Science is not a matter of debate. It is not a matter of democracy. You don’t get to debate what is true.
I can’t believe I have scepticeye’s back on this one as he and I have gone at it tooth and nail over AGW, but you are absolutely wrong on this point. Science is all about debate. No, science is not democratic, but debate is essential to good science. Without debate we’d still believe the Earth is the center of the Universe.
> It should not be allying itself so transparently and openly with one side of ANY debate where there are reasonable arguments on both sides.
Really? How about intelligent design? How about astrology? How about voodoo? How about leprechauns?
These are ridiculous examples. ID is not science it is religion. Astrology is superstitious nonsense. Voodoo is religion. Leprechauns? You cannot be serious, bringing up Leprechauns with when we are debating science. You may as well bring up the Invisible Pink Unicorn.
I don’t agree with scepticeye when it comes to the causes of global warming or climate change or whatever label you want to put on what is happening to our planet, but the examples you proffered are dead wrong and do nothing to bolster your argument.
I thought this podcast was really good, and that Chris continues to give very literate and thought-provoking interviews. I think the 3 interviewer approach works so far because all three are well-connected individuals who can bring in good topics and guests. Chris is broadening the previous scope of POI and doing a great job of it.
Everything changes—and as far as science journalism is concerned it is sometimes hard to see the big picture of the trends, so a discussion between two knowledgeable and experienced folks like these two is interesting. When I was in junior high Scientific American was fascinating to me and I was sorry when they changed the format. And Isaac Asimov individually made a lot of science accessible. Nowadays we have Discover magazine which we didn’t have years ago - the New York Times started a Science section on Tuesdays. Science News was around 40 years ago and it is still here. Carl Sagan individually made more science accessible and programs like Nova and Life on Earth changed things.
Anyway—stuff is always ending and new stuff is beginning and although I miss Stephen J Gould and Sagan and Asimov from another perspective it seems like there are more things to learn about than ever.
In regard to population—the [Club of Rome] was pessimistically noting the challenge of population growth in the late 60s (and what about [ Adam Smith] in the early 1800s) . I agree with other posters, Mooney, and Revkin that this seems like the ultimate “bubble”—- one might hope that the increased cost of fossil fuels will drive solar and nuclear energy as cheaper sources which are incidently cleaner, but it isn’t obvious that there is anything that can bring a “soft stop” to world population growth.
Thanks again for the effort going into this—I have been reading the Randy Olson Don’t be Such a Scientist book on a business trip and Chris is doing a good job combining style with substance.
sorry for the long post, I haven’t mastered the points in the Olson book….
Science is all about debate. No, science is not democratic, but debate is essential to good science. Without debate we’d still believe the Earth is the center of the Universe.
Well, debate? Rational discourse would be a better one. A debate can be won on all kind of grounds, truth is only one amongst others. A rational discourse, delt with by people that are prepared to give in based on a convincing argument, and based on actual data, is not debate.
Scepticeye has not delivered much data, but he gives great examples of debating techniques. He is a great master of the english language, his postings are close to literary masterpieces, for short, he is a great debater.
Well, at least that is less verbose than the previous comment.
scepticeye - 15 March 2010 05:13 PM
Which defines the Podcast as a fully fledged anti sceptic one. Closed to challenging voices. Closed to those who disagree. Sad.
Scientists are sceptics by definition. Those who refuse to accept the science without a coherent, evidence-based response are Deniers. You define yourself by your actions - not by how you describe yourself.
“Closed to challenging voices”? How would you know? You refused to listen.
“Closed to those who disagree” - again, science is not a democracy. It’s indifferent to what you want to be true. You can disagree until you turn blue, it won’t change reality: humans are releasing GHGs and heating the planet up.
...you are absolutely wrong on this point. Science is all about debate. No, science is not democratic, but debate is essential to good science. Without debate we’d still believe the Earth is the center of the Universe.
No, it is you who is completely wrong. Science is not a matter of debate. You don’t get to decide what is true by ‘debating’ it or voting on it or compromising on it. It is amazing how many self-described ‘sceptics’ don’t understand the very fundamentals of what science is or is not. I’d recommend starting here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
These are ridiculous examples. ID is not science it is religion. Astrology is superstitious nonsense. Voodoo is religion. Leprechauns? You cannot be serious, bringing up Leprechauns with when we are debating science. You may as well bring up the Invisible Pink Unicorn.
It seems your grasp of climate science and the Deniers’ arguments against it are also lacking. Their position is bereft of science as any other idiot belief. They are no less in denial of the truth than any creationist.
...the examples you proffered are dead wrong and do nothing to bolster your argument.
I wasn’t presenting an argument for the evidence of anthropogenic climate change. You seemed to have judged my comment as though I were. Perhaps read it again to see what I was really commenting on.
Darron and David, I do not believe you disagree on anything fundamental here. Darron, I might have used very similar language to describe the situation as David used. There is a sense in which, of course, debate is central to the scientific method, but it is debate among the scientists themselves, in particular those who are experts in the relevant field. Public debates among nonexperts, however, are irrelevant, and I think that was David’s point, which is why he was saying that science isn’t a democracy.
Re. intelligent design, again, you are both right. David is right that there is disagreement among scientists about ID. (Indeed, the Discovery Institute found 500 scientists who were willing to state publicly that they disagreed with it), but Darron is right that it is nevertheless not appropriately described as a scientific debate—since the experts in the relevant field are in virtually unanimous agreement about it.
So it depends what one considers “reasonable arguments”. Clearly, the arguments about ID are not reasonable to the experts, however they do seem reasonable to a significant portion of the general public, as do the arguments against AGW.
There is a sense in which, of course, debate is central to the scientific method, but it is debate among the scientists themselves, in particular those who are experts in the relevant field.
Indeed, but I think ‘debate’ is not the right word. It suggests a discussion and eventual agreement, depending on who produced the best arguments. In reality, climate science - like all other sciences - is a growing pyramid of evidence that has been tested to destruction and remains standing. Discovery of the greenhouse effect goes back to the 1850s with John Tyndall. Global warming science is as old as evolutionary science - and both can be considered fact as much as any science can be.
Public debates among nonexperts, however, are irrelevant, and I think that was David’s point, which is why he was saying that science isn’t a democracy.
Exactly. scepticeye’s opinion is worthless - just as mine is on the subject. We don’t all get a vote in what climate science says. This seems to upset some people - most likely because they recognise the implications of the science being true. The only legitimate way to influence the science is by producing peer-reviewed papers that destroys current theories or introduces new ones. To date, no one has refuted the science as presented in the IPCC AR4 WG1.
Clearly, the arguments about ID are not reasonable to the experts, however they do seem reasonable to a significant portion of the general public, as do the arguments against AGW.
Bullseye! “It’s the sun!” is as ridiculous to a climate scientist as “There are no transitional fossils!” is to an evolutionary scientist. Unfortunately, it is possible to confuse the public on both. Whether it’s “irreducible complexity” or “Medieval Warm Period”, the untrained and scientifically ignorant can be fooled by pseudo-science.
I believe that any evolutionary scientist would describe evolution by natural selection as ‘fact’. The same applies to any climate scientist: global warming is ‘fact’ - and I believe that we should all object anyone who declares themselves a ‘sceptic’ purely because they refuse to accept this while offering no science to support their ‘scepticism’.
It is not a battle of contradicting data, but of interpretation of data. And I have indeed attempted to discuss the problems with how and what data is being used in AGW many times on this forum only to meet the usual abuse and smearing by the anti-sceptics.
Scientists are sceptics by definition. Those who refuse to accept the science without a coherent, evidence-based response are Deniers. You define yourself by your actions - not by how you describe yourself.
You clearly have not read any of the threads and my posts where I have done just that. You should try to do some research before you throw around accusations.
“Closed to challenging voices”? How would you know? You refused to listen.
On what basis do you make that assertion ? I have spend several decades in science and research. I have read extensively on AGW. I read all of the threads on this forum.
Or is your assertion simply based on the fact that I refuse to agree with you ?
Exactly. scepticeye’s opinion is worthless - just as mine is on the subject. We don’t all get a vote in what climate science says. This seems to upset some people - most likely because they recognise the implications of the science being true. The only legitimate way to influence the science is by producing peer-reviewed papers that destroys current theories or introduces new ones. To date, no one has refuted the science as presented in the IPCC AR4 WG1.
Here DavidC you are completely correct.
My opinion and yours are utterly worthless in the scheme of science. And your statement about the scientific process is also true. Your last point about the IPCC is rubbish however.
What is also true, as a corollary to your correct assertion above, is that my opinion IS of worth when it comes to political action being demanded by the AGW followers. I know I can never change the minds of AGW scientists. But I can debate and argue and struggle to attempt to stop the political action and financial waste that is being demanded.
I can’t believe I have scepticeye’s back on this one as he and I have gone at it tooth and nail over AGW, but you are absolutely wrong on this point. Science is all about debate. No, science is not democratic, but debate is essential to good science. Without debate we’d still believe the Earth is the center of the Universe.
I know it seems ungrateful to be the recipient of such warm support and then disagree ... but what the hell ..
Science is not all about debate. But a critical element of science includes debate. When we measure and we observe and we gather and collate data and evidence there is no debate as long as it is collected and collated correctly. Debate plays no part. evidence should speak on it’s own.
However evidence rarely speaks so clearly without interpretation. What is the meaning of the evidence ? does it mean what it appears to mean ? does it imply other unknowns ? does it clarify or confuse ? These are all issues that require interpretation and, hence, debate.
As I said there are times when evidence speaks clearly. It makes simple statements about the truth of theories or the falseness of theories. My assertion in holding the views that I do is that this is not the case with AGW. There is extensive uncertainty about how the data was collected and is being interpreted and how the modeling is carried out. These are the grounds on which debate should be encouraged and continued.
To those of you in the US that may be irritated by waking up to what is periodically a series of posts by me, I apologise. Being in Europe I post at different times than you and my posts therefore don’t get spaced out as much as yours.
It is a huge disappointment for me to see the direction that this Podcast is going. I joined this forum seeking a refuge where rational thinking, logic and reasoning would prevail - along with a secular/atheistic viewpoint. ..............
alienating a huge group of rational and reasonable sceptics.
Real rational thinkers present evidence ~ rather than endlessly spewing hostile hot air.
You sound more and more like the mom watching the marching band then wondering why everyone excepting her son is out of step. And then getting huffy at the band because “they” don’t get their act together.
The only legitimate way to influence the science is by producing peer-reviewed papers that destroys current theories or introduces new ones. To date, no one has refuted the science as presented in the IPCC AR4 WG1.
