3 ms·

I think you're far more optimistic about our capacity for conducting empirical research than I am. We continuously see huge failures and fraud in science. Esp

I think you're far more optimistic about our capacity for conducting empirical research than I am. We continuously see huge failures and fraud in science. Especially in medicine, where we've spent billions and tens of thousands of people have spent their entire careers desperately trying to correlate saturated fat and naive cholesterol measurements to heart disease to no avail.

titzer 3y ago
We're not talking about some survey of self-reported symptoms of nausea with N=113. We're talking about satellite data, glaciers, permafrost, ice cores, tree rings, tide buoys, written historical records, weather stations, geologic records, bird migration patterns, extinctions, even human experience in a single lifespan. (And yes, of course, computer models). We're talking about ecologists, geologists, atmospheric scientists, space scientists, biologists, foresters, environmentalists, militaries, space agencies, researchers from every nation on Earth. There is just no room for doubt anymore, except motivated denialists and conspiracy theorists. The questions that remain are how fast it is happening, how quickly we can adapt, and whether any political change is possible to avoid its worst effects. I personally take umbrage at the suggestion that Science is somehow populated by fraudsters, crackpots, and failures. When in reality all that I have seen is the Science is populated by anxious, detail-oriented people who are extremely embarrassed to be caught making mistakes and are generally extremely cautious. Do mistakes occur? Yes. Do misrepresentations occur? Sometimes. Does fraud occur? Extraordinarily rarely. And in all of these cases Science has a culture of dealing with honest mistakes, of dealing with distortions and misunderstandings, and punishing fraud. It's career-ending to be a fraudster in Science. Unlike most of what culture seems to be devolving towards today, which just shovels more BS and gaslighting. Science is doing its best with imperfect people to move forward. It's all based on reproducibility and banishing the bullshitting.
hotpotamus 3y ago
I see this said a lot in regards to climate science. I suspect that I have a bit more faith in the predictive powers of current climate models than you do, but I do understand that it is a subject that is complex far beyond human understanding and our models are inherently limited. Rather than think of this as meaning that we can endlessly fuck with the climate as much as we'd like with no consequences as many seem to believe, I tend to think we should tread carefully since it is the human habitability of the Earth we are examining. Obviously I'm in the minority, but that has always surprised me.
- titzer 3y ago
  Well said. If anything, the geologic record of Earth's history having wild swings between different climates, and not gradual, shouldn't suggest that it's a "robust system", but rather a fragile, sensitive system that could get kicked into a very different equilibrium under unknown circumstances. We are currently undertaking a massive experiment in altering the composition of the atmosphere and there is NO indication that that will be good.

titzer 3y ago

We're not talking about some survey of self-reported symptoms of nausea with N=113. We're talking about satellite data, glaciers, permafrost, ice cores, tree rings, tide buoys, written historical records, weather stations, geologic records, bird migration patterns, extinctions, even human experience in a single lifespan. (And yes, of course, computer models). We're talking about ecologists, geologists, atmospheric scientists, space scientists, biologists, foresters, environmentalists, militaries, space agencies, researchers from every nation on Earth. There is just no room for doubt anymore, except motivated denialists and conspiracy theorists. The questions that remain are how fast it is happening, how quickly we can adapt, and whether any political change is possible to avoid its worst effects. I personally take umbrage at the suggestion that Science is somehow populated by fraudsters, crackpots, and failures. When in reality all that I have seen is the Science is populated by anxious, detail-oriented people who are extremely embarrassed to be caught making mistakes and are generally extremely cautious. Do mistakes occur? Yes. Do misrepresentations occur? Sometimes. Does fraud occur? Extraordinarily rarely. And in all of these cases Science has a culture of dealing with honest mistakes, of dealing with distortions and misunderstandings, and punishing fraud. It's career-ending to be a fraudster in Science. Unlike most of what culture seems to be devolving towards today, which just shovels more BS and gaslighting. Science is doing its best with imperfect people to move forward. It's all based on reproducibility and banishing the bullshitting.

hotpotamus 3y ago

I see this said a lot in regards to climate science. I suspect that I have a bit more faith in the predictive powers of current climate models than you do, but I do understand that it is a subject that is complex far beyond human understanding and our models are inherently limited. Rather than think of this as meaning that we can endlessly fuck with the climate as much as we'd like with no consequences as many seem to believe, I tend to think we should tread carefully since it is the human habitability of the Earth we are examining. Obviously I'm in the minority, but that has always surprised me.

titzer 3y ago
Well said. If anything, the geologic record of Earth's history having wild swings between different climates, and not gradual, shouldn't suggest that it's a "robust system", but rather a fragile, sensitive system that could get kicked into a very different equilibrium under unknown circumstances. We are currently undertaking a massive experiment in altering the composition of the atmosphere and there is NO indication that that will be good.