Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Dan Rather: Now, More Than Ever, We Must Stand Up for Science

blogs.scientificamerican.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 112 posts

Re: Dan Rather: Now, More Than Ever, We Must Stand Up for Science

#71

Post by jwatte »

mattnewton wrote: post #24
CWuestefeld wrote: post #17

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…

I think a lot of people don't need to infer scientific illiteracy from policy, they can take it from the horse's mouth. http://edition.cnn.com/videos/politics/2016/09/26/mobile-cli... http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/ben-carson-argued-ev... Etc etc

A lot of policies are quite scientifically illiterate or even disparaging. "Teach abstinence, not sex ed." "Don't coddle criminals, lock them up." "Trickle-down economics is the best way to create jobs." "Creationism makes just as good predictions as evolution, so it should be taught with equal emphasis."

It goes on and on, even if we ignore any one of the arguments, the problem is that many people, even people in power, believe that what they and their clique wants to be true is just as important as what can actually be demonstrated to be true. Or to put it another way: If someone says something to be true, that's equally powerful no matter what their basis (repeatable, predictable measurements, or plain dogma.)

Re: Dan Rather: Now, More Than Ever, We Must Stand Up for Science

#72

Post by splawn »

gwright wrote: post #42
tzs wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

I hear this a lot and feel like it is a muddled response to a muddled understanding of climate change. 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…

While this response seems 100% reasonable, I don't see how this it is any more effective in the face of "Climate change is a Chinese hoax" level absurdity. At this point with deniers it is religion so reason is out the door regardless.

Re: Dan Rather: Now, More Than Ever, We Must Stand Up for Science

#73

Post by thefastlane »

gwright wrote: post #42
tzs wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

I hear this a lot and feel like it is a muddled response to a muddled understanding of climate change. 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…

i would love to dive into this further (both the science itself, and how we cross the bridge from science to policy), can you recommend any resources or papers (DOI if possible)?

Re: Dan Rather: Now, More Than Ever, We Must Stand Up for Science

#74

Post by jwatte »

ancap wrote: post #31
SonicSoul wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

its hard to do an objective value based analysis because it's hard to put a price on environment. That's the problem with capitalism. Making the world better for our kids does not maximize shareholder value. We can at least be honest with ourselves instead of simply denying facts to justify our decisions

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.

First: "captitalism" means "the ability of private property owners to gate access to their property to others." What you're talking about is "market economy," which is not the same thing.

Second: For a market economy to lead to the optimal outcome, it requires that rational actors make decisions based on perfect information.

We have large swathes of society set up to reduce the access to "perfect information," under the guises of "trade secrets" and "privacy" and a host of other values. In fact, as soon as there is any information assymetry, there is a very strong incentive to slant the market to favor the information holder, which leads to much less efficiency. We can fight that either by regulating, or by making it a crime to hide any information. Until now, we have chosen the former. I doubt that you are arguing that the latter would be better. That's the reality of the world we live in today.

Third: For the market economy to work, we also need "rational actors." We know from psychology that humans are nowhere near rational, and often act counter to their own self-interest. We also know from sociology that humans in larger groups are often easily misled from their own best-benefit path.

Re: Dan Rather: Now, More Than Ever, We Must Stand Up for Science

#75

Post by treehau5 »

nyolfen wrote: post #65
treehau5 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Like evangelicals don't think human made global warming is real because humans can't alter gods creation Certain types of Christian denominations tend to strongly profess biblical literalism, which encourages this type of thinking, but this isn't representative of the entire group. This type of thinking is what enforces the problem I mentioned. I am an Orthodox Christian, and I have yet to find some type of scienti…

not even top 10? there are 280 million pentecostals alone in the world and roughly the same number of eastern orthodox christians: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denomination...

Pentecostalism is as about as a specific term as "christianity" or "monotheism" or "paganism" comes when it comes down to actual beliefs, practice of worship, doctrines, etc. The largest of those groups, "Assemblies of God" defer in key areas of doctrine, faith, and worship from the next 8 or so on that list. You may argue the differences aren't worth the seperation, but consider even in the American Protestant landscape -- even the Presbyterian Church, which is a specific kind of Protestant is heavily fractured between it's more liberal wing, the PC-USA, and it's more conservative group, the PCA. Baptists not apart of the Southern Baptist Convention differ heavily from those not a part of the SBC. Methodists and Lutherans face similar key distinctions. If all of these groups were united in belief, practice, doctrine, and key tenants of the faith, I would agree with your statement, however this is not the case.

Re: Dan Rather: Now, More Than Ever, We Must Stand Up for Science

#76

Post by novaleaf »

guscost wrote: post #32
tzs wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> In the case of climate change, we can't even get to the cost/benefit analysis part of the conversation Sorry? We were already at the "let's bribe farmers to grow extra corn and then burn it for fuel" stage, years ago.

keep in mind though, that was in part a geopolitical security strategy (energy security), as the USA was deeply reliant on foreign oil. (This was before the Alberta oil sands was viable, and fracking wasn't even a known option)

Of course, can't say that's a good reason to continue the subsidies today though.

Re: Dan Rather: Now, More Than Ever, We Must Stand Up for Science

#77

Post by btdiehr »

splawn wrote: post #72
gwright wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hear this a lot and feel like it is a muddled response to a muddled understanding of climate change. 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…

While this response seems 100% reasonable, I don't see how this it is any more effective in the face of "Climate change is a Chinese hoax" level absurdity. At this point with deniers it is religion so reason is out the door regardless.

You are misrepresenting the opposing argument being made.

The opposing argument is that people are making is as follows: 'climate-alarmists' misuse climate-science as a means of making political change.

It is not a denial of all climate-change science.

I don't care to argue this topic because I'm not expert nor do I care to pretend to be one on the topic of climate change, but this misrepresentation of the opposing views is part of the liberal-bubble so many people live in - all while smugly assuring themselves how much smarter they are than everyone else.

Re: Dan Rather: Now, More Than Ever, We Must Stand Up for Science

#78

Post by [deleted] »

splawn wrote: post #72
gwright wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hear this a lot and feel like it is a muddled response to a muddled understanding of climate change. 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…

While this response seems 100% reasonable, I don't see how this it is any more effective in the face of "Climate change is a Chinese hoax" level absurdity. At this point with deniers it is religion so reason is out the door regardless.

[deleted]

Re: Dan Rather: Now, More Than Ever, We Must Stand Up for Science

#79

Post by [deleted] »

splawn wrote: post #72
gwright wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hear this a lot and feel like it is a muddled response to a muddled understanding of climate change. 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…

While this response seems 100% reasonable, I don't see how this it is any more effective in the face of "Climate change is a Chinese hoax" level absurdity. At this point with deniers it is religion so reason is out the door regardless.

[deleted]

Re: Dan Rather: Now, More Than Ever, We Must Stand Up for Science

#80

Post by sctb »

touleier wrote: post #62
Retric wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please take your https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem somewhere else, it only suggests ignorance on your part.

"suggests ignorance" == ad hominem. Rather is a discredited hack. Get a clue.

> Get a clue.

Please stop this. We need you to comment civilly and substantively on Hacker News or not at all.

Post reply on HN