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

Science is dead

finemrespice.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 41 posts

Re: Science is dead

#31

Post by ellyagg »

timr wrote: post #3

What a disjoint, rambling mess. If this is the quality of thinking that concludes that science is dead, then I think I'm going to continue to put my money on science.

Riiight. I'm sure you went into that article with an open mind. Let me guess, you think the CRU leak didn't reveal much of interest?

Instead of ad hominem, how about you refute the main and specific points brought up. I'm pretty sure Paul Graham even has an essay on how to argue properly if you're not sure how it's done.

PS - And if you want an article that uses a less self-indulgent style, read Michael Crichton's referenced speech. You'll be hard pressed to call it a rambling mess. Somehow I'm guessing, though, that you're actually biased against the claim, not its purported "messiness".

Re: Science is dead

#32

Post by ellyagg »

philwelch wrote: post #28
yummyfajitas wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your argument explicitly mentions "anyone" and "political classes"; in no way does it single out scientists. It's a very general argument which, based on context, I assumed you were specializing to scientists. If you wish to claim it is true for scientists, but not people in general, you'll need to explain what special features of scientists make the argument true for them. In any case, there is direct benefit to cli…

I was responding to the vague claim that statists, who have an interest in increasing the power of the federal government, are exerting influence on climate scientists to fraudulently manufacture a rationale for a presumably wide-ranging and invasive intervention in the economy. My argument is that it's very hard to identify any sufficiently powerful group with any identifiably vested interest in fraudulent climate s…

Actually, it's not the slightest bit hard:

> Consider the case of Phil Jones, the director of the CRU and the man at the heart of climategate. According to one of the documents hacked from his center, between 2000 and 2006 Mr. Jones was the recipient (or co-recipient) of some $19 million worth of research grants, a sixfold increase over what he'd been awarded in the 1990s.

Source: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870393940457456...

There is no rational way one can claim that dramatizing your findings doesn't increase your exposure and make you more likely to get grants, and there's no rational way to claim that scientists don't really, really want grants. There's also no reason to believe scientists/policy promoters aren't just as passionate about their goals as Exxon executives are about theirs.

And, no, scientists' chief goals are not the clear and unvarnished pursuit of truth. Scientists are people who want to be recognized for the amazing truths they've uncovered. If, after 30 years, you find that the evidence of your research does not support any significant insights into public policy, then a scientist, like any other person, will feel that their life has been wasted. Worse still is when the expectation has been set up, by 30 years of press and publicity, that their studies did matter and were of the most urgent importance. Losing that would be almost impossible to endure. And there's zero reason to believe scientists are able to endure this more than anyone else.

(It would be amazing if scientists had the ability to say "Hey, this path didn't lead anywhere, but I contributed to our understanding of the world by cutting off these possibilities". Sadly, scientists are human just like the rest of us. Science is the worst way to apprehend the world, except for all the others.)

Remember, no one is claiming that climate scientists are in a conspiracy to trick people into thinking there is global warming when they don't think there really is. That is a pure straw man by pro-AGW folks. What many people do feel is that numerous factors, including the natural vanity, zeal, and self-importance of the small community of climate scientists, are causing them to overstate their findings.

Re: Science is dead

#33

Post by brc »

philwelch wrote: post #27
brc wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Carbon trading was invented by Kenneth Lay of Enron. That should give you a pointer into what self interests lie for which groups? There is massive amounts of money to be made in the carbon trading arena : yet another type of derivative contract in which you'll have to pay a percentage for in order to buy/sell carbon credits. While I think internalising the externality is a fine idea in terms of controlling it, if co…

No one is saying CO2 is "evil", just that there are limits to how much we can safely emit into the atmosphere. Incidentally, "carbon trading was invented by Ken Lay" is a classic logical fallacy. It's no better than saying "assembly lines were implemented in the auto industry by Henry Ford, a notorious anti-Semite who was decorated by Adolf Hitler and personally refused to assist in the war effort". Ford's evils don'…

"carbon trading was invented by Ken Lay"

I've looked into it and you're correct on this (both accuracy and logical fallacy usage). You won't hear this from me ever again.

Also on the 'evil' statement - poor choice of words. I was referring to the EPA declaration of Co2.

Re: Science is dead

#34

Post by philwelch »

mynameishere wrote: post #30
philwelch wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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. Wow. Really? It's not that hard. When billions of dollars move around, there's always a destination. The beneficiaries are: 1. Unproductive countries that sell carbon credits to productive countries. 2. Financial firms that skim the transaction. 3. Politi…

Where do you people get this idea that politicians secretly want to implement socialism ("controlling the means of production and distribution")? What evidence do you have for this? If financial firms and "unproductive countries" have so much of a comparable vested interest, why don't they do as the oil companies do and actually invest in political advocacy on "their side"?

Re: Science is dead

#35

Post by philwelch »

rationalbeaver wrote: post #23
philwelch wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Allow me to assist. How do you think the environmental lobbyists propose that we combat APG? Does 'switch to renewable energy sources' sound familiar, or 'reducing emissions'? Does 'taxing carbon emissions' or 'carbon trading' sound familiar? All of these proposed changes have real economic impact, and they create winners and losers in the marketplace. If the government subsidizes solar or wind power and penalizes co…

OK. It's been well documented how the oil companies have their hands in the game. Show me the money trail from the solar and wind industry.

Re: Science is dead

#36

Post by philwelch »

ellyagg wrote: post #32
philwelch wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was responding to the vague claim that statists, who have an interest in increasing the power of the federal government, are exerting influence on climate scientists to fraudulently manufacture a rationale for a presumably wide-ranging and invasive intervention in the economy. My argument is that it's very hard to identify any sufficiently powerful group with any identifiably vested interest in fraudulent climate s…

Actually, it's not the slightest bit hard: > Consider the case of Phil Jones, the director of the CRU and the man at the heart of climategate. According to one of the documents hacked from his center, between 2000 and 2006 Mr. Jones was the recipient (or co-recipient) of some $19 million worth of research grants, a sixfold increase over what he'd been awarded in the 1990s. Source: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000…

Fine, let's test that hypothesis: climate scientists overstate their findings. If climate scientists overstate their findings, we would expect them to, among other things, overestimate the rate of glacial melting. But in fact, most of the findings (the IPCC findings in particular) underestimate the rate of glacial melting. Hmm....

Re: Science is dead

#37

Post by duncanj »

nollidge wrote: post #16
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.

Or at least one example.

Re: Science is dead

#38

Post by tensor »

pwnstigator wrote: post #5

I find it ridiculous that people are quick to claim "science is dead" because a few scientists, being human, err or embarrass themselves, or because society as a whole may be having an anti-science backlash. None of that has anything to do with science's value, and so long as science is valuable and some people are able to understand it, it won't die (barring a severe and sudden loss of knowledge by humanity as a who…

I'd like to add that scientific consensus is often a consensus of evidence, not a consensus of opinion as it so often is in politics.

Re: Science is dead

#39

Post by mick_m »

Maybe someone can figure out why HackerNews is such a hotbed of climate change denial? On the surface of it, there is no obvious connection between that and the usual subjects discussed here.

Re: Science is dead

#40

Post by [deleted] »

ellyagg wrote: post #31
timr wrote: post #3

What a disjoint, rambling mess. If this is the quality of thinking that concludes that science is dead, then I think I'm going to continue to put my money on science.

Riiight. I'm sure you went into that article with an open mind. Let me guess, you think the CRU leak didn't reveal much of interest? Instead of ad hominem, how about you refute the main and specific points brought up. I'm pretty sure Paul Graham even has an essay on how to argue properly if you're not sure how it's done. PS - And if you want an article that uses a less self-indulgent style, read Michael Crichton's re…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN