5 ms·

‘Should be the policy’ : even if that policy doesn’t affect the problem as I have argued and you ignore? ’Risky to make predictions’: if a theory isn’t predict

‘Should be the policy’ : even if that policy doesn’t affect the problem as I have argued and you ignore? ’Risky to make predictions’: if a theory isn’t predictive or falsifiable, then by what epistemology is it scientific? ‘Game of Jenga… inevitable’: assertion with no evidence ‘Not my job’: how can you claim to be so keen for action, yet don’t care if others think your arguments are convincing?

myshpa 3y ago
> it doesn't reduce production > ‘Should be the policy’ : even if that policy doesn’t affect the problem as I have argued and you ignore? I haven't ignored anything. Reduced consumption reduces production. If everyone will wait for others to do something, nobody will do anything. And that is true even for states and nations. > a theory isn’t predictive or falsifiable, then by what epistemology is it scientific Let's take economics as an example. Economic theories often deal with complex and dynamic systems involving human behavior, which can be influenced by a multitude of factors. Just like climate change research, economic theories are based on trends and patterns rather than deterministic predictions. Economists study these trends to develop models that provide insights into possible outcomes, but predicting specific economic events with exact timing and outcomes remains a challenge due to the intricate nature of the field. Similarly, in fields such as evolutionary biology, scientists analyze trends in genetic variation and adaptation over time to understand the processes of natural selection. While it's difficult to predict precisely when a specific species will evolve or how a particular trait will develop, the patterns and trends observed contribute to our understanding of the underlying mechanisms of evolution. Furthermore, theoretical physics, particularly in areas like string theory or certain cosmological models, often lacks immediate experimental verification or clear-cut predictions due to the complex nature of the phenomena being studied. Yet, these theories are considered scientific because they offer explanatory power and generate testable hypotheses that could potentially be verified in the future. In the case of climate change research, while specific timelines for collapse might be hard to predict, the trends and patterns observed provide crucial information about the potential consequences of certain actions or inactions. The scientific method involves refining and updating theories as new data becomes available, and the accumulation of evidence over time can lead to a more accurate understanding of complex phenomena. > ‘Game of Jenga… inevitable’: assertion with no evidence Are you talking about Jenga or the climate/overshoot? Because if you're talking about Jenga, then it's clear you've never played it before. > how can you claim to be so keen for action, yet don’t care if others think your arguments are convincing Because I can observe the trends with my own eyes (biodiversity loss e.g.), I see where this leads, I no longer need concrete predictions and values to acknowledge the seriousness of the situation, I understand why I can't ever get them, and because your counterarguments aren't really convincing either. Sorry. I don't want to be condescending, but I've been given an advice few years back, iirc the exact words were "go read a book or two". The more resources on the subject I've read, the more I've been able to appreciate the complexity in play. Allow me to lighten it up a bit ;) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NELJiI7fdlc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NELJiI7fdlc
- brutusborn 3y ago
  Reduce consumption? They want to reduce production locally which will have no effect on consumption globally. It’s ironic that the first discipline you choose as an example has such a significant replication crisis. In the same way that mainstream climate models lack predictive power, mainstream economics models often fail to predict huge events like the GFC. I think I understand now why you don’t engage with my arguments or provide academic references: you believe the science is settled and you no longer have any skepticism. You think it’s a political problem and not a scientific question which is why you mostly provide links to newspapers rather than scientific journals. If you aren’t willing to consider the possibility of being wrong then evidence (or lack thereof) isn’t going to sway you. Your position has turned from scientific to dogmatic. You infer that I haven’t read enough which doesn’t make sense since I seem to bring up points you aren’t aware of (eg sulphate aerosol effects). I think you should read more, less mainstream media and more actual scientific literature. I used to be worried about climate change until I started looking at climate model papers and learnt enough about the models to understand their limits. Once you see how the sausage is actually made you won’t be so convinced.
  - myshpa 3y ago
    > Reduce consumption? They want to reduce production locally which will have no effect on consumption globally And you'd probably like to believe that individual changes are meaningless. > It’s ironic that the first discipline you choose as an example a] it was not the only example b] I'd be the first one to criticize economics > I think I understand now why you don’t engage with my arguments or provide academic references: you believe the science is settled and you no longer have any skepticism. You think it’s a political problem and not a scientific question "Thank you", but you're wrong. > I seem to bring up points you aren’t aware of (eg sulphate aerosol effects) I am aware of "the point", I just haven't read enough about it (yet). My primary interests lie elsewhere. > learnt enough about the models to understand their limits I'm aware of their limits. That doesn't mean they're not useful. Maybe we'll meet again sometime. Be well. Hope I haven't aggravated you too much ;)

myshpa 3y ago

> it doesn't reduce production > ‘Should be the policy’ : even if that policy doesn’t affect the problem as I have argued and you ignore? I haven't ignored anything. Reduced consumption reduces production. If everyone will wait for others to do something, nobody will do anything. And that is true even for states and nations. > a theory isn’t predictive or falsifiable, then by what epistemology is it scientific Let's take economics as an example. Economic theories often deal with complex and dynamic systems involving human behavior, which can be influenced by a multitude of factors. Just like climate change research, economic theories are based on trends and patterns rather than deterministic predictions. Economists study these trends to develop models that provide insights into possible outcomes, but predicting specific economic events with exact timing and outcomes remains a challenge due to the intricate nature of the field. Similarly, in fields such as evolutionary biology, scientists analyze trends in genetic variation and adaptation over time to understand the processes of natural selection. While it's difficult to predict precisely when a specific species will evolve or how a particular trait will develop, the patterns and trends observed contribute to our understanding of the underlying mechanisms of evolution. Furthermore, theoretical physics, particularly in areas like string theory or certain cosmological models, often lacks immediate experimental verification or clear-cut predictions due to the complex nature of the phenomena being studied. Yet, these theories are considered scientific because they offer explanatory power and generate testable hypotheses that could potentially be verified in the future. In the case of climate change research, while specific timelines for collapse might be hard to predict, the trends and patterns observed provide crucial information about the potential consequences of certain actions or inactions. The scientific method involves refining and updating theories as new data becomes available, and the accumulation of evidence over time can lead to a more accurate understanding of complex phenomena. > ‘Game of Jenga… inevitable’: assertion with no evidence Are you talking about Jenga or the climate/overshoot? Because if you're talking about Jenga, then it's clear you've never played it before. > how can you claim to be so keen for action, yet don’t care if others think your arguments are convincing Because I can observe the trends with my own eyes (biodiversity loss e.g.), I see where this leads, I no longer need concrete predictions and values to acknowledge the seriousness of the situation, I understand why I can't ever get them, and because your counterarguments aren't really convincing either. Sorry. I don't want to be condescending, but I've been given an advice few years back, iirc the exact words were "go read a book or two". The more resources on the subject I've read, the more I've been able to appreciate the complexity in play. Allow me to lighten it up a bit ;) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NELJiI7fdlc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NELJiI7fdlc

brutusborn 3y ago
Reduce consumption? They want to reduce production locally which will have no effect on consumption globally. It’s ironic that the first discipline you choose as an example has such a significant replication crisis. In the same way that mainstream climate models lack predictive power, mainstream economics models often fail to predict huge events like the GFC. I think I understand now why you don’t engage with my arguments or provide academic references: you believe the science is settled and you no longer have any skepticism. You think it’s a political problem and not a scientific question which is why you mostly provide links to newspapers rather than scientific journals. If you aren’t willing to consider the possibility of being wrong then evidence (or lack thereof) isn’t going to sway you. Your position has turned from scientific to dogmatic. You infer that I haven’t read enough which doesn’t make sense since I seem to bring up points you aren’t aware of (eg sulphate aerosol effects). I think you should read more, less mainstream media and more actual scientific literature. I used to be worried about climate change until I started looking at climate model papers and learnt enough about the models to understand their limits. Once you see how the sausage is actually made you won’t be so convinced.
- myshpa 3y ago
  > Reduce consumption? They want to reduce production locally which will have no effect on consumption globally And you'd probably like to believe that individual changes are meaningless. > It’s ironic that the first discipline you choose as an example a] it was not the only example b] I'd be the first one to criticize economics > I think I understand now why you don’t engage with my arguments or provide academic references: you believe the science is settled and you no longer have any skepticism. You think it’s a political problem and not a scientific question "Thank you", but you're wrong. > I seem to bring up points you aren’t aware of (eg sulphate aerosol effects) I am aware of "the point", I just haven't read enough about it (yet). My primary interests lie elsewhere. > learnt enough about the models to understand their limits I'm aware of their limits. That doesn't mean they're not useful. Maybe we'll meet again sometime. Be well. Hope I haven't aggravated you too much ;)