4 ms·
One problem is that often science says nothing about policy. _Science_ doesn’t say we should ban fossil fuels, but it does make predictions about what will hap
by l33t233372 3y ago
One problem is that often science says nothing about policy.
_Science_ doesn’t say we should ban fossil fuels, but it does make predictions about what will happen if we continue to use them at the current rate.
It’s not science denial to be against the policy.
- DontchaKnowit 3y agoyes certainly science can inform policy decisions. How do I put this... Science has nothing to say about what we should set as the objectives of our policy. Science can, however, inform our approach to attaining that objective.
- brutusborn 3y agoTo oversimplify my view: Politics = applied philosophy Science = applied epistemology Pretending that science can create policy leads to things like eugenics (but Darwin said it would make us fitter so it must be ‘good’!)
- rnk 3y agoThere's another important part of this though, oil companies pay scientific researchers to publish views against the veracity of climate change, research and predictions. That's why they say it's science denialism because those people are making shoddy arguments. Disagreeing about whether you care about global climate change is not science denialism but making up things to say there's no science is denialism.
- brutusborn 3y agoThat’s an important distinction, but is lost on 99% of the population. Try to voice any skepticism about climate change policy and most people will call you a climate denier. Same with vaccines; express a skepticism of efficacy and suddenly you are an anti-science anti-Vaxer. The irony is that skepticism and asking annoying questions is essential to science. Ignoring ‘anti-scientific’ arguments is inherently anti-science.