41–50 of 112 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> growing intolerance for scientists to hold opinions of faith or conservative ideals Conservative ideals and science don't have any inherent conflict, but uhm, that other thing...
Some of the greatest scientific discoveries in history were made by people thinking they were glorifying god by doing their work. Faith and science go together just fine, and I say this as a hard atheist.
These claims that we must do what science dictates are self-serving, and the ongoing chant is getting really tiresome. Science does not lead inexorably to policy. Science is only the first step, in how it allows us to understand the world around us. What we want to do about that is an entirely value-based decision. Deciding to implement policy demands filtering that understanding through a lens of our collective valu…
> In the case of climate change, it's pretending that there's cost/benefit analysis to be done. It ignores the possibility that the cost of doing something will exceed the likely damage expected. (I'm not saying that's the case, I'm just saying that folks are trying to skip that part of the conversation) In the case of climate change, we can't even get to the cost/benefit analysis part of the conversation because som…
For what it is worth:
* Science is clear that CO2 causes warming (pure physics), but so do many other gases (methane, water vapor, etc).
* Science is clear that global temperatures are rising (even if you quibble about the 'pause')
* Science isn't clear regarding what part of global temperature rise is due to human activity.
* Science isn't clear on how much and how fast temperatures might rise.
* Science isn't clear on how to model the climate. Climate models have incorporated a net positive sensitivity to CO2 warming and make predictions that have exceeded actual temperature gains. So the models are not accurately predicting the climate.
* Science isn't going to provide a definitive policy response to increased temperatures. There are many options.
Even if the climate models were making correct predictions. It doesn't automatically follow that the policy solution is to reduce CO2 emissions to 0. The costs of clean energy have to be borne by someone and cutting off energy supplies (because energy is more expensive) to developing economies, for example, also has consequences. The negative affects of warming can be mitigated also via relocating people, communities, and changing our land-use patterns, etc. The correct policy mix is going to depend on many factors, most of which are going to vary from place to place. A single global policy proscription isn't likely to be feasible for lots of reasons.
Finally, criticism of policy proscriptions shouldn't automatically be interpreted and characterized as rejecting the climate change hypothesis. In many cases there are argument for or against policy proscriptions that aren't even related to climate change, such as improving air quality, increasing the efficiency of our energy systems, using market based approaches to avoid crony capitalism and favored industries, and so on.
Science needs another ally as well - we also need wholesome support of science. Not just pick and choosing to support a particular ideology, liberal or conservative. For some (my friends on the right, whom I understand and have empathy for more than your average HN reader), scientific thought unfortunately has been so closely tied to liberal ideologies that middle America sees as destructive to families and local eco…
People are not robots they can accept ideas in conflict to both be true. That does not mean faith has no cost.
EX: So as not to offend anyone. If you believe that god's true name is 'Zual' and that she wants you to do a handstand on your 20th birthday. And you agree there is no evidence that this is the case, well without evidence the default assumption is for a less complex world without that requirement.
PS: No, that chain of logic does not disprove the idea. But it does mean picking 'Zual' over 'Zuam' or 'Zuak' ... without evidence is less likely to be true than false.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Capitalism has no problem with pricing the environment. It is governments which have prevented it from doing so. Privatize the skies, oceans and lands and you would clearly see the prices come into play. Now we could argue about the merits of doing such, but claiming a man tied to a chair is incapable of walking is incorrect.
This is correct. The problem isn't capitalism, except in that we don't have enough of it. Our framework for private property won't recognize rights in air or running water, and so they become an easy sink for externalities. If someone contaminates your land (say, by spilling heating oil), there's a well-defined path for recovering the damages. But since we don't recognize an owner of air or water, when those are cont…
It's a technical problem. Capitalism can't value something if it isn't capable of measuring it.
Taking Dan Rather's advice on a responsible attitude to science is like going to Bill Cosby for dating advice, or asking Rolf Harris to run your kindergarten. Booted from CBS in disgrace for confusing journalism with character assassination. Read the original CBS report. "This man is a truth teller". Indeed. Here is the full report. http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/complete_report/CBS_Report...
I'm glad somebody brought this up. Rather is no Cronkite, Murrow or Brinkley: the Killian documents debacle demonstrated that he was sloppy at best, and was more interested in pushing a political agenda than digging for the truth. That's the antithesis of science. This doesn't invalidate the need for climate change research -- not by far! -- but he shouldn't be the poster boy for any fact-based cause at this point.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Let's say that eventually it is the consensus of the scientific community that things like consciousness, pain and free will are just illusions, and therefore, human rights are an outdated concept, and future policy decisions should reflect that consensus. You'd resist those policy proposals, and I think most people would. You'd base that resistance on your values - values, which in this case at least, you did NOT de…
> Let's say that eventually it is the consensus of the scientific community that things like consciousness, pain and free will are just illusions, and therefore, human rights are an outdated concept That last part is a value statement that I doubt science could prove.
Even if free will is rule-based at some low-level, that doesn't erase the concept of rights.
We have rights even among inanimate objects. For instance, some server instance has rights to access certain files.
Rights are not pinned to free will. They are mostly about declaring certain unwanted actions of others to be wrong and punishable. Whether those unwanted actions are the result of free will, or whether they are deterministic, is immaterial. At most, that consideration only influences how we regard a violation of right; we might be somewhat more lenient if we believe that it was inevitable.
This is why the criminal courts take a particular view toward defendants who are mentally deficient or insane; in effect, this is based on the belief that those people possess less free will. It is never declared, however, that whatever they did was OK.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What we need not better debate, but better dogma. It shouldn't be necessary to argue that climate change is real every time the topic comes up. Just like we dogmatically accept that cigarettes cause cancer, we should dogmatically accept that climate change is happening and it's caused by us. The science that establishes this fact is far beyond anything that the general public should be expected to understand. I don't…
>"we dogmatically accept that cigarettes cause cancer" The truth is that using the colloquial definition of "cause", everything seems to "cause" cancer: >"These considerations of mechanism suggest that at chronic doses close to the toxic dose, any chemical, whether synthetic or natural, and whether genotoxic or nongenotoxic, is a likely rodent and human carcinogen. Not all chemicals would be expected to be carcinogen…
No doubt. People should try to understand the nuance of things. But there's a difference between understanding nuance and actually trying to refute expert opinion using specious and simplistic arguments. Non-experts will never be able to understand all the science needed to establish a judgement such as "humans are causing climate change". It requires training in atmospheric science and years of experience as a scientist.
There's a different between better understanding the conclusions of medical researchers and questioning the validity of their opinion. Sure, there is no doubt areas where there is disagreement and more research is needed, but it's useless for an amateur to judge those issues.
The only information that the general public really needs about climate change is the opinion of experts. Sure, they can learn more if they are inclined, I hope they do. But when amateurs start questioning the validity of experts' opinion, we are hopelessly lost. An amateur will never be able to judge the validity of an experts opinion on an issue that requires expertise. Never.
Even Martin Luther wasn't some random lay person when he questioned the doctrines of the church. He had specialized knowledge of theology and used it to engage in the discussion the same way a member of the church would.
Taking Dan Rather's advice on a responsible attitude to science is like going to Bill Cosby for dating advice, or asking Rolf Harris to run your kindergarten. Booted from CBS in disgrace for confusing journalism with character assassination. Read the original CBS report. "This man is a truth teller". Indeed. Here is the full report. http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/complete_report/CBS_Report...
Integrity isn't binary; it's not all or nothing.
I heard the incoming Vice President, Mike Pence, does not believe in evolution. In fact there's a video of him, admittedly a long while ago now, making a speech where he seems to not understand what the scientific meaning of "theory" is. Are people not concerned about this at all? People in high positions ought to know basic things about how science functions, yet as the article points out, barely a word was said abo…
There are plenty of Americans who would disqualify a candidate that doesn't believe in evolution, global warming, or some other widely known scientific fact. Unfortunately, there are just as many ill-informed Americans that share these views. It's sad and depressing, and is usually just the result of being in a conservative bubble. If you live in rural America, your friends and family all regurgitate the same things…
> They're ignorant, sure, but it's hard to see things
> from another perspective if you've never really been
> exposed to anything else.
Could they not be intelligent, rational individuals with the personal agency to have looked at the same facts as you and come up with different conclusions?
These claims that we must do what science dictates are self-serving, and the ongoing chant is getting really tiresome. Science does not lead inexorably to policy. Science is only the first step, in how it allows us to understand the world around us. What we want to do about that is an entirely value-based decision. Deciding to implement policy demands filtering that understanding through a lens of our collective valu…
If a large portion of the population does not value or understand science, how can you have a rational debate on values?