necks, and perhaps take this as seriously as they are?
- jolancer 4y ago
  I mean we do live in the Holocene interglacial and the interglacial won't last forever. Obviously we have warmed the planet a great deal but I don't think that is going to stop the next ice age.
locutous 4y ago
This presumes that all efforts to curb climate change make the world better. Global regulation of fundamental economic development represents a shift to authoritarianism. That's not a positive move if you believe in individual liberty. It also represents a significant loss of wealth. We pay more for the same services.

SllX 4y ago

> The question is how do policymakers deal with politically charged topics. And I personally haven't seen cases where more research or "science" is the answer, it's just crutch that people use to try and make their political point. They bring their professional and political judgment to a competitive information environment and use the fractional share of power vested in them to inform the consensus to make or not make a particular policy. That or they beat the snot out of each other, but either way what gets done in a given legislative session is the product of whatever consensus they were able to make, however they were able to make it, with whatever information was in the room with them at the time.