Science is dead • Hacker News Board

Re: Science is dead

#11

Post by philwelch » Wed, Dec 09, 2009, 10:07 PM UTC

grellas wrote: post #6

Science and advocacy is an interesting topic. As a lawyer, I have witnessed the phenomenon of the "hired gun" very often in a courtroom context. A "neutral," "objective" expert comes to the very conclusion for which he or she is paid and dresses it up with all the right-sounding phrases and data to support the desired conclusion. Does this mean every court expert is a mere hack? No, not at all. There are honest exper…

It doesn't actually benefit anyone to convince people that anthropogenic climate change exists unless anthropogenic climate change actually exists. In fact, it's a huge pain in the ass for everyone. It doesn't even help the political classes, because they have to waste political capital pursuing this issue rather than the half dozen other things they could worry about. However, it's in the direct benefit of oil companies to convince people that anthropogenic climate change doesn't exist. One side has motives and vested interests to lie, the other really does not.

Incidentally...

Consider finally that it is serving as the basis to justify potential government intervention and control in the most minute details of what used to be considered every citizen's private life (the size of our cars, how many times we flush the toilet, whether we use this or that substance for this or that purpose).

Perhaps the largest proposed government intervention does nothing of the kind: it simply addresses the externality of greenhouse gases by submitting them to the same kind of cap-and-trade system we have for sulphur dioxide. Rather than addressing specific regulations for fuel consumption and energy usage, this would simply restrict the amount of greenhouse emissions Americans can produce so that ordinary market forces would apply this pressure as efficiently as possible. If you really object to those kind of regulations, support cap and trade. I honestly see no good rationale for any type of conspiracy theory about scientists being government lackeys for some sort of arbitrary statist takeover of your SUV and toilet.

Re: Science is dead

#12

Post by cakeface » Wed, Dec 09, 2009, 10:16 PM UTC

I really like this quote:

If you needed any more reason to believe that the traditional model of science and peer review, a system closely guarded from the tyranny of outsiders and their unending and infernal questions, is dead you might simply indulge in the realization that obfuscation is simply the last fig-leaf these institutions have left to cling to and reflect on the fact that in the 240 hours following the leak more pure knowledge and analysis was made available to the public than in the 24 years prior.

In general I haven't been too interested in the drama that has been going on in relation to the "Warmergate" thing, but I do like that there is a renewed interest in the actual data involved and integrity of the science.

Re: Science is dead

#13

Post by grellas » Wed, Dec 09, 2009, 10:20 PM UTC

philwelch wrote: post #11

grellas wrote: post #6

Science and advocacy is an interesting topic. As a lawyer, I have witnessed the phenomenon of the "hired gun" very often in a courtroom context. A "neutral," "objective" expert comes to the very conclusion for which he or she is paid and dresses it up with all the right-sounding phrases and data to support the desired conclusion. Does this mean every court expert is a mere hack? No, not at all. There are honest exper…

It doesn't actually benefit anyone to convince people that anthropogenic climate change exists unless anthropogenic climate change actually exists. In fact, it's a huge pain in the ass for everyone. It doesn't even help the political classes, because they have to waste political capital pursuing this issue rather than the half dozen other things they could worry about. However, it's in the direct benefit of oil compa…

No conspiracies involved - just my view of human nature and how it is capable of responding in an entirely spontaneous way to the temptations around it. Others are free to disagree, of course.

I do disagree with you, quite strongly, about the idea that there are no vested interests associated with massive government power. A mere glance at what lobbyists do serves to dispel that assumption in my mind. At heart, this is the very debate that pervades the Federalist Papers at our country's founding - should government power be checked and balanced because, by its very nature, humanity will otherwise have a propensity to want to grasp for never-ending amounts of concentrated power in furtherance of self-interested goals? Again, you can disagree, but I side with the philosophy adopted by the founders on this one. Their major concern: what factions will do with their power. What they called "factions" I am calling "vested interests." Again, not everyone will agree with me on this. But, as I started my point, the topic of science and advocacy is an interesting one - this is my two cents on the question.

Re: Science is dead

#14

Post by madbatter » Wed, Dec 09, 2009, 10:36 PM UTC

This was a rambling waste of time--why is this drivel getting up-voted? There are many branches of science and many practitioners. Peer review is not dead or some secret cabal, it does improve papers and help weed out some bad papers. As near as I can tell the posting is by another global warming denier dressed up in fancy gibberish--quoting Crichton is a strong hint in this direction.

Re: Science is dead

#15

Post by yummyfajitas » Wed, Dec 09, 2009, 10:40 PM UTC

philwelch wrote: post #11

grellas wrote: post #6

Science and advocacy is an interesting topic. As a lawyer, I have witnessed the phenomenon of the "hired gun" very often in a courtroom context. A "neutral," "objective" expert comes to the very conclusion for which he or she is paid and dresses it up with all the right-sounding phrases and data to support the desired conclusion. Does this mean every court expert is a mere hack? No, not at all. There are honest exper…

It doesn't actually benefit anyone to convince people that anthropogenic climate change exists unless anthropogenic climate change actually exists. In fact, it's a huge pain in the ass for everyone. It doesn't even help the political classes, because they have to waste political capital pursuing this issue rather than the half dozen other things they could worry about. However, it's in the direct benefit of oil compa…

It doesn't actually benefit anyone to convince people that sex outside of marriage is bad unless it really is is bad. In fact, it's a huge hedonic loss for everyone. It doesn't even help the political classes, because as rich high status men, they are prevented from having the extramarital sex which comes easily to them (or at least they must hide it). However, it's in the direct benefit of perverts and sex freaks to convince people that extramarital sex is harmless. One side has motives and vested interests to lie, the other really does not.

If your logic is valid but mine is not, please explain to me why.

Re: Science is dead

#16

Post by nollidge » Wed, Dec 09, 2009, 10:47 PM UTC

cakeface wrote: post #12

I really like this quote: If you needed any more reason to believe that the traditional model of science and peer review, a system closely guarded from the tyranny of outsiders and their unending and infernal questions, is dead you might simply indulge in the realization that obfuscation is simply the last fig-leaf these institutions have left to cling to and reflect on the fact that in the 240 hours following the le…

I agree it's good people are talking about science, generally, but this:

   in the 240 hours following the leak more pure knowledge
   and analysis was made available to the public than in
   the 24 years prior

requires a citation.

Re: Science is dead

#17

Post by onlyafly » Wed, Dec 09, 2009, 10:53 PM UTC

This article was such a rambling mess. I read the whole thing but learned nearly nothing from it except that Crichton didn't believe in anthropogenic global warming.

Re: Science is dead

#18

Post by philwelch » Wed, Dec 09, 2009, 10:55 PM UTC

yummyfajitas wrote: post #15

philwelch wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't actually benefit anyone to convince people that anthropogenic climate change exists unless anthropogenic climate change actually exists. In fact, it's a huge pain in the ass for everyone. It doesn't even help the political classes, because they have to waste political capital pursuing this issue rather than the half dozen other things they could worry about. However, it's in the direct benefit of oil compa…

It doesn't actually benefit anyone to convince people that sex outside of marriage is bad unless it really is is bad. In fact, it's a huge hedonic loss for everyone. It doesn't even help the political classes, because as rich high status men, they are prevented from having the extramarital sex which comes easily to them (or at least they must hide it). However, it's in the direct benefit of perverts and sex freaks to…

Your argument is invalid because there are practically no scientists (social or otherwise) coming out against premarital sex in modern societies with adequate screening against STDs and responsible use of contraception.

Honestly, sex outside of marriage probably was bad in the medieval society where the Roman Catholic Church pushed that doctrine on all of us. It wasn't until the invention of reliable birth control in the 20th century that it wasn't a bad idea, but religious doctrines tend not to keep up with the times as well (hence modern day Muslims and Jews eschewing entire categories of food because they couldn't be trusted to be healthy in ancient Israel).

Interestingly enough, the RCC hasn't managed to buy off enough scientists to fabricate much evidence that condoms and the pill are a bum deal. I guess to some Catholics though, all the scientists who publish studies saying that the pill is 99% effective and condoms can stop the spread of HIV are secretly agents of godless secular humanism.

While I'm sure some environmentalist devotions rise (sink?) to the level of unexamined religious belief, most of them push silly pseudoscientific hypotheses ("Gaia") which do not, in fact, actually get much scientific literature to support them.

Re: Science is dead

#19

Post by Retric » Wed, Dec 09, 2009, 10:59 PM UTC

yummyfajitas wrote: post #15

philwelch wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't actually benefit anyone to convince people that anthropogenic climate change exists unless anthropogenic climate change actually exists. In fact, it's a huge pain in the ass for everyone. It doesn't even help the political classes, because they have to waste political capital pursuing this issue rather than the half dozen other things they could worry about. However, it's in the direct benefit of oil compa…

It doesn't actually benefit anyone to convince people that sex outside of marriage is bad unless it really is is bad. In fact, it's a huge hedonic loss for everyone. It doesn't even help the political classes, because as rich high status men, they are prevented from having the extramarital sex which comes easily to them (or at least they must hide it). However, it's in the direct benefit of perverts and sex freaks to…

Infectious disease.

When you base an initial argument on a false statement it becomes meaningless.

Re: Science is dead

#20

Post by philwelch » Wed, Dec 09, 2009, 11:00 PM UTC

grellas wrote: post #13

philwelch wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't actually benefit anyone to convince people that anthropogenic climate change exists unless anthropogenic climate change actually exists. In fact, it's a huge pain in the ass for everyone. It doesn't even help the political classes, because they have to waste political capital pursuing this issue rather than the half dozen other things they could worry about. However, it's in the direct benefit of oil compa…

No conspiracies involved - just my view of human nature and how it is capable of responding in an entirely spontaneous way to the temptations around it. Others are free to disagree, of course. I do disagree with you, quite strongly, about the idea that there are no vested interests associated with massive government power. A mere glance at what lobbyists do serves to dispel that assumption in my mind. At heart, this…

Lobbyists usually lobby for something or other--some government regulation to serve as a barrier to entry, some government subsidy of this or tax on that, but usually with some understandable commercial interest involved. I can't conceive of any self-interested goal that's furthered by combating anthropogenic climate change, other than mitigating the effects of it actually happening.