4 ms·

Yeah, what about the so-called 'global warming'?? We need to protect that oil and gas industry at all costs. BTW, I heard that evolution is just a 'theory', a

by andyl 13y ago

Yeah, what about the so-called 'global warming'?? We need to protect that oil and gas industry at all costs. BTW, I heard that evolution is just a 'theory', and many experts seriously doubt that it can be true.

pvnick 13y ago
We know much less about the climate than we do about evolution.
- andyl 13y ago
  Yeah - it's all just so mysterious and uncertain. 97% of climate scientists might say that human produced carbon causes warming. (http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus) But that's just their opinion. There is still doubt. The imperative is to protect the oil and gas industry, and keep putting carbon into the atmosphere. It's great for the economy, and some say it's good for plants!
  - pvnick 13y ago
    "Consensus" is not a valid scientific argument. For the longest time it was the "consensus" that the earth was flat and that existence was only 6000 years old (although not if you ask early Catholic theologians - they always saw Genesis in a metaphoric light, but I digress). Between this and your last comment, your "scientific" arguments aren't very persuasive, they sound more like daily kos talking points.
    - mikeash 13y ago
      When was it the "consensus" that the Earth was flat? As far as I understand it, the Earth has been known to be round for approximately as long as people both thought to ask the question and attempt to figure out an answer. "Consensus" may not give us proof, but in the absence of compelling evidence against it, it's fairly strong. Yep, they could be wrong. But it's not the way to bet.
      - pvnick 13y ago
        >When was it the "consensus" that the Earth was flat? I don't know man I just threw that down as a hypothetical. Look at the sibling comment next to mine for a more well-thought-out refutation :)
    - lobster_johnson 13y ago
      No, that was never the concensus among scientists. Scientific consensus is a valid argument in the same sense that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof"; the probability that mainstream science is wrong and you are right is low, proportionally to the amount of science at either end. The fact that the Earth is round was known by the Greeks and has been acknowledged ever since, not least following several circumnavigations by people such as Magellan. The notion that people (scientists and laymen alike) believed in a flat earth is really a popular myth perpetrated, probably, to make the Columbus story more interesting. Columbus knew perfectly well that the Earth was round. The fact that Earth and the universe are very old was pretty much agreed upon since the 18th century with the arrival of geology as a branch of science. Aristotle thought the universe was infinite in age. The Hindus thought it was billions of years old. The 6000 year thing is a very recent Christian idea.
      - pvnick 13y ago
        >Aristotle thought the universe was infinite in age If we're going to nit-pick, this was the scientific "consensus" until a Catholic priest postulated the big bang.
        lobster_johnson 13y ago
        Considering that there are indications that black holes contain universes, implying that "big bangs" happen more than once, Aristotle's idea may not be wrong. [1] http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/04/100409-black-holes-alternate-universe-multiverse-einstein-wormholes/ http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/04/100409-black...
    - dragonwriter 13y ago
      > For the longest time it was the "consensus" that the earth was flat and that existence was only 6000 years old Actually, the educated (still pre-scientific, as the scientific method wasn't really established as a thing) consensus had turned against the former before the latter was even a thing, much less a consensus (which it never really was, either the first time, ~AD 500 with biblically-based -- from the Septuagint -- estimates of the date of creation ~5500 BC, or the second time ~AD 2000 with biblically-based -- from the Masoretic texr -- estimates of the date of creation ~4000 BC.)
  - baddox 13y ago
    Consensus is not science. 97% of "biologists" in the 17th century might have said that acquired traits are heritable, or perhaps that there is no common ancestry among species, but that is scientifically false now and was scientifically false then (barring for the moment epigenetics and neo-Lamarckism). Of course, without the luxury of hindsight, you can't really be sure yourself unless you are more confident in your scientific abilities than the so-called experts at the time or are able to personally recreate experiments and observe contradictory results (which is unlikely for things like speciation and climate change). Note that I'm not saying I believe any specific theories are correct or incorrect. I'm just trying to make a general statement that appeals to consensus are themselves not that useful and are certainly not "science." Also note that I am well aware that opposing political groups might purposefully publicize articles disagreeing with the consensus in order to make it seem like there is less of a consensus than there actually is.
- jlgreco 13y ago
  You could say that of very many things... perhaps even most things. The body of research we have on evolution is awe inspiring.

by andyl 13y ago

pvnick 13y ago

We know much less about the climate than we do about evolution.

andyl 13y ago
Yeah - it's all just so mysterious and uncertain. 97% of climate scientists might say that human produced carbon causes warming. (http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus) But that's just their opinion. There is still doubt. The imperative is to protect the oil and gas industry, and keep putting carbon into the atmosphere. It's great for the economy, and some say it's good for plants!
- pvnick 13y ago
  "Consensus" is not a valid scientific argument. For the longest time it was the "consensus" that the earth was flat and that existence was only 6000 years old (although not if you ask early Catholic theologians - they always saw Genesis in a metaphoric light, but I digress). Between this and your last comment, your "scientific" arguments aren't very persuasive, they sound more like daily kos talking points.
  - mikeash 13y ago
    When was it the "consensus" that the Earth was flat? As far as I understand it, the Earth has been known to be round for approximately as long as people both thought to ask the question and attempt to figure out an answer. "Consensus" may not give us proof, but in the absence of compelling evidence against it, it's fairly strong. Yep, they could be wrong. But it's not the way to bet.
    - pvnick 13y ago
      >When was it the "consensus" that the Earth was flat? I don't know man I just threw that down as a hypothetical. Look at the sibling comment next to mine for a more well-thought-out refutation :)
  - lobster_johnson 13y ago
    No, that was never the concensus among scientists. Scientific consensus is a valid argument in the same sense that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof"; the probability that mainstream science is wrong and you are right is low, proportionally to the amount of science at either end. The fact that the Earth is round was known by the Greeks and has been acknowledged ever since, not least following several circumnavigations by people such as Magellan. The notion that people (scientists and laymen alike) believed in a flat earth is really a popular myth perpetrated, probably, to make the Columbus story more interesting. Columbus knew perfectly well that the Earth was round. The fact that Earth and the universe are very old was pretty much agreed upon since the 18th century with the arrival of geology as a branch of science. Aristotle thought the universe was infinite in age. The Hindus thought it was billions of years old. The 6000 year thing is a very recent Christian idea.
    - pvnick 13y ago
      >Aristotle thought the universe was infinite in age If we're going to nit-pick, this was the scientific "consensus" until a Catholic priest postulated the big bang.
      - lobster_johnson 13y ago
        Considering that there are indications that black holes contain universes, implying that "big bangs" happen more than once, Aristotle's idea may not be wrong. [1] http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/04/100409-black-holes-alternate-universe-multiverse-einstein-wormholes/ http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/04/100409-black...
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    > For the longest time it was the "consensus" that the earth was flat and that existence was only 6000 years old Actually, the educated (still pre-scientific, as the scientific method wasn't really established as a thing) consensus had turned against the former before the latter was even a thing, much less a consensus (which it never really was, either the first time, ~AD 500 with biblically-based -- from the Septuagint -- estimates of the date of creation ~5500 BC, or the second time ~AD 2000 with biblically-based -- from the Masoretic texr -- estimates of the date of creation ~4000 BC.)
- baddox 13y ago
  Consensus is not science. 97% of "biologists" in the 17th century might have said that acquired traits are heritable, or perhaps that there is no common ancestry among species, but that is scientifically false now and was scientifically false then (barring for the moment epigenetics and neo-Lamarckism). Of course, without the luxury of hindsight, you can't really be sure yourself unless you are more confident in your scientific abilities than the so-called experts at the time or are able to personally recreate experiments and observe contradictory results (which is unlikely for things like speciation and climate change). Note that I'm not saying I believe any specific theories are correct or incorrect. I'm just trying to make a general statement that appeals to consensus are themselves not that useful and are certainly not "science." Also note that I am well aware that opposing political groups might purposefully publicize articles disagreeing with the consensus in order to make it seem like there is less of a consensus than there actually is.
jlgreco 13y ago
You could say that of very many things... perhaps even most things. The body of research we have on evolution is awe inspiring.