Page 27 of 27
Re: global warming
Posted: Tue Apr 09, 2013 7:21 am
by danieLion
Science achieves a consensus when scientists stop arguing....
This is an
assumption of those who
believe in the "objectivity" and unity of science. The history of science not only shows that some scientists beleive in objectivity and some don't but that science has never been unfied philosophically, theoretically or methodologically.
Nearly all hypotheses will fall by the wayside during this testing period, because only one is going to answer the question properly, without leaving all kinds of odd dangling bits that don’t quite add up. Bad theories are usually rather untidy.
This is a naive and uninformed view of science.
But the testing period must come to an end.
Only you if you ignore the principle of iteration.
So a consensus in science is different from a political one.
Science is always political.
"...scientific basis of long-term climate processes”. (Doran 2009)
How could it be long-term? The measurements comprise an insufficient sample.
In the field of climate science, the consensus is unequivocal: human activities are causing climate change.
This not only contradicts the Economist and Forbes articles, but it also shows how naive these ding-a-lings are about epistemology. I wonder how many of them are aware of the distinction between correlations and causes?
Oreskes and Peiser
Scientists need to back up their opinions with research and data that survive the peer-review process.
Why do they
need to? And when they do, why would they rely on the corrupt peer-review process?
Re: global warming
Posted: Tue Apr 09, 2013 7:36 am
by BlackBird
This not only contradicts the Economist and Forbes articles, but it also shows how naive these ding-a-lings are about epistemology. I wonder how many of them are aware of the distinction between correlations and causes?
Correct me if i'm wrong, but did the forbes article not cite a report that 60 something % of
geo scientists disagreed with AGW? There's plenty of consensus from
climate scientists - That is, people who study the
climate for a living, instead of people who study geology (which I have studied at university myself btw, and had we only skimmed over climate science, and only when it was applicable to geologic process.)
It's quite dishonest of that man at forbes to draw such a conclusion that there is no scientific consensus that AGW is true, because I don't see how a professional journalist could make such a rudimentary error, unless of course he glanced over such an obvious error on purpose in order to push his agenda, which seems in my opinion more than likely.
I don't have the stats on hand, but it's been posted multiple times in this thread, that the vast majority of peer reviewed studies published in reputable scientific journals are in consensus that our current climate change is human driven. If that's not consensus, I don't know what is.
Plenty of consensus:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global- ... sensus.htm
http://www.ucsusa.org/ssi/climate-chang ... us-on.html
Re: global warming
Posted: Tue Apr 09, 2013 7:56 am
by danieLion
BB,
My point is larger than that: scientists who take comfort is consensus are ignorant of the history of science and method. Believing that consensus is a task of scientists is just one methodoligical belief of some scientists in some sciences.
Re: global warming
Posted: Tue Apr 09, 2013 8:17 am
by BlackBird
danieLion wrote:BB,
My point is larger than that: scientists who take comfort is consensus are ignorant of the history of science and method. Believing that consensus is a task of scientists is just one methodoligical belief of some scientists in some sciences.
I'm sorry but that sounds pretty silly. Scientists who take comfort in consensus are not ignorant of the history of science and the [scientific] method... They're SCIENTISTS after all.
I'll quote a fellow skeptic:
A real skeptic always sides with scientific consensus.
This may sound really unsatisfying and self-contradictory at first. Isn’t skepticism about critical thinking? About being open to any idea (or none) as long as it survives rational deliberation? Doesn’t this consensus thing mean that the whole movement is actually just kowtowing to white-coated authority? Well, yes and no.
To begin with, let’s remember that there are many people who are strongly skeptical of certain ideas, but who are not counted as part of the skeptical movement. Take Holocaust skeptics, global warming skeptics and evolution skeptics. In the skeptical community, we call them denialists. Why? Because their views go against scientific consensus.
Science presupposes that all participants have a skeptical frame of mind and arrive at conclusions through rational deliberation. If a large group of knowledgeable people working in this way arrive at a consensus opinion, then there is really no good reason for anybody with less knowledge of the subject to question it. Informed consensus is how scientific truth is established. It’s always provisional and open to reevaluation, but as long as there’s informed consensus, then that’s our best knowledge. Humanity’s best knowledge.
Well I disagree with his point that there's no reason to question it, I agree with the sentiment. Scientific consensus has a lot of value when it comes to the veracity and truth of an issue. As he says, it's Humanity's best knowledge on a subject.
metta
Jack
Re: global warming
Posted: Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:54 am
by Alex123
I find it strange how some believe in AGW merely due to some people agreeing on it rather than to actual arguments.
BlackBird wrote:
I'll quote a fellow skeptic:
A real skeptic always sides with scientific consensus.
А real skeptic sides with evidence.
Take Holocaust skeptics, global warming skeptics and evolution skeptics.
I knew it. Global warming skeptics are put in the same sentence as holocaust skeptics... Great argument!Wow. I am convinced! The case is settled!
I have a question to AGW proponents:
What is your best single argument for AGW?
Re: global warming
Posted: Tue Apr 09, 2013 12:05 pm
by BlackBird
Alex123 wrote:I find it strange how some believe in AGW merely due to some people agreeing on it rather than to actual arguments.
I hope you're not refering to me, because if you are you're quite mistaken.
Re: global warming
Posted: Tue Apr 09, 2013 12:07 pm
by Alex123
BlackBird wrote:Alex123 wrote:I find it strange how some believe in AGW merely due to some people agreeing on it rather than to actual arguments.
I hope you're not refering to me, because if you are you're quite mistaken.
What AGW argument do you personally find the most convincing? In your own words, please.