5 ms·

Since when did the science go from attempting to discern an objective truth to advocacy? Advocacy of what? Shouldn't it be the duty of a scientist to be an adv

Since when did the science go from attempting to discern an objective truth to advocacy? Advocacy of what? Shouldn't it be the duty of a scientist to be an advocate for better understanding of objective truth? Do you really think researchers should allow misuse of science to go unopposed? What the researchers in this case are guilty of is not advocacy of a position, they're guilty of reckless disregard for scientific integrity. This is the case even if their position is correct. the data would be manipulated by evildoers therefore the only people who can be trusted to interpret and even hold the data are some select group of scientists. Well, it would be manipulated by "evildoers". There's no shortage of unscrupulous individuals seeking political gain on both sides of the climate debate. And chances are, the number of people outside their field of study who could correctly interpret the data is vanishingly small. But it's still not an acceptable excuse. The practical endeavor of science relies heavily on researchers acting in good faith, and on deferring to authorities in other fields, as no one has time to go back and personally recheck everyone else's conclusions. "Because the experts say so" is, generally speaking, a perfectly valid reason to accept a scientific conclusion--which is why even the appearance of impropriety is grossly damaging. It undermines the foundation of trust that the whole system is built on.

pbhjpbhj 17y ago
The practical endeavor of science relies heavily on researchers acting in good faith, and on deferring to authorities in other fields, as no one has time to go back and personally recheck everyone else's conclusions. Although scientific progress relies on someone with integrity checking the methodology and results - peer review and verification of experimental results. The conclusions are the basis of the hypotheses on which the future experiments rest and so are tested by those experiments. Climate is a chaotic system, non-Newtonian, we don't really know what's going to happen until it does. We have an idea of arching trends but the rationale of greenhouse effects leading to a mini ice-age (say) seems a priori consistent as an outsider. "Because the experts say so" is, generally speaking, a perfectly valid reason to accept a scientific conclusion--which is why even the appearance of impropriety is grossly damaging. Depends on what you have riding on the conclusions. In any field there are usually different factions of experts and you should consider all positions. If all experts agree (!) then assuming that position is probably not going to materially affect you even if they are not exactly on the right path. Often it takes outsiders to shake up a field. Personally I'm with "House", assume everyone is lying (or at least wrong) and you're usually right.
- camccann 17y ago
  Peer review and such is more of a quick sanity check than anything else--in principle it's about verifying soundness, in practice it's more a quick and dirty filter to remove absolute rubbish. It'd be nice if things were more rigorous, but there are systematic limitations--e.g., triple checking someone else's work and not finding any problems does not advance one's scientific career. It tends to work out well enough most of the time, though. In any field there are usually different factions of experts and you should consider all positions. If all experts agree (!) then assuming that position is probably not going to materially affect you even if they are not exactly on the right path. Really? I can't actually think of any scientific fields with significant factional divides. Disagreements over trivia, perhaps (such as quantum mechanical interpretations), but nothing major. Disputes over major issues in science tend to be worked out pretty quickly, rarely persisting as stable factions. And yes, on the current topic, experts in climatology do pretty consistently agree on the science (proposed political "solutions" are another matter entirely...). What did you have in mind? Factional wars may crop up around the fringes in fields that are only partially scientific, but it's typically parts of the field that are especially difficult to study scientifically that the factions split over. Often it takes outsiders to shake up a field. Often? Really? Do you have any examples? The only significant shakeups in science that I can think of were started by people trained and acknowledged in the field (though typically young, obscure researchers, not famous and influential scientists). Personally I'm with "House", assume everyone is lying (or at least wrong) and you're usually right. In matters of science, everyone is wrong, but some are less wrong than others.
  - pbhjpbhj 17y ago
    Disagreements over trivia, perhaps (such as quantum mechanical interpretations) Lol, the very nature of reality itself == trivia.

pbhjpbhj 17y ago

The practical endeavor of science relies heavily on researchers acting in good faith, and on deferring to authorities in other fields, as no one has time to go back and personally recheck everyone else's conclusions. Although scientific progress relies on someone with integrity checking the methodology and results - peer review and verification of experimental results. The conclusions are the basis of the hypotheses on which the future experiments rest and so are tested by those experiments. Climate is a chaotic system, non-Newtonian, we don't really know what's going to happen until it does. We have an idea of arching trends but the rationale of greenhouse effects leading to a mini ice-age (say) seems a priori consistent as an outsider. "Because the experts say so" is, generally speaking, a perfectly valid reason to accept a scientific conclusion--which is why even the appearance of impropriety is grossly damaging. Depends on what you have riding on the conclusions. In any field there are usually different factions of experts and you should consider all positions. If all experts agree (!) then assuming that position is probably not going to materially affect you even if they are not exactly on the right path. Often it takes outsiders to shake up a field. Personally I'm with "House", assume everyone is lying (or at least wrong) and you're usually right.

camccann 17y ago
Peer review and such is more of a quick sanity check than anything else--in principle it's about verifying soundness, in practice it's more a quick and dirty filter to remove absolute rubbish. It'd be nice if things were more rigorous, but there are systematic limitations--e.g., triple checking someone else's work and not finding any problems does not advance one's scientific career. It tends to work out well enough most of the time, though. In any field there are usually different factions of experts and you should consider all positions. If all experts agree (!) then assuming that position is probably not going to materially affect you even if they are not exactly on the right path. Really? I can't actually think of any scientific fields with significant factional divides. Disagreements over trivia, perhaps (such as quantum mechanical interpretations), but nothing major. Disputes over major issues in science tend to be worked out pretty quickly, rarely persisting as stable factions. And yes, on the current topic, experts in climatology do pretty consistently agree on the science (proposed political "solutions" are another matter entirely...). What did you have in mind? Factional wars may crop up around the fringes in fields that are only partially scientific, but it's typically parts of the field that are especially difficult to study scientifically that the factions split over. Often it takes outsiders to shake up a field. Often? Really? Do you have any examples? The only significant shakeups in science that I can think of were started by people trained and acknowledged in the field (though typically young, obscure researchers, not famous and influential scientists). Personally I'm with "House", assume everyone is lying (or at least wrong) and you're usually right. In matters of science, everyone is wrong, but some are less wrong than others.
- pbhjpbhj 17y ago
  Disagreements over trivia, perhaps (such as quantum mechanical interpretations) Lol, the very nature of reality itself == trivia.