War on Science
Apr. 21st, 2017 01:38 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
apharTo 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).
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:
- Positive statements - what is
- Normative statements - what should be done
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).
no subject
Date: 2017-04-21 02:56 pm (UTC)One nice thing that happened under Obama: NASA started outsourcing some routine lift operations. Hopefully it means it's devoting more to research.
no subject
Date: 2017-04-21 03:09 pm (UTC)Second, It does not matter whether this is true or not: fossil fuels is a non-renewable resource controlled by "bad guys" and the less we use them the better.
Third, there is ample statistics that pollution from fossil fuels has deleterious effects on public health.
no subject
Date: 2017-04-21 04:21 pm (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2017-04-21 05:21 pm (UTC)2. Fracking causes earthquakes and water pollution.
3. Coal is the worst, but oil (and, less so, gas) are bad too.
I would advocate carbon tax even if we were facing global cooling instead - exactly because of 2 & 3.
Moreover, pouring money into R&D will have many positive consequences unrelated to energy.
no subject
Date: 2017-04-21 06:01 pm (UTC)http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/03/one-third-of-ams-members-dont-agree-with-climate-change-orthodoxy/
http://notrickszone.com/2017/04/03/growing-skepticism-already-150-new-2017-scientific-papers-support-a-skeptical-position-on-climate-alarm/#sthash.VVfi0Bmb.dpbs
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/03/12/the-cook-97-consensus-paper-exposed-by-new-book-for-the-fraud-that-it-really-is/
2. Minor ones and not much. Few things are without cost.
3. Gas burns to H2O and CO2, I wouldn't call it bad.
IMHO it's fine to support a carbon tax for political reasons, but I see no scientific ones.
no subject
Date: 2017-04-21 06:26 pm (UTC)2nd link mentions the number of dissenters but to those who agree - a bad sign.
3rd link has an irrelevant title.
Generally speaking, denying the existence of the consensus is worse than denying AGW. :-)
2. When your insurance doubles and you cannot use your well anymore - this is hardly minor.
3. Okay, natural gas is only bad if we accept AGW. However, oil in cars and ships sucks big time.
4. Carbon tax is the best way to reduce emissions (as per economists' consensus) and emissions cause AGW (as per climate scientists' consensus).
Shabbat Shalom!
no subject
Date: 2017-04-21 08:32 pm (UTC)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!
no subject
Date: 2017-04-21 08:37 pm (UTC)best to you and yours!
no subject
Date: 2017-04-25 06:41 pm (UTC)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"
no subject
Date: 2017-04-25 06:52 pm (UTC)You can't be writing all this seriously.
But, okay, I will try...
в огороде бузина а в Киеве дядька
yes it is.
the practitioners of the field call it consensus, so it is such.
neither economics nor climate science are mathematics.
100% agreement does not exist there.
no subject
Date: 2017-04-25 06:57 pm (UTC)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
ps
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
no subject
Date: 2017-04-26 02:52 am (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2017-04-25 03:25 pm (UTC)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"
no subject
Date: 2017-04-25 03:54 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2017-04-25 03:56 pm (UTC)but as i said - i missed the point you were trying to make
no subject
Date: 2017-04-25 04:13 pm (UTC)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
no subject
Date: 2017-04-25 04:23 pm (UTC)The knowledge should inform the political decision making ("normative").
Whether the scientific consensus exist or not is immaterial to my position that the scientists have no monopoly on normative statements.
PS. Not trusting experts in their area of expertise is not a tenable position for an expert :-)
no subject
Date: 2017-04-25 04:31 pm (UTC)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
no subject
Date: 2017-04-25 04:41 pm (UTC)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
no subject
Date: 2017-04-25 05:38 pm (UTC)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.
Otherwise it becomes a part of the "scientific consensus".
Note that this has only tangential relevance to my original point.
no subject
Date: 2017-04-25 06:08 pm (UTC)@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.
no subject
Date: 2017-04-25 06:16 pm (UTC)I make no such assumption.
Slightly exaggerating, my point is that the scientific consensus is only relevant to positive statements, not normative ones.
You are arguing that scientific consensus is (or can be) a lie.
This is irrelevant to my point.
no subject
Date: 2017-04-25 06:25 pm (UTC)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
no subject
Date: 2017-04-25 06:41 pm (UTC)Please follow the link on "positive statement".
1. Scientific consensus, is, by definition, is what we know about the world. We could be mistaken, and sometimes we are, but these issues should be addressed by the research community, not by marchers, bloggers, or politicians.
2. We trust scientific community (not every specific individual) to strive for the scientific consensus to be based on solid science.
3. "positive statements" is what scientific consensus consists of. E.g., "sun is a star" or "heat is transmitted by phlogiston".
you don't understand what "positive statement" means and you agree with me on normative.
good.
no subject
Date: 2017-04-25 06:50 pm (UTC)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.@
wrong
"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.@
wrong
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
no subject
Date: 2017-04-25 07:11 pm (UTC)yep, you have no idea what "positive statement" means.
no subject
Date: 2017-04-25 07:21 pm (UTC)yes, "sun is a lamp on the sky" -is a "positive statement"
no subject
Date: 2017-04-25 07:45 pm (UTC)Now please read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus:
> Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity.
no subject
Date: 2017-04-25 07:49 pm (UTC)your "knowledge" is form wiki taken literally
thank you, not interested.
no subject
Date: 2017-04-25 06:31 pm (UTC)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
no subject
Date: 2017-04-25 04:43 pm (UTC)http://shkrobius.livejournal.com/608033.html
no subject
Date: 2017-04-25 04:50 pm (UTC)http://arbat.dreamwidth.org/893626.html?thread=46077370#cmt46077370
no subject
Date: 2017-04-25 05:43 pm (UTC)This is why financing of science should go through DARPA (which sets specific deliverables) and not through NIH (which sends money to interminable "programs").
The omission of NIH in my post was not an accident.
no subject
Date: 2017-04-25 06:31 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2017-04-25 10:58 pm (UTC)