22 Aug 07
Is science democratic?
I listened to an interesting conversation with Nigel Calder, a science writer and one of the first editors of New Scientist, the other day.(http://www.abc.net.au/rn/inconversation/stories/2007/1998485.htm)
He describes some of the classic paradigm changing events in science - think Wegener and Continental Drift as a relatively recent one - as a reason for science not being democratic. That is, what the majority think does not make a scientific argument any more or less valid.
He also discusses some of the recent work around the climate change area and discussed some work done with cosmic rays and the sun.
(http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1363818.ece)
Now, I'm inclined to think that the large majority of climate scientists are not wrong on this and that we need to do stuff to help reduce our negative impacts. But there are some interesting and well known people (Freeman Dyson is another) who oppose this view.
Makes for interesting discussions anyway ...
22 Aug 07
Originally posted by amannionVery true, though you have to be careful when saying that "the majority isn't always right" as some seem to equate that to saying that "the minority tend to be right". The reason there is generally a consensus on an issue is because the evidence at the time supports the view. If new evidence comes to light, the freedom with which science can undergo a paradigm shift means new discoveries don't go wasted. In the meantime though, until evidence is presented that I'm happy with, I won't be changing my mind.
Is science democratic?
I listened to an interesting conversation with Nigel Calder, a science writer and one of the first editors of New Scientist, the other day.(http://www.abc.net.au/rn/inconversation/stories/2007/1998485.htm)
He describes some of the classic paradigm changing events in science - think Wegener and Continental Drift as a relatively r ...[text shortened]... (Freeman Dyson is another) who oppose this view.
Makes for interesting discussions anyway ...
22 Aug 07
For any uncertainty, there is often a "scientific consensus" which means the majority of scientists agree that one of the possibilities is the correct one. In this respect science is democratic, and assumes that the majority are intellectually honest. However these scientists don't determine natural law in the same way that voters determine society's law.
22 Aug 07
Originally posted by amannionScience may not be democratic but it has been highly politicized regarding the field of "global warming." If you're a contrarian, you may be branded a heretic, a stooge to the petroleum industry or even lose your job. Some "global warming" zealots are already calling for Nuremburg-style trials for "global warming" deniers. If anything, many of the scientists laboring in the field of "global warming" theory have taken on the attributes of Soviet-style apparatchiks. Whenever one of their members breaks rank, or heaven forbid, presents new evidence that contradicts the pre-established party line, he's quickly denounced, ostracized and excommunicated.
Is science democratic?
I listened to an interesting conversation with Nigel Calder, a science writer and one of the first editors of New Scientist, the other day.(http://www.abc.net.au/rn/inconversation/stories/2007/1998485.htm)
He describes some of the classic paradigm changing events in science - think Wegener and Continental Drift as a relatively r ...[text shortened]... (Freeman Dyson is another) who oppose this view.
Makes for interesting discussions anyway ...
22 Aug 07
Originally posted by amannionThe beauty of science is that efforts are being made to include GCRs into the models. The sooner the better say I.
Is science democratic?
I listened to an interesting conversation with Nigel Calder, a science writer and one of the first editors of New Scientist, the other day.(http://www.abc.net.au/rn/inconversation/stories/2007/1998485.htm)
He describes some of the classic paradigm changing events in science - think Wegener and Continental Drift as a relatively r ...[text shortened]... (Freeman Dyson is another) who oppose this view.
Makes for interesting discussions anyway ...
e.g. http://www.agu.org/meetings/fm05/fm05-sessions/fm05_A52B.html
22 Aug 07
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterBe careful to look at exactly why they have been ostracized. When I've looked into some of the cases (e.g. Claude Allegre), it turns out it was because the guy was talking bull.
Science may not be democratic but it has been highly politicized regarding the field of "global warming." If you're a contrarian, you may be branded a heretic, a stooge to the petroleum industry or even lose your job. Some "global warming" zealots are already calling for Nuremburg-style trials for "global warming" deniers. If anything, many of th ...[text shortened]... the pre-established party line, he's quickly denounced, ostracized and excommunicated.
I highly doubt an experienced geochemist is going to easily confuse multimillion year geological cycles with a 100 year fluctuation.
Obviously the zealots calling for Nuremburg-style trials are idiots.
22 Aug 07
Originally posted by amannionThere is a difference between science and:
Makes for interesting discussions anyway ...
1. Politics influenced by science.
2. Politics in the scientific community.
3. Scientific thought being affected by politics or religious beliefs.
etc.
With regards to climate change there are a number of aspects to it, and a lot of the debate surrounding it is not science at all.
For example, science may attempt to answer the following questions:
1. Is the climate changing?
2. How is it changing?
3. What is causing it?
4. What are the likely effects if it changes in a certain way?
5. Are we able to affect the changes by changing our behavior?
It cannot answer the questions:
1. Should we do something about it.
2. What should we do about it.
3. Who should get the most funds to do research on it.
etc.
However there are a lot of people who have political or economic reasons for wanting the scientific results to go a certain way and are willing to suppress information or even falsify information and spread disinformation. Also there is a strong tendency to hype or make outrageous or excessive claims based on scientific data (this happens throughout the scientific community not just climate change science).
It is also very common for a scientist to do a study, make some scientific findings and then hypothesize a bit as well often without any rigorous scientific baking for the hypothesis. This is then taken up and misinterpreted either intentionally or not by other politically interested parties.
For example I may prove that the Atlantic ocean is warming and then hypothesize as to why and that all oceans are warming similarly. A politician may then take my report and claim that I have shown scientifically that all oceans are warming and why.
22 Aug 07
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterAre you a scientist? You don't sound like you know much about how science operates.
Science may not be democratic but it has been highly politicized regarding the field of "global warming." If you're a contrarian, you may be branded a heretic, a stooge to the petroleum industry or even lose your job. Some "global warming" zealots are already calling for Nuremburg-style trials for "global warming" deniers. If anything, many of th ...[text shortened]... the pre-established party line, he's quickly denounced, ostracized and excommunicated.
You need to separate politicians making claims and lambasting deniers with scientists simply asking for a solid case before they back it.
You equate there being no opposing voices in science as them obviously being coerced into remaining so. Scientists love being the ones to buck trends, but only if we have the evidence to back us up. As there is no evidence whatsoever to date which undermines mans pole position as the primary cause of the current trend, there are is little contradiction.
But don't worry, if you really want to believe in a world where the entire scientific establishment is out to get you, fine, but accept it as that and nothing more.