aphar: (lambda)
[personal profile] aphar
To get the trivial issues out of the way, let me state with utmost clarity that all the problems that humanity have ever solved were solved by science and technology - from staving off the Malthusian starvation with the Green revolution, to avoiding NYC being buried by horse manure. Thus I believe we should fund STEM research - DARPA, ARPA-e, NASA and national labs - at 101% of what scientists request (and 70+% of my compatriots agree with me!).

However, given the real and perceived "war on science" by the Trump administration, we need to understand what is really going on, and how to advance our progress.

The dominant explanation of the "war on science" is Knowledge Deficit: people don't know enough. This explanation is, apparently, wrong, because there is a (weak) positive correlation between science knowledge and skepticism of recommendations of climate scientists (IOW, more knowledgeable people - as determined by a quiz - are more skeptical).

Let me try to advance an alternative view of the apparent conflict.

There are two parts to what the scientists say:

We ("the literate public") certainly trust the scientists' area of expertise - the Positive statements.
However, there is no reason to trust their Normative statements any more than that of an average intelligent person.

The poster child of this attitude is the aforementioned "manure crisis": we did not need to do what the scientists recommended to solve it, it was solved by the automotive revolution.

Similarly, there is absolutely no need for wedges, treaties &c &c.

If it ever will be stopped, the climate change will be stopped by introducing new technology, so what we need is a stiff carbon tax without grandfather clauses which will make alternative energy more economically attractive (and maybe give extra money to STEM R&D).

Date: 2017-04-21 02:56 pm (UTC)
ymarkov: (Default)
From: [personal profile] ymarkov
Agreed with one caveat: "what we need is a stiff carbon tax" provided we believe that our emissions make an appreciable difference. That's debatable, AFAIK.

One nice thing that happened under Obama: NASA started outsourcing some routine lift operations. Hopefully it means it's devoting more to research.
Edited Date: 2017-04-21 02:58 pm (UTC)

Date: 2017-04-21 04:21 pm (UTC)
ymarkov: (Default)
From: [personal profile] ymarkov
First, I do see reasons to doubt that.

Second is uncoupled from the perceived AGW problem. In a word: fracking.

Third is uncoupled from the perceived AGW problem and is true only of coal, not true of natural gas, only somewhat true of oil. Fracking is rapidly moving us away from coal.

Date: 2017-04-21 08:32 pm (UTC)
ymarkov: (Default)
From: [personal profile] ymarkov
1. Yes, but one can debate the quality of the consensus (e.g., climate scientists vs. everybody else) and its relevance (it's not about facts, but their interpretation). Plus not all warming is bad. Plus there may be better ways to combat it than reducing emissions.

2. We're libertarians, no? That's what liability laws are for.

3. Ships suck, yes.

And the really important thing is the love and respect we have for each other even when we disagree.

Good Shabbos!
Edited Date: 2017-04-21 08:33 pm (UTC)

Date: 2017-04-25 06:41 pm (UTC)
signamax: (Default)
From: [personal profile] signamax
you keep bringing "consensus" thing

now from "economists"
they are the same economists that made "subprime mortgages" and "obamacare" possible
both are an economical nonsence

second, as ymarkov hints, it is not much of a skepticism, but people are voicing their concern that the whole "science" behind "climate change" is a scam.

back to 1:
@1. The 1st table in your 1st link: 80% think that at least half of GW is anthropogenic. 67% think mostly anthropogenic. I would call this a consensus@
nope, it is not a consensus. "consensus" means 100%
80% or 67% is a "democracy"

Date: 2017-04-25 06:57 pm (UTC)
signamax: (Default)
From: [personal profile] signamax
i actually think you are trolling

consensus is consensus
it is 100% or not

the rest is "democracy"
@the practitioners of the field call it consensus, so it is such.@ - funny,
"some" practitioners call it such, some don't

i have better things to do though
talk to you next time

@neither economics nor climate science are mathematics.
100% agreement does not exist there.@
meaning that this cannot be called a consensus

Date: 2017-04-26 02:52 am (UTC)
signamax: (Default)
From: [personal profile] signamax
to First
1. - keeping in mind that we are talking about 0.2C
you go to the hospital ER and say - "my body temperature is up by 0.2C"
you will be kicked out.

2 - keeping in mind that even that 0.2C are got with falsifications and data massaging

3 - keeping in mind that there is no really predictive model to say that this 0.2C will be a steady increase. Why? - see 2.

Date: 2017-04-25 03:25 pm (UTC)
signamax: (Default)
From: [personal profile] signamax
i totally missed the point here

the only "war on science" so to speak comes from science marches with stupid slogans

the only harm to science comes from massaging the data for whatever purpose - personal gain or "happiness for the entire mankind"

Date: 2017-04-25 03:56 pm (UTC)
signamax: (Default)
From: [personal profile] signamax
I have not

but as i said - i missed the point you were trying to make

Date: 2017-04-25 04:13 pm (UTC)
signamax: (Default)
From: [personal profile] signamax
@We ("the literate public") certainly trust the scientists' area of expertise - the Positive statements.@ - wrong statement
especially the word "certainly"

from this - you follow with
@If it ever will be stopped, the climate change will be stopped by introducing new technology@

yes, this is only if you "certainly trust" the massaged data about "global warming"

I don't

back to my initial comment

Date: 2017-04-25 04:31 pm (UTC)
signamax: (Default)
From: [personal profile] signamax
@"Scientific process" produces "scientific consensus" - the "positive statement" (AKA "scientific knowledge") I am talking about.@ - false assumption

it produces political consensus not scientific

scientific knowledge cannot be based on massaged data

basically you assume that scientists do not lie and do now ulterior motives
well... many of scientists do lie and do have ulterior motives
please, accept it as a fact

therefore your construct is actully opposite - there is a political consensus to which the data is massaged to show the convenient conclusion

does it happen 100% - ofcoz not
how often? - often ENOUGH to be a major problem in science

your PS is a statement of belief or loaylty or whatever
it has nothing to do with science

Date: 2017-04-25 04:41 pm (UTC)
signamax: (Default)
From: [personal profile] signamax
ты путаешь science and expertise

science is NOT to be trusted - any new scientific fact should be easily verifiable and reproducible by anybody (not an expert)

it usually (but not necessarily) takes an expert to discover a new scientific fact first.

that's all.
experts are not to be trusted.
their words are to be verified.
if an expert is caught on cheating - in my books s/he is not longer an expert and is demoted to a rand of a thief
Edited Date: 2017-04-25 04:48 pm (UTC)

Date: 2017-04-25 06:08 pm (UTC)
signamax: (Default)
From: [personal profile] signamax
how come I put words in your mouth if i am quoting you directly?

@If a paper is wrong (for whatever reason - blunder, incompetence, fabrication &c), it should be killed by peer review or retracted after publication if PR failed.@
the word that is far in reality here is "should'
in theory yes, practically - sometimes

@Otherwise it becomes a part of the "scientific consensus"@
yes, lies become a part of the "scientific consensus" - this is exactly what i am telling you

@Note that this has only tangential relevance to my original point.@
you call it tangential - i see it differently
you ORIGINAL assumption is that the "scientific consensus" is based on actual science in its pure form
this is a false assumption
the "scientific consensus" - not always but often enough to be concerning is based on anything but science : politics, egos, money, political correctness etc

i just wanted you to be aware that whatever conclusion you make based on "scientific consensus" (including funding science) is based on a false assumption.

Date: 2017-04-25 06:25 pm (UTC)
signamax: (Default)
From: [personal profile] signamax
come again?

this is how I read you:
1.- scientific consensus is based on true scientific facts
2.- experts to be trusted
3. scientific consensus is relevant to positive statements

this is my responce:
1. - often not true
2. - never true
3. - scientific consensus from "1" is totally irrelevant to positive statements

then your main point:
"scientific consensus is only relevant to positive statements, not normative ones."

my point on that:
- scientific consensus from "1" is totally irrelevant to positive statements AND for normative ones.

However, scientific facts and conclusions coming from not massaged data are relevant for ANY science or policy related statements and conclusions - positive or normative

Date: 2017-04-25 06:50 pm (UTC)
signamax: (Default)
From: [personal profile] signamax
you either do not understand what i said or pretend to not understanding

@1. Scientific consensus, is, by definition, is what we know about the world.@
"Scientific consensus" by definition with what community of scientists agree upon. or they say what they agree upon. or the media says that there is some "Scientific consensus" whereas there is none

@2. We trust scientific community (not every specific individual) to strive for the scientific consensus to be based on solid science.@
you - maybe - trust.
I don't
in particular - about GW - first there is no real consensus, second there is a lot of evidence that the data were massaged
meaning - there NO SOLID FACTS

@3. "positive statements" is what scientific consensus consists of. E.g., "sun is a star"
@you don't understand what "positive statement" means and you agree with me on normative.

what made you think that I do not understand the positive statement I have no idea

I am telling you straight forward -
scientific consensus consists of. E.g., "sun is a star" - is a positive statement
scientific consensus consists of. E.g., "sun is a lamp on the sky" - is a lie, no matter how much it looks like a "positive statement

Date: 2017-04-25 07:21 pm (UTC)
signamax: (Default)
From: [personal profile] signamax
my bad - to think we were talking a little beyond formal definitions

yes, "sun is a lamp on the sky" -is a "positive statement"

Date: 2017-04-25 07:49 pm (UTC)
signamax: (Default)
From: [personal profile] signamax
i rest my case

your "knowledge" is form wiki taken literally

thank you, not interested.

Date: 2017-04-25 06:31 pm (UTC)
signamax: (Default)
From: [personal profile] signamax
you keep say what is and what is not relevant to you point:)

my point is that your entire construct, your assumptions, and your conclusions are based on false

it makes the whole point irrelevant

you can have an opinion who science should be funded, and basically you are saying that there should be accountability.

accountability is great
I would vouch for that

Date: 2017-04-25 04:43 pm (UTC)
ymarkov: (Default)
From: [personal profile] ymarkov
Кстати, ты вот это видел?

Date: 2017-04-25 04:50 pm (UTC)
signamax: (Default)
From: [personal profile] signamax
i am telling the same thing for the past 10 years on LJ


Date: 2017-04-25 06:31 pm (UTC)
signamax: (Default)
From: [personal profile] signamax
it does not matter who funds it as long as there is an acountability

August 2017

67 89101112
131415 16171819
20 21 2223242526

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Sep. 24th, 2017 10:48 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios