11–20 of 27 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because when a crisis strikes, it's the bankers and derivative traders we really need to here from. Now, you scientists, you need to go out and do something useful. Go shopping.
How about just doing science? Seemed to work just fine for hundreds of years.
I don't understand why you would argue against using facts as the basis for debate. We're not giving proper weight to people's spiritual beliefs related to climate change? "Don't use science to get around politics" sounds like a joke. I mean, really? "...their ultimate authority is a report from a group of scientists, and they’re saying ‘this is where we stand, forget about our moral concerns, forget about our ethica…
"However much we agree on the fundamentals of the physics of climate change, there are huge ethical, political and ideological differences that remain about what climate change signifies for society"
So this is a different debate than what we have in the US, where we watch Fox News, deny global warming, and believe in creationism.
His point is that yes, global warming is here, but we must choose how to handle it, what the trade offs are, what the priorities are, what to give up, and so on. These are political and ideological decisions which the science cannot make.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How about just doing science? Seemed to work just fine for hundreds of years.
But has this ever truly happened? Even if we go back all the way to Archimedes, we'll find his science intertwined with warfare, ship building, public works and various other 'statist' concerns. Or take Galileo - surely not just doing science. Darwin. Manhattan Project, and the subsequent roles of various people like Oppenheimer, von Neumann, and Edward Teller. Nazis eliminating 'Jew Science'. Or for example Carl Sag…
First, nothing is truly black or white. Scientists are humans, and humans are political and involved in things outside their own field. This humanity, however, poses a conflict of interest from the mechanisms of how science operates: observe, hypothesize, test, reproduce. In other areas where human nature play a conflicting role with job goals, such as the therapist-patient relationship, doctor-patient relationship, or lawyer-client relationship, strict guidelines have been established to ensure that the human part of doing the job doesn't interfere with the job itself. Where's the line? That's outside my pay grade. When scientists start viewing themselves as activists first, scientists second, however, we've crossed it. Science is concerned with both normal science and paradigm-changing work. Whatever else you may be doing could be important, critical, wonderful, whatever -- but it ain't science.
Your second concept is statism. I'd take that up with the other commenter who mentioned the statist issues.
I think your observation that politics and science have always mixed it up is a great one. However, I think it actually proves my point instead of yours. During the time that these people lived, like Galileo, the word "science" could mean many different things. Indeed, science of the day was the church. And the church had a heavy hand in what was "allowed" to be discussed and what had "scientific consensus". It's only in looking back that we're able to say, gee, of course Galileo was the _real_ scientist here. At the time, common opinion was against him.
The A-bomb guys, as far as I know, did not publicly advocate some sort of scientific consensus in atomic policies. The old Soviets, however, had Lysenkoism -- another example of "science" being co-opted by the state and used to shut down discourse. (In many places even today, you'll end up in the insane asylum if you have the wrong political opinions). The Nazis were famous social darwinists. The list goes on. In each case, science and politics got mixed up to the point where politicians were using science as a foil to advance their ends and scientists were in politics to advance their own ends. You're absolutely right. This isn't anything new. We've seen where this ends up. Science ends up like the old church: with dogmas, consensus, political funding, ostracism, etc.
Let's not go there.
Any time that you hear someone say, "we need to get beyond debate and act," it usually means they are no longer willing to listen to others and they just want to implement their solution.
It should be more often observed that the only reason we see this call for consenus (and opposition) is that they demand government action. This is a very statist mindset, and that grinding sound you hear is statism running up against science. In other scientific matters (e.g. If string theory is real) you don't get empassioned pleas for one side. Environmentalists would do more good by abandoning statism and focusin…
It should be more often observed that the only reason we see this call for consenus (and opposition) is that they demand government action. This is a very statist mindset, and that grinding sound you hear is statism running up against science. In other scientific matters (e.g. If string theory is real) you don't get empassioned pleas for one side. Environmentalists would do more good by abandoning statism and focusin…
I'm all for private action, but you cannot take the government out of this issue. After all, whether to build the third runway in Heathrow is not a private decision. Likewise, it's hard for private parties to deal with externalities.
With easily provable externalities like toxic waste, private lawsuits can take care of the problem. Other issues like CFCs are easily regulated.
Cap and Trade solutions for climate change are, say, 5 orders of magnitude more costly. With that comes added demand for certainty. The more rigorous the demands for certainty, the greater the indication that a single governmental solution is inappropriate.
A third runway at Heathrow _should_ be a private decision, by a private company that owns and operates an airport. Runways are also completely irrelevant in this discussion.
I don't understand why you would argue against using facts as the basis for debate. We're not giving proper weight to people's spiritual beliefs related to climate change? "Don't use science to get around politics" sounds like a joke. I mean, really? "...their ultimate authority is a report from a group of scientists, and they’re saying ‘this is where we stand, forget about our moral concerns, forget about our ethica…
He raises a very pertinent issue; it's just not that clear in this context.
Here's an extreme, yet simplistic analogy:
Suppose scientists discover that green-eyed people are used as transmission vectors by a lethal flu virus. A cure can be found, but it would take at least a decade to complete the research and testing. Scientists estimate that the virus will kill 90% of mankind within 5 years.
Should we round up and isolate all green-eyed people? Should we kill them?
It should be more often observed that the only reason we see this call for consenus (and opposition) is that they demand government action. This is a very statist mindset, and that grinding sound you hear is statism running up against science. In other scientific matters (e.g. If string theory is real) you don't get empassioned pleas for one side. Environmentalists would do more good by abandoning statism and focusin…
Uh, have you ever read Lee Smolin, Peter Woit, Leonard Susskind, and Lubos Motl?
Maybe biologists and geologists shouldn't have a privileged position in debates on whether evolution is true, and about the age of the Earth. And should medical scientists have the monopoly in debates over vaccinations and disease control? Popular opinion clearly says no.
I don't understand why you would argue against using facts as the basis for debate. We're not giving proper weight to people's spiritual beliefs related to climate change? "Don't use science to get around politics" sounds like a joke. I mean, really? "...their ultimate authority is a report from a group of scientists, and they’re saying ‘this is where we stand, forget about our moral concerns, forget about our ethica…
> What?! He raises a very pertinent issue; it's just not that clear in this context. Here's an extreme, yet simplistic analogy: Suppose scientists discover that green-eyed people are used as transmission vectors by a lethal flu virus. A cure can be found, but it would take at least a decade to complete the research and testing. Scientists estimate that the virus will kill 90% of mankind within 5 years. Should we roun…
I do acknowledge, as the other commenter suggested, that my view may be warped by being from the USA, where the battle is still about whether it exists at all.