5 ms·
Thought experiment: What would internal correspondence look like in evolutionary biology circles if the intelligent design movement had the resources of those w
by crux_ 17y ago
Thought experiment: What would internal correspondence look like in evolutionary biology circles if the intelligent design movement had the resources of those who seek to refute the man-made climate change hypothesis?
For a taste of what they already deal with: http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Lenski_affair http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Lenski_affair
Thought experiment continued: What if the intelligent design movement is right, and the theory of evolution had subtle flaws that were kept under wraps? Would the hypothetical internal correspondence be different in any way?
All this release does is shine the light on the inevitable politicization of the process; it says nothing about the conclusions. (The sausage-making process doesn't necessarily make them wrong -- or right.)
- jeremyw 17y agoPoint taken. But the opposition (in any game) plays a critical role in disrupting safe methodology and keeping data/rules honest. Note IPCC reports have substantially lowered earlier predictions and findings have more weight. The science is better for the effort to "prove it."
- crux_ 17y agoThe issue would be that the intelligent design people are playing the game of politics while evolutionary biologists are playing the game of science. (This should be mostly uncontroversial, I hope ...) This may or may not be the exact same situation with climate science, but I don't think think many would dispute that at least a significant portion the opposition to global warming is purely political. At that point, what paths are left besides losing the game or entering the politics/PR arena as well? The science has suffered as a result, not been strengthened; the most damning excerpts are evidence enough of that.
- jeremyw 17y agoErrors are errors. It doesn't really matter from what source they are discovered. It's important for future work that they be eliminated. The number of times I been able to talk to a climate scientist is few, but always full of hedging. It's a young science and predictions are always difficult (to say the least.) Scientific certainty is a sham. The best bet is to consider near-term action an insurance policy against potential outcomes.
- crux_ 17y agoI don't agree with your premise that any opposition is always a net benefit. Do you really believe that the intelligent design movement is making the science of evolution stronger or better? (Please don't misread this: I do believe that climate science needs and benefits from skeptics, dissent, and alternative theories. I just don't believe that any opposition is good opposition, and in particular I believe that political opposition makes for worse science.)
- jeremyw 17y agoI made no such point.
- jbellis 17y agoOnce you start playing "the ends justify the means," you're not doing science anymore.
- crux_ 17y agoI'm not sure where means/ends comes from. My point was that politicization alone accounts for the tone and content of the internal correspondence on display, regardless of the soundness of the actual science.
- jbellis 17y agoIt sounds an awful lot like you were arguing by analogy that it's okay to conspire to hide or even fudge your data if you are a Right Thinking Person defending the world from Evil Polluters. Ends, means.
- crux_ 17y agoI included the second part of the thought experiment specifically to prevent creating that impression. Guess it didn't work.
- spamizbad 17y agoIf the evolution had the same impact shaping economic policy (or any policy for that matter) as global warming, I could guarantee you a similar scenario as to what we have before us. It does not, and humans place way more value on money than they do dogma, so evolution is safe and global warming will be controversial regardless of our ultimate findings. Climate data does not make global warming a lightening-rod issue. What makes it such a controversial issue is that, if true, it would require dramatic changes to the way the First World operates.