SPOTLIGHT: As the influence of religion has waned, we’ve placed science on a pedestal – mistaking it for an oracle of truth.
BIG PICTURE: Richard Harris has written a startling book about the state of medical research. The preface to Rigor Mortis: How Sloppy Science Creates Worthless Cures, Crushes Hope, and Wastes Billions
includes a warning about scientific naivety:
Most of science is built on inference rather than direct observation…Science progresses by testing ideas indirectly, throwing out the ones that seem wrong…Gradually, scientists build stories that do a better job of approximating the truth.
But at any given moment, there are parallel narratives, sometimes sharply at odds with one another. Scientists rely on their own individual judgments to decide which stories come closest to the truth…Some stories that seem on the fringe today will become the accepted narrative some years from now. (italics added)
During the years I’ve spent examining the climate debate, I’ve tried to communicate precisely these ideas. Millions of people think there’s a climate crisis because ‘science says.’ But in addition to being hazy and incomplete, that science relies on indirect reasoning and judgment calls.
Scientists, being human, are susceptible to bias, groupthink, self-interest, and tribalism. We often hear that 97% of scientists think climate change is caused primarily by human beings. This, let us be clear, is an opinion.
Ideas championed by the greatest minds of one era are frequently tossed into the dustbin by the next. Google eugenics. Or continental drift. Or germ theory. Or stomach ulcers.
For decades, Pluto was a planet. Then it wasn’t. As a non-scientist, I once thought such matters were straightforward. I was naive.
TOP TAKEAWAY: In Harris’ words, scientists “are groping around at the edges of knowledge.” This means we need to be careful, indeed, when basing laws and government policies on scientific findings.
Read more at Big Pic News
Our society functions well because it allows people to specialize in one area, like law ,medicine , car assembly, farming, etc.. We trust the specialists to do their part so that we can focus on our part.
It’s not perfect because we’re not perfect. We slip into traps like politics and tribalism, where winning is everything.
If I just graduated with a science degree and the student loan that came with it, would I join the climate change team?
Remember that Michael Mann was a newbie, fast-tracked into the IPCC ,ahead of others who were reluctant to play fast and loose. I’m willing to allow that he and his kind can serve as bad examples. Honesty goes unnoticed because it’s expected.
Medical science saved my life. That is a truth I can live with. It also added 37 years to my father’s life.
I have a lot of education in science and can say that the article is right in that science is built on inference rather than direct observation and at any given moment, there are parallel narratives, sometimes sharply at odds with one another. However, the article implies that we can not believe science and this is wrong. The electron can not be observed so we know about it from inference. However, it is pretty certain that it exists. In the true scientific process as more data is gathered and tested hopefully we come closer to the truth. We have to keep an open mind as different alternatives are considered.
The problem with climate science as practiced is it is not a science at all. It is a political movement. In order to support the political objectives the science is predetermined. Data is collected to support the political objective and when they encounter data that doesn’t, it is either ignored, hidden, or changed. Invalid techniques are used such as selecting low or high values as a base line.
There is a lot to learn from science. The trouble is the fake science of climate change has compromised the integrity of all science.
We once received knowledge from our friends’ anecdotes, such as “they say that….” . It was up to the listener to sort out the BS. Now we have the Internet in our pocket. What better way to spread disinformation? ” 97% concensus among peer – reviewed scientists” is an obvious example. Repeat it over and over, hypnotic and effective.
The global warming story was losing credibility, so “they” changed the label to climate change. “They” said CO2
can cause both warming AND cooling. ” They” say carbon taxes are the cure. Obviously not sound science.
The 97% look more and more like “they”, unaccountable and unaccounted for.
Just remember they were so into the lie that the Earth was the center of the Universe they persicuted Galileo for daring to go against the status quo just like with Evolution and science books showing the fake embeos