13 Apr 12
Originally posted by JS357Maybe I don't want to let this remark about probability go unanswered. I am not comfortable at all with the claim that science can only make probability / probabilistic statements. The sun will not probably rise tomorrow. My car will not probably run on diesel or probably not run on washing up liquid. Looking out for that tiny corpuscle of lingering doubt is reminiscent of Epicurus and his swerving atoms. A scientific statement may be false. It does not have to be probabilistic. It is a good scientific statement to say that if you use this rope for a bungee jump you will not crash into the ground. It is not a very useful one to add “probably” as you push your volunteer off the side of a tall building. Until you are certain, you do not advise jumping.
I'll draw one more conclusion that might arguably be unsupported by the material, but is triggered by it. Western science, especially in the U.S., is being pushed into making statements with certainty, that are really, probabilistic. A prime example is global warming. Part of the reason for this push, is political. The reason it works, is because a large segm ...[text shortened]... nd the "style" of pulpit rhetoric is mimicked by the semi-secular and secular commentators.
There is not "Biblical certainty" that smoking will cause lung cancer in the case of every single smoker, so that is a reason to keep smoking. The trouble is that, depending how you frame the question, there actually is "Biblical certainty" that smoking does cause lung cancer, a statement which allows room for some individuals to die before that happens and some others to live long, smoke filled lives for reasons that we need to examine further. Phrased differently, in a population of smokers lung cancer will be prevalent to a degree entirely different to a population of non smokers. That is not probably true. It is just true with certainty. We will not find a new theory one day that will mean the population of smokers is no different to the population of non smokers in this respect and why would we?
In the case of climate science, there is no lingering doubt about the broad outlines of what is coming in terms of global warming. There is some doubt about the trajectory (how much by what date) but it is uncertain only within a range. There is some doubt about the specific consequences, but not about their general direction. There is no doubt that some of the consequences - such as rising sea levels - can be mapped in great detail and they are shocking. Okay, we can draw different maps for 2, 4, and 6 degree rises and be uncertain which will happen, but we are certain that if, say, it is 4 degrees then there is a definite map of its impact on coastal areas. We even know about climate change in the past and periods with high concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere in the past. Good for reptiles apparently. Any reptiles on this site?
One area of uncertainty with climate change is human action to alter the current pattern of causation. Maybe humans will do something intelligent - that is a hypothetical possibility not to be entirely discounted. This still does not transform what we know about climate change into a probability statement. If A and B then C.
It is not surprising that others seek to manipulate us by playing on our lack of statistical understanding. The tobacco industry, climate change deniers and others have vested interests which are at odds with those of humanity. When individuals (including all too human politicians) display such confusion about these kind of statements, that is a natural failing in evolutionary terms - since we did not evolve with statistical minds. It is a tiresome failing in educational terms since a decent education would include some grasp of the basic concepts of probability and an ability to perform elementary reasoning.