You cannot outlaw a scientific theory or a fact.
But that does not stop those idiots from trying.
Four hundred and ten years ago, the Holy Inquisition burned Friar Bruno at the stake for, in part, positing the existence of other worlds outside of the solar system. We now know that extrasolar planets exist, over 400 extrasolar planets have been found.
When legislators try to outlaw a scientific theory, or mandate the teaching of stuff that is nothing more than religious witchcraft masquerading as science, they only succeed in making their states appear to be cesspits of ignorance and stupidity.
Determining the validity of any scientific hypothesis or theory is not the job of lawmakers.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
Heretic! Your notion that scientists, not politicians, should determine what is science and what is not, is elitist! Good upstanding salt of the earth like Joe the Plumber are far better qualified than, like, a buncha pencil-neck geeks with IQ's that are larger than a redneck momma's butt cheeks, to tell us what is true and not true.
Cue scene from Blazing Saddles...
"These people are the common clay....the salt of the earth... you know.....
...Morons".
-- Badtux the Tongue-in-beak Penguin
How are we to know the facts in a case like climate change. We know business will fund lies to keep the status quo. We now know that politically motivated scientist will lie just as easily.
Science is, at its core, driven by data. Data can be checked. If the data doesn't support the theory, or if new data shows the theory is wrong, the theory will fall. That's how science works.
What the energy companies are doing is the same that the tobacco companies did for many, many decades. And it is just as despicable.
Nap Flyer, though your post is fundamentaly correct, the flaw lies in the fact that us 'Joes' cannot correctly analyze all the data available. It is too much and too technical to comprehend. That just doesn't apply to climate data either, pick any technical field or science and the same problem exists.
We, as a people, rely on experts to break it down into manageable pieces. Oh, to have a few more Carl Sagans around would be a wonderful thing. We are at the mercy of those who can manipulate the facts best, at the moment it is big business who will lose many $$$$ and all governments who are in bed with those same busineses(sp?).
For the record, I know we are in deep sh#t climate wise. I have already apologized to my daughter for the mess we made.
Allan
Allan, I cannot do subatomic particle physics either. But I, or any reasonably intelligent person, am capable of looking at the end product of science -- crap, I'm staring at that right in front of my face, if not for the work particle physicists did about movement of electrons in substrates you wouldn't be reading this on your computer -- and realizing that, for whatever its warts, actual science as done by scientists using the scientific process works and thus the best policy is to leave science to the scientists if it's about something you have difficulty understanding. When politicians have as good of a track record as scientists maybe I'll re-evaluate that based on that new information. Wait, that's the scientific method, and everybody knows that truth simply "is" and you don't need to test it against actual, like, facts ;).
- Badtux the Snarky Penguin
" everybody knows that truth simply "is" and you don't need to test it against actual, like, facts ;)."
This appears to be the current argument of the climate change supporters. We know some of the scientist have been dishonest. There is no way for me to gather my own data. There is no longer any source I can use (that I have faith in) to get data from. So how do people develop an informed opinion? I don't have the answer.
Science has its own way to deal with dishonesty, which is to trust the data, not the scientists. The fact that one scientist lied does not make the data anything other than the data. Science has a process for dealing with this, and there is a consensus amongst reputable climate scientists that global warming is happening and that the primary cause is human-created carbon dioxide releases. The only people *not* saying this are people who are being paid by carbon-releasing companies to say it, and politicians.
I know science and the scientific process works because I see its results right in front of my face. I repeat: Who should I believe -- scientists actually doing climate science, or some politician?
Oh yeah, I forgot, here is where you drag out some tin foil hat conspiracy theory that scientists can somehow "conspire". Thats as ridiculous as the notion of my cats conspiring. Have you ever actually met any scientists? A more contentious, back-stabbing bunch of malcontents you'll never see in your life. Every scientist I've ever met would kill his own mother if it'd win him a Nobel Prize for disproving something that people think is true. Politically motivated scientists might lie, but the notion of him getting away with a lie over more than a few months is pretty much nil, some other credit-hogging scientist will go check the actual data and stab the liar in the back and gloat over it. Dude. Cats. Conspiring. You make me laugh with that notion!
- Badtux the Science-observin' Penguin
Jeff,
If we follow the climate change crowd and they are wrong all we lose is money, probably no more than the equivalent of a good war or two.
If we follow the climate change deniers and they are wrong we are all screwed big time with no recourse.
Which way do you really want to go?
Aww crap, I had a rather long reply for Bad Tux and it went missing.
Montag, I agree, but the problem with that line of reasoning is the same sort of reasoning on terorism is what the Rethugs have been using to destroy our democracy.
"Oh yeah, I forgot, here is where you drag out some tin foil hat conspiracy theory that scientists can somehow "conspire". Thats as ridiculous as the notion of my cats conspiring."
Except the stolen emails show that at least some scientists were doing exactly that. Conspiring.
Like I said before. I expect big business to lie for profit. Now I have no one to trust. How can I look at the data? Other than my own thermoymeter and I don't remember what that showed yesterday and I don't keep a log for the last 50 yrs. How do you find data you know is sound?
This really isn't meant to be argumentative. It's a serious problem if you are trying to form an informed opinion.
If you saw scientists conspiring with those stolen emails, you're being silly. All I saw was scientists having a disagreement about what certain data meant and whether it was relevant to the problem at hand, and coming to a consensus that it wasn't based upon various scientific reasons and would only confuse the political sorts if it were included. I have those kinds of discussions with my co-workers every day as we try to figure out how to present our data and conclusions to our upper management. Does that mean we're conspiring? No. That is just how the process works, we look at a particular data set, decide whether it is meaningful or not, and if it is not meaningful we don't include it in our report because it would just confuse our upper management, which expects to see only relevant data and would get the wrong conclusion that the irrelevant data was, in fact, relevant, if we did include it in the report.
Does this mean we're conspiring against our upper management? No. We're trying to give them the best advice we can give them about whatever it is they asked us to give them a report about. Talking about some irrelevant data in the course of doing so would be us falling down on our job, because our duty is to tell the managers what they need to know, not to tell them things they *don't* need to know.
You sound like you work in some sort of drone job where no analysis of data is needed, and that you've never had to give reports to managers before. But that's not the sort of environment that those of us doing scientific endeavors work in. Regularly we have to analyze data to see whether it is relevant to our problem set or not. And sometimes there is disagreement, and we discuss that disagreement -- but that's not conspiracy, that is scientific discussion.
- Badtux the Scientific Penguin
Yes, I must be a drone because I don't ignore conflicting data.
"All I saw was scientists having a disagreement about what certain data meant and whether it was relevant to the problem at hand, and coming to a consensus that it wasn't based upon various scientific reasons"
Isn't all data based on various scientific reason?
I saw emails where scientist were discussing how to marginalize and exclude others with dissenting opinions. That would be conspiracy.
I understand that some data can be "faulty" or inaccurate. These guys seemed to be starting with their minds made up and ignoring any data that would cast doubt upon their ideas about what the outcome should be. That is not scientific method.
"sometimes there is disagreement, and we discuss that disagreement -- but that's not conspiracy, that is scientific discussion."
Again, some of these emails seemed to discuss ways to stifle any discussion that didn't support their theory, at least to my feeble mind.
"Who should I believe -- scientists actually doing climate science, or some politician? "
I'm sure there are many ethical and honest scientist doing climate research. Those guys at the East Anglia CRU weren't. They have done enormous damage to the whole issue and publics perception of science in general.
Way to spout the right-wing talking points, "Jeff"! The fact of the matter is that BOTH SETS OF SCIENTISTS INVOLVED AGREED THAT THE DATA SET INVOLVED WAS INVALID. The only disagreement amongst them was that one set of scientists wanted to mention the data and the reasons it was invalid, while the other set of scientists wanted to just not mention it because it would confuse the non-scientists. In short, it was an editorial dispute over the format of a report, *NOT* a dispute over the science itself.
I swear, right-wing talking points get dumber and dumber every day. Be glad you're not in England, "Jeff". The folks at East Anglia have sued Fox UK for slandering them, and that IS what they've done -- and UK libel laws support them, unlike here in the USA where the media can spew lies without any repercussion. In the end, a jury of Englishmen are going to hand down a multi-million pound judgement against Fox UK. Way to go, jumping in on the side of libelers! What next, you jump in on the side of pedophiles?
- Badtux the Disgusted Penguin
Way to keep it rational.
Post a Comment