Science vs Political Ideals

[Reaper]

I was just reading a blog on Scientific American website and it discussed how in even in modern times various people have chosen to trump political ideals over scientific ones. Of course, this is nothing new, this type of thing has been happening for millenia. But you'd think that in this day and age people would know better. As it turns out, that is not the case, and I find that quite disturbing.

 

This was an article published very recently by the New York Times and placed on the Scientific American web blog. Apparently, the US government and the Bush Administration have been interfering with the publication of articles related to Stem Cell Research, Sex Education, mental health issues, national and global health issues, and even delayed a report for years about second hand smoke (The report stated that even brief exposure to second hand smoke was a health hazard and could cause immediate harm). The reasons for the interference was mostly because they went against the ideals of the politicians!

 

Here are some quotes:

 

Top officials delayed for years and tried to “water down” a landmark report on secondhand smoke, he said. Released last year, the report concluded that even brief exposure to cigarette smoke could cause immediate harm.

 

In response to lawmakers’ questions, Dr. Carmona refused to name specific people in the administration who had instructed him to put political considerations over scientific ones.

 

On issue after issue, Dr. Carmona said, the administration made decisions about important public health issues based solely on political considerations, not scientific ones.

 

Dr. Koop, said he had been discouraged by top officials in the Reagan administration from discussing the AIDS crisis. He did so anyway.

 

When stem cells became a focus of debate, Dr. Carmona said he proposed that his office offer guidance “so that we can have, if you will, informed consent.”

 

 

“I was told to stand down and not speak about it,” he said. “It was removed from my speeches.”

 

 

:eek::eek::eek:

 

(SOURCE: Harris, Gardiner. "Surgeon General Sees 4-Year Term as Compromised." New York Times 11 July 2007. 12 July 2007 <http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/11/washington/11surgeon.html?_r=2&th&emc=th&oref=slogin&oref=slogin>)

 

Of course, there are many more, but I think the point is made. These actions by the American government (for those of us who live in the US) are shocking to say the least. What this definitely shows is that the government is more willing to put their own political agendas ahead of science, and one wonders why we haven't joined the bandwagon on reducing global emissions, or why science and math have been declining in the US education boards for the last 20 years...

 

This can be very problematic indeed. You would have thought that we knew better, but this article shows otherwise.

 

Here is the full article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/11/washington/11surgeon.html?pagewanted=2&_r=2&th&emc=th

 

And this is the Scientific American web blog about the whole issue:

http://blog.sciam.com/index.php?title=when_scientific_findings_are_politically&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1

 

If important scientific articles and reports are deliberately being hidden from us, or screened out, then we are in more trouble than we thought......

[lucaspa]

the Bush Administration have been interfering with the publication of articles related to Stem Cell Research, Sex Education, mental health issues, national and global health issues,

 

I don't see documentation of interfering with the publication of articles, unless you mean government reports. I took that to mean scientific articles and I would like to see that documented.

 

Overall, if you want a deeper picture, read the book The Republican Attack on Science. Yes, there is a group of ideologues who want their ideas as governmental policy, no matter what the scientific data says. So, if the science contradicts what they want, then attack the science.

 

In all fairness, this is done to some extent by nearly everyone. Just look at the hysteria and arguments against the studies on intercessory prayer at infidels.org and other atheist sites. Misinformed and invalid attacks on the science because the results threaten their beliefs. However, since 1994 the Republican party has taken this to new quantitative heights and to the point that it threatens reasonable decision making for the forseeable future.

[Pangloss]

Two good points, both point and counterpoint. Not to derail, but I think this is yet another example of how partisanship has made it more difficult to obtain objectivity and make critical decisions. We can still do it, but it's harder now.

 

One thing that I think scientists, engineers and especially journalists need to understand is that doing the same thing in the opposite direction does not constitute objectivity and correct decision-making. Just as Republicans/conservatives have tried in recent years to tip the scales their way, Democrats/liberals have thrown up examples of the same for decades, and some of them would be quite willing to have another go at it today. For every fruitcake who insists that the word "God" be in every sentence a school child utters, there's another fruitcake that insists that the word "God" has to be removed from every facet of school or the child will be irreperably damaged.

 

Scientists, engineers and journalists need to be ABOVE this. It isn't enough anymore to ignore politics, as so many in our fields have been content to do for decades. You have to weigh political opinion and action, with every bit of the same studiousness that you use to weigh physical evidence and mathematical formula. And even worse -- you also have to work out the correct moral/ethical implications without the moral compass of ideology.

 

Not an easy thing to do. But that's exactly what we're supposed to be doing, and that's exactly what we should be teaching science, engineering and journalism students today.

[geoguy]

 

Not an easy thing to do. But that's exactly what we're supposed to be doing, and that's exactly what we should be teaching science, engineering and journalism students today.

 

Who exactly is this 'we'? The USA is a large cauldron of chaotic creativity. 5 out of 5 Nobel laureates in the 3 science categories are American. Whether it's M.I.T., Boeing, Microsoft, etc., science and technology thrives in the USA as in no other society. A lot of the controversy in the sciences in America revolves around peripheral philosophic issues such as Creatinism, stem cell research and soon. In the meantime thousands of folks plod along doing nitty-gritty research. whether it's mapping the human genome, nano technology, quantum communications....it all moves forward without the fetters of the 'we' deciding direction. The best of the best in the world teach physics at Berkely, medicine at Harvard and man the labs at Las Alamos.

 

The USA is a science superpower precisely because there is no body governing what's considered 'real' or 'good' science. Nerds, goof balls, whackos and eccentrics have the opportunity to develop everything from Silly Putty to space probes to the outer planets.

[Pangloss]

I'm at a loss as to whether you read the same post I wrote. You seem to take umbrage with it, but as far as I can tell it doesn't contradict what I said.

[lucaspa]

One thing that I think scientists, engineers and especially journalists need to understand is that doing the same thing in the opposite direction does not constitute objectivity and correct decision-making.

 

I agree. I have noticed that journalism is a problem. For most of the political issues that journalist cover, there are 2 "legimate" sides to an issue. That is, it is possible for one person to think lower taxes will stimulate the economy and for another to think that keeping taxes where they are and paying down the national debt will do the same thing.

 

However, in science there often simply is only one legitimate side. The other side has been conclusively falsified by the data. But journalists, out of their training for "fairness", make the mistake of portraying two views as tho they are equally valid.

 

Democrats/liberals have thrown up examples of the same for decades, and some of them would be quite willing to have another go at it today.

 

Democrats are not completely innocent of misusing science, but as the book documents, conservative Republicans and corporations have taken this to new highs never before used.

 

For every fruitcake who insists that the word "God" be in every sentence a school child utters, there's another fruitcake that insists that the word "God" has to be removed from every facet of school or the child will be irreperably damaged.

 

I would suggest you get a new example. This one really doesn't involve science. It's different interpretations of the Establishment Clause. Examples today include the argument over global warming, smoking (right now second-hand smoke), possible danger of genetically altered food plants, and environmental conservation. We've seen examples of attempts to misuse sciene for one side of all of these.

 

The reason is simple: science is the most reliable form of knowledge we have. In an argument, if you have some scientific evidence on your side, you win. Local school board wants to cut the music program? If you can bring scientific studies showing that school music programs enhance the general academic performance, then you have a powerful weapon in that budget battle.

 

So it becomes very tempting to either undermine the opponent's science or invent some of your own.

 

Scientists, engineers and journalists need to be ABOVE this. ... And even worse -- you also have to work out the correct moral/ethical implications without the moral compass of ideology.

 

The problem here is that science is NOT ethics. Science tells us how the physical universe behaves. Ethics tells us how humans ought to behave. If you have scientists being the ethical goalkeepers, I think you end up with more problems.

 

Far better to let scientists report the results and then let everyone discuss the ethics of possible uses for the results.

 

that's exactly what we should be teaching science, engineering and journalism students today.

 

I disagree. What we should be teaching journalists is the nature of science and that not all theories are epistemically equal. "Fairness" doesn't apply to the physical universe. The universe is what it IS, no matter what we consider to be "fair". We should teach science and engineering students to keep their personal feelings separate from their science. And we should probably be teaching them not to allow themselves to compromise the science for their personal beliefs and/or financial gain.

 

A lot of the controversy in the sciences in America revolves around peripheral philosophic issues such as Creatinism, stem cell research

 

That's not only what we are talking about. This isn't about the ability of Americans to do science. It is about people misusing science and putting out bad science to back a particular economic or other interest.

 

The tobacco industry got very good at denigrating studies showing the harmful effects of smoking. They funded "scientific studies" that put out "results" that looked like smoking was not harmful. Look at the work done by those that oppose global warming. Again, much of this is funded by industry -- particularly the oil and gas companies -- that see their economic interests threatened if the Kyoto Protocols are put in place.

 

I view the controversy over ES cell research as a genuine and healthy discussion of the ethics. However, I do see misuse of the data as adult stem cell research is given credit for results it hasn't produced.

 

Evolution does threaten the god of Fundamentalism: a literal Bible. Of course, I think that's just too damn bad, from both a scientific and Christian perspective. But since the perceived threat is real, I can sympathize with the rank-and-file creationists who feel their ultimate meaning is threatened. Of course, I have NO sympathy for the professional creationists who distort the science.

 

SkepticLance started a thread on a book that questioned whether habitat loss causes extinctions. I think that book is an example of what the OP talked about. Dressed up as "science", it actually serves the interests of developers who want to turn forests and other habitats into suburbs and malls. This "science" tells us there won't be any adverse consequences from that.

[Pangloss]

I agree. I have noticed that journalism is a problem. For most of the political issues that journalist cover, there are 2 "legimate" sides to an issue. That is, it is possible for one person to think lower taxes will stimulate the economy and for another to think that keeping taxes where they are and paying down the national debt will do the same thing.

 

However, in science there often simply is only one legitimate side. The other side has been conclusively falsified by the data. But journalists, out of their training for "fairness", make the mistake of portraying two views as tho they are equally valid.

 

Absolutely. It gets really frustrating when they do it out of ignorance. IMO a journalist should be able to at least tell the difference between a quack and a serious scientist in most (sure, maybe not all) cases.

 

 

Democrats are not completely innocent of misusing science, but as the book documents, conservative Republicans and corporations have taken this to new highs never before used.

 

I agree with this statement, but I think it's important to understand that they did not do so in a vacuum. The allure of conservative talk radio, for example, is that it fires up what at leasts initially appears to be critical thinking and objective reasoning. That allure grew out of decades of Democratic control of Congress and a gradual progressive trend in this country that had become more focused on political correctness than true liberal thinking and in my opinion well needed a sharp stick in the eye.

 

But the situation today is very different, and any gain we might have seen from that awakening is more than offset today by partisanship. We have to motivate people to move past the superficial appearance of critical thinking, and dig deeper.

 

Incidentally, it was the earliest form of conservative talk radio (in the mid 1980s) that ignited my own interest in critical thinking and political observation. Neil Boortz, to be specific. I was flunking out of Georgia Tech, aimless and unmotivated, and working part time in a Fotomat booth. Were it not for Nasty Neil I would not be here today, either virtually or in my career.

 

So I guess you gotta give 'em credit for one thing, at least.

 

 

I disagree. What we should be teaching journalists is the nature of science and that not all theories are epistemically equal. "Fairness" doesn't apply to the physical universe. The universe is what it IS, no matter what we consider to be "fair". We should teach science and engineering students to keep their personal feelings separate from their science. And we should probably be teaching them not to allow themselves to compromise the science for their personal beliefs and/or financial gain.

 

We might have to agree to disagree on this, but I respect where you're coming from with it. While I absolutely agree with your point about scientific fact, much of what happens in science today isn't fact at all, it's statistical approximation and presumption (especially in the areas of medicine and the environment).

 

At any rate, you're actually agreeing with me when you say "we should probably be teaching them not to allow themselves to compromise the science for their personal beliefs and/or financial gain". That's ethics, not science.

[Reaper]

I don't see documentation of interfering with the publication of articles, unless you mean government reports. I took that to mean scientific articles and I would like to see that documented.

 

Overall, if you want a deeper picture, read the book The Republican Attack on Science. Yes, there is a group of ideologues who want their ideas as governmental policy, no matter what the scientific data says. So, if the science contradicts what they want, then attack the science.

 

This was pretty much what I was talking about. I also remember reading on a Time magazine that stated that the bureaucracy is making the publication of science articles in general much more cumbersome. I don't mean outright censorship but the fact that they do attack the science (such as what fundamentalists do with evolution) is well known, and what surprised me was that there are reports of suppressing or interfering health and medical related publications.

 

In all fairness, this is done to some extent by nearly everyone. Just look at the hysteria and arguments against the studies on intercessory prayer at infidels.org and other atheist sites. Misinformed and invalid attacks on the science because the results threaten their beliefs. However, since 1994 the Republican party has taken this to new quantitative heights and to the point that it threatens reasonable decision making for the forseeable future.

 

Yeah, no kidding. I still remember the veto George Bush gave out in regards to diverting more funds to stem cell research based on "moral" obligations.

 

I agree. I have noticed that journalism is a problem. For most of the political issues that journalist cover, there are 2 "legimate" sides to an issue. That is, it is possible for one person to think lower taxes will stimulate the economy and for another to think that keeping taxes where they are and paying down the national debt will do the same thing.

 

I also find that journalists and major news networks will talk about some quack if they think they can get a lot of publicity or boost their ratings. Even though it might not be true or validated, they figure that by putting it out there they can gain a lot of publicity so to speak.

 

I find that they always portray two sides because it is more "interesting" that way and therefore would rack in more viewers, rather than actually portraying the issue at hand. Just think back to the 2004 elections, where they were basically acting as if this was some sort of wrestling match between Bush and Kerry.

 

BTW, I will check out this "Republican Attack on Science" soon! Thanks for the resource.

[ParanoiA]

Incidentally, it was the earliest form of conservative talk radio (in the mid 1980s) that ignited my own interest in critical thinking and political observation. Neil Boortz, to be specific. I was flunking out of Georgia Tech, aimless and unmotivated, and working part time in a Fotomat booth. Were it not for Nasty Neil I would not be here today, either virtually or in my career.

 

For me it was Rush. And even though I'm in disagreement with half, if not more, of the conservative ideology and find myself yelling at the radio at him - I still love the guy. He woke me up and taught me to think for myself, not to mention validated so many premature thoughts I had at the time. I don't believe it is a "free exchange of ideas" as he routinely touts, because he controls the ideas being exchanged in a radio format, but that's certianly far more open than the classic closed media that has been the standard for the country for decades. I don't remember hearing anyone call in and even try to take on Dan Rather and company.

 

Democrats are not completely innocent of misusing science, but as the book documents, conservative Republicans and corporations have taken this to new highs never before used.

 

Something to consider is that we've had 3 other doomsday climate change movements - all blamed on humans - in the past 100 years. We've had global cooling as well as warming. Time magazine, I believe, had an image of the empire state building poking out of the water, surrounded by ice bergs - the great global cooling issue. Not too different from a similar image of Manhattan flooded from the effects of global warming.

 

None of this came to pass. Scientists were convinced and warned of these events - the media blew it up and sensationalized it and it looks pretty much the same today. Sure we have better instruments to measure with, computers to calculate with, but the resemblances are obvious.

 

While I understand the frustration of basically ignoring scientist's conclusions, it's not like they have NO reason to do it. Cry wolf enough times and people stop believing you. They aren't scientists, so when they hear you go into the technical side of data analysis their eyes glaze over and they wonder how much of what you say is empirical and how much is theory.

 

Seriously, if republicans give tax cuts to the rich over and over again, yet the economy NEVER kick starts, you're not going to believe them anymore are you? Even if they have a 15 page report and an army of economists pushing up their glasses and boring us with business models and study - we're still going to doubt them because it never happens as they say.

[lucaspa]

Absolutely. It gets really frustrating when they do it out of ignorance. IMO a journalist should be able to at least tell the difference between a quack and a serious scientist in most (sure, maybe not all) cases.

 

This is still the wrong thing. Again you are having the journalists look at people. This is what journalists do all the time, but they have to put both people on when they are on opposite sides of an issue. It's apparent that, even on a science forum, our educational system has failed to teach people what is science.

 

In science, it's not about the people, it's about the DATA. Telling a "quack" from a "serious scientist" is about people! At some time or another, most of the great scientists were looked upon aas "quacks".

 

I agree with this statement, but I think it's important to understand that they did not do so in a vacuum. The allure of conservative talk radio, for example, is that it fires up what at leasts initially appears to be critical thinking and objective reasoning. That allure grew out of decades of Democratic control of Congress and a gradual progressive trend in this country that had become more focused on political correctness than true liberal thinking and in my opinion well needed a sharp stick in the eye.

 

I disagree. The Dems at least used critical thinking. What you have said is that conservative Republicans deliberately misused critical thinking. That is, gave people what looked like it but was not. If the Dems were guilty of faulty reasoning, surely the corrective action was not to give a different form of faulty reasoning.

 

 

 

 

 

We might have to agree to disagree on this, but I respect where you're coming from with it. While I absolutely agree with your point about scientific fact, much of what happens in science today isn't fact at all, it's statistical approximation and presumption (especially in the areas of medicine and the environment).

 

At any rate, you're actually agreeing with me when you say "we should probably be teaching them not to allow themselves to compromise the science for their personal beliefs and/or financial gain". That's ethics, not science.

 

Actually, that's the ethics OF science! Therefore to be taught IN science. While science is not an ethical system, science does have a set of ethics scientists are supposed to abide by:

1. Don't fabricate or falsify data.

2. Don't warp data to fit theories.

3. Don't warp data for financial gain or to fit personal beliefs.

4. Admit when theories are falsified.

 

We might have to agree to disagree on this, but I respect where you're coming from with it. While I absolutely agree with your point about scientific fact, much of what happens in science today isn't fact at all, it's statistical approximation and presumption (especially in the areas of medicine and the environment).

 

This comes from failing to look at what science really does: falsifies theories. What you are doing is looking at "evidence for" and thinking you can distinguish valid from invalid theories based on that. Again, our educational system has failed if someone on a science forum has this poor a view of what science is and how it works. The distortion we are talking about comes from theories that are conclusively falsified but people want them to be considered as valid.

 

In the environment, the theories that are falsified are:

1. The environment is not getting warmer.

2. The change is not caused at all by human activity.

 

Now, climatologists can argue about exactly how much the climate is warming and how much of the change is due to human activity. They can also argue about the consequences. But NONE of them disagree that those 2 theories are falsified.

 

The same thing happens in medicine. Also, saying scientific conclusions are based on "presumption" is exactly one of the arguments used by the people you are posting against! That's one of the main ways to try to deny data you don't like. Don't call it data or observations, but call it "presumptions" or "assumptions" or "prejudice". Congrats, you fell into the same trap you are inveighing against!

 

This was pretty much what I was talking about. I also remember reading on a Time magazine that stated that the bureaucracy is making the publication of science articles in general much more cumbersome. I don't mean outright censorship but the fact that they do attack the science (such as what fundamentalists do with evolution) is well known, and what surprised me was that there are reports of suppressing or interfering health and medical related publications.

 

Please document the suppression or interferring with health and medical related publications in the peer-reviewed literature.

 

Yeah, no kidding. I still remember the veto George Bush gave out in regards to diverting more funds to stem cell research based on "moral" obligations.

 

The point I was making is that this is acceptable. I don't agree with Bush, but not because I think he "interferred with science". I disagree because I have a different moral position.

 

After all, we could pursue science to make a more lethal and infectious strain of smallpox or ebola. SHOULD WE?. I would veto funding for such research. Because of my moral obligations. How about you?

 

I also find that journalists and major news networks will talk about some quack if they think they can get a lot of publicity or boost their ratings. Even though it might not be true or validated, they figure that by putting it out there they can gain a lot of publicity so to speak.

 

Again, they are presenting "both sides". The point is, by the DATA, there isn't both sides. I claim that they portray two sides because that is what they are trained to do as part of "fairness". In the case of politics or pre-trial criminal proceedings, that is the case. The problem is that it doesn't apply to science. The physical universe only has one side. Once science finds out that a side is just plain wrong, that's the end of it.

 

Just think back to the 2004 elections, where they were basically acting as if this was some sort of wrestling match between Bush and Kerry.

 

That's a different issue and it has ALWAYS been done that way. Read a bit of history of elections in the 19th century. Start with the 1800 presidential race between Jefferson and Adams. Also, don't forget the races Andrew Jackson ran. He definitely viewed it as a fight. A duel more than a wrestling match. Politics tends to get personal and political elections have ALWAYS been referred to as a "race" between candidates. The idea that what we have are people with different ideas to deal with the issues and people should pick the candidate whose position on the issues most closely resembles theirs always gets lost. And always has. Instead, the "race" simile causes journalists (and everyone else) to treat elections like sporting events.

 

For me it was Rush. And even though I'm in disagreement with half, if not more, of the conservative ideology and find myself yelling at the radio at him - I still love the guy. He woke me up and taught me to think for myself, not to mention validated so many premature thoughts I had at the time.

 

Every time I've listened to Rush and checked his "facts", I find that those facts are always lies. So yes, he "validated" ideas of yours, but he did so with lies. Does that really count as "validation"?

 

I don't remember hearing anyone call in and even try to take on Dan Rather and company.

 

Didn't have to. Cronkite and company had the integrity to check their facts. When Rather didn't, he was fired. So you might not have liked what was being told to you, but you weren't being out and out lied to with a straight face like Rush does.

 

 

None of this came to pass. Scientists were convinced and warned of these events - the media blew it up and sensationalized it and it looks pretty much the same today. Sure we have better instruments to measure with, computers to calculate with, but the resemblances are obvious.

 

There's a difference between extrapolating beyond what the data says -- doomsday scenarios -- and denying data. And there's also the thing in science that you change your mind when you have new data. BUT, in the meantime you make decisions based on what the data is as you know it.

 

While I understand the frustration of basically ignoring scientist's conclusions,

 

This isn't "ignoring conclusions". We can take that. After all, science tells you what the physcial universe IS, not what you OUGHT to do about it. Science tells you what the effects of cutting down the entire Amazonian rainforest are going to be. That doesn't, by itself, tell you not to do it.

 

What is happening now is 1) denying the data, 2) misrepresenting the data, 3) personally attacking scientists (which is what you are doing), and 4) attacking science as a reliable way to know about the physical universe (also what you are doing).

 

They aren't scientists, so when they hear you go into the technical side of data analysis their eyes glaze over and they wonder how much of what you say is empirical and how much is theory.

 

And there is the problem. SHOULD their eyes glaze over? After all, if they are going to argue that the data is wrong, then it is recumbent on them to listen to the data analysis.

 

Seriously, if republicans give tax cuts to the rich over and over again, yet the economy NEVER kick starts, you're not going to believe them anymore are you?

 

I never believed this anyway. And yet ... people keep voting for tax cuts, don't they? They ignore that the economy had the longest period of growth under Clinton and what did the majority vote for? Tax cuts.

 

So, on the empirical evidence, it appears that you are wrong about this. Most people will go on believing. Maybe because the Repubs never used those long studies but simply told the Big Lie long enough that most people believed it? Or because they couched it in terms of general tax cuts and people are basically selfish and greedy and never looked to see how much their own taxes would be cut?

[ParanoiA]

Every time I've listened to Rush and checked his "facts", I find that those facts are always lies. So yes, he "validated" ideas of yours, but he did so with lies. Does that really count as "validation"?

 

No they're not. That's an obvious give away that you haven't listened to Rush for more than 15 minutes. Anyone who says this doesn't really listen to Rush. They say they do so they can make statements like that because he's such a polarized figure and they hate him. You don't get 20 million listeners and stay on top of the game for years and years and become the radio talk show king by telling facts that are "all lies". That's what a teenager says about anything they dislike, not a critically thinking scientist.

 

Anyway, I was talking about the philosphical side of politics. Validating my suspicion of high taxes, big government, the characteristics of liberalism, incrimentalism, frustration with beaurocracy, affirmative action, and etc. Not little factoids that you find offensive to your ideology.

 

Didn't have to. Cronkite and company had the integrity to check their facts. When Rather didn't, he was fired. So you might not have liked what was being told to you, but you weren't being out and out lied to with a straight face like Rush does.

 

Again, Rush would be insignificant overnight if he lied. That's silly. I can't stand card carrying liberals, but I wouldn't call them liars because of it. Prove your statements please. Show me the lies. And please don't insult my intelligence by posting links to anti-Rush sites - only unbiased sources.

 

Cronkite and company didn't and don't have the balls to take calls live from ordinary people - even after screening - and explain themselves. None of them do. Talk radio is not a free exchange of ideas, and the media you're referring to isn't even an exchange of any ideas at all. It's more controlled and protected than talk radio. That's their corporate business model.

 

And there's also the thing in science that you change your mind when you have new data. BUT, in the meantime you make decisions based on what the data is as you know it.

 

And I'm still waiting for a reason to believe science knows it now. Don't you also have a responsibility for your mistakes? Don't you have the sense to consider your mistakes before you run off repeating the sky is falling again? I don't see that it's been considered. Scientists are just as arrogant today as they were a hundred years ago.

 

What is happening now is 1) denying the data, 2) misrepresenting the data, 3) personally attacking scientists (which is what you are doing), and 4) attacking science as a reliable way to know about the physical universe (also what you are doing).

 

I'm not attacking science, I'm holding science up to its own standard. Denying what data? No one denies your thermometer readings. No one denies your CO2 gadgets and your measurements. They're denying your interpretation of what the data means.

 

It's the scientists that are doing the interpreting - with their models that can't figure in every single little thing to do with climate change - period. And these are the same people that have cried doom before - for the same reasons. Yes, scientists are being taken to task. That's responsible. You should be immune from credibility? You should be able to say whatever you want and the public should bow before you?

 

And there is the problem. SHOULD their eyes glaze over? After all, if they are going to argue that the data is wrong, then it is recumbent on them to listen to the data analysis.

 

No it shouldn't. I'm just describing human nature. Non-scientists don't understand things the way you do. So, with that partition firmly in place, most of what you say becomes a choice whether to believe or not - not a proof one way or the other. So, when they chose to believe you, 3 times before, and nothing happened, it has raised their suspicions. I'm just providing a theory as to why republicans deny your data, as you put it.

 

And yet ... people keep voting for tax cuts, don't they? They ignore that the economy had the longest period of growth under Clinton and what did the majority vote for?

 

Clinton enjoyed growth from the Bush tax cuts. Even Greenspan admitted that. JFK also understood that concept, a democrat no less. Tax cuts have proven to stimulate the economy - certain tax cuts that is. That's why people keep voting for it Lucaspa.

 

Or because they couched it in terms of general tax cuts and people are basically selfish and greedy and never looked to see how much their own taxes would be cut?

 

Or they had the depth to consider it logically and the objectivity to resist the emotional temptation to cry contempt at "tax cuts for the rich". Those who use that argument are patronizing the poor to gain power - the so-called champion party for the working man.

[bombus]

anothers hope, anothers game

anothers loss, anothers gain

anothers lies, anothers truth

anothers doubt, anothers proof

anothers left, anothers right

anothers peace, anothers fight

anothers name, anothers aim

anothers fall, anothers fame

anothers pride, anothers shame

anothers love, anothers pain

anothers hope, anothers game

anothers loss, anothers gain

anothers lies, anothers truth

anothers doubt, anothers proof

anothers left, anothers right

anothers peace, anothers fight

 

marx had an idea from the confusion of his head then there were a thousand more waiting to be led the books are sold, the quotes are bought you learn them well and then you're caught

 

anothers left, anothers right

anothers peace, anothers fight

 

Hitler had ideas from the confusion of his heart then there were a thousand more waiting to play their part the stage was set, the costumes worn and another empire of destruction born

 

anothers name, anothers aim

anothers fall, anothers fame

 

Jung had an idea from the confusion of his dream then there were a thousand more waiting to be seen you're not yourself, the theory says but i can help, your complex pays

 

anothers hope, anothers

anothers loss, anothers gain

 

Satre had an idea from the confusion of his brain then there were a thousand more indulging in his pain revelling in isolation and existential choice can you truly be alone when you use anothers voice?

 

Anothers lies, anothers truth

anothers doubt, anothers proof

 

the idea born in someones mind is nurtured by a thousand blind anonymous beings, vacuous souls do you fear the confusion, your lack of control?

 

you lift your arm to write a name so caught up in the identity game who do you see? who do you watch? who's your leader? which is your flock? who do you watch? who do you watch? who's your leader? which is your flock?

 

Einstein had an idea from the confusion of his knowledge then there were a thousand more turning to advantage they realised that their god was dead so they reclaimed power through the bomb instead

 

anothers code,

anothers brain

they'll shower us all in deadly rain

 

Jesus had an idea from the confusion of his soul then there were a thousand more waiting to take control the guilt is sold, forgiveness bought the cross is there as your reward

 

Anothers love, anothers pain anothers pride, anothers shame do you watch at a distance from the side you have chosen? whose answers serve you best? who'll save you from confusion? who will leave you an exit and a comfortable cover who will take you oh so near the edge, but never drop you over? who do you watch?

[Pangloss]

This is still the wrong thing. Again you are having the journalists look at people. This is what journalists do all the time, but they have to put both people on when they are on opposite sides of an issue. It's apparent that, even on a science forum, our educational system has failed to teach people what is science.

 

I wish it were that simple. But the fact of the matter is that no matter how good our educational system is you're not going have the time to train, for example, nuclear physicists to understand, for example, meteorological models. At some point you have to work at above the level of data, and that becomes a matter of imprecise judgement based on your understanding of the qualifications and background of the person making the assessment that you're reading.

 

I'm not saying modern journalism isn't cracked, but I do say that it doesn't work in a vaccum. The idiots are daily exploited by people who do know better, but see an obvious avenue for personal gain by contradicting something that actually doesn't have a counterpoint.

 

 

I disagree. The Dems at least used critical thinking. What you have said is that conservative Republicans deliberately misused critical thinking. That is, gave people what looked like it but was not. If the Dems were guilty of faulty reasoning, surely the corrective action was not to give a different form of faulty reasoning.

 

I don't dispute that this has been a key trend for a while now, but I think that's a unilateral view, and much like your unilateral view of what constitutes science, it doesn't stand the test of historical truth. Not all Dems used critical thinking. Not all Reps were guilty of avoiding it. It just isn't that simple, guy.

 

 

This comes from failing to look at what science really does: falsifies theories. What you are doing is looking at "evidence for" and thinking you can distinguish valid from invalid theories based on that. Again, our educational system has failed if someone on a science forum has this poor a view of what science is and how it works. The distortion we are talking about comes from theories that are conclusively falsified but people want them to be considered as valid.

 

In the environment, the theories that are falsified are:

1. The environment is not getting warmer.

2. The change is not caused at all by human activity.

 

Now, climatologists can argue about exactly how much the climate is warming and how much of the change is due to human activity. They can also argue about the consequences. But NONE of them disagree that those 2 theories are falsified.

 

That's an excellent point, and well put. But look at how long it's taken us to get to this point.

 

I really think your beef is more about timing than recognition of truths. Maybe I'm reading between the lines too much, and I don't mean this in a derogatory manner, but you seem more upset with the amount of time it takes society to come to conclusions and reach a consensus than anything else. I certainly empathize with that frustration on many issues, but that's why I tend to take the long-term view on most socio-political matters. I don't worry to much about whether the Republicans or the Democrats are correct on a day-to-day basis. I wait for the judgement of history. That's not to say that sitting back and ignoring issues is a good idea -- of course it's not. But it's also not a good idea to go leaping here and there with one idea or another without immediate, direct knowledge of what's actually happening.

 

I ran across a perfect example of this (if wildly off-topic) the other night while watching the wonderful documentary "Fog of War", an Oscar-nominated film about Robert S. McNamara, who was the Secretary of Defense that basically put us in Vietnam. He was absolutely vilified and hated by the anti-war crowd and blamed by the moderates as well. But the evidence today (and certainly his point of view) suggests that he was basically just doing what Johnson told him to do, and actually tried to prevent Vietnam.

 

I'm not a climatologist, a physicist, a biologist, an astronomer (well that one's never very controversial I guess), or anything else except a maybe somewhat knowledgable about computers (working on a PhD in the subject). All I can do is rely on the knowledge of others, and do my best to look beneath the surface as well as I can from this distance. What else can I really do?

 

And this is where we will have to agree to disagree, because I don't see easy answers, quick tests, simple rules to follow here. No matter who's involved, or what they're telling me. I wish I did. But I just don't.

 

That was a really thoughtful and interesting post, btw.

[Sisyphus]

No they're not. That's an obvious give away that you haven't listened to Rush for more than 15 minutes. Anyone who says this doesn't really listen to Rush. They say they do so they can make statements like that because he's such a polarized figure and they hate him. You don't get 20 million listeners and stay on top of the game for years and years and become the radio talk show king by telling facts that are "all lies". That's what a teenager says about anything they dislike, not a critically thinking scientist.

 

You don't get 20 million listeners that way? Says who? You see specials on TV all the time about UFOs and haunted houses and the Loch Ness Monster with conspiracy wackos on as "experts" and it's all completely deadpan. How do they get away with that? Well, it's not "journalism," it's a documentary, and it's not against the law to say ridiculous bullshit. Why do they do it? Because it brings in the ratings.

 

Now go to something like talk radio and Rush Limbaugh. He's not a "journalist" either, and nobody is holding him accountable to tell the truth. His accountability is in continuing to bring in the listeners, not to stick to factual accuracy. If he says things all the time that are factually not true, and the ratings are still soaring despite it constantly being pointed out by third parties, why would he get fired? He wouldn't.

 

And rest assured, they ARE wrong. I don't listen to Rush very often. Maybe once or twice a month coming to or from work. And then not for very long. (I can't really take him for more than 20 minutes or so.) But even in that time I hear the same old stuff which is JUST NOT TRUE. That stupid thing about volcanoes and CO2 that he single-handedly turned into an urban legend. That thing about the ice caps melting. Etc. No, not everything is lies, but he sure does slip them in there pretty often, and it's very often the thing which is not true that's the most convincing support for his argument. "Statistics" in particular are really amusing this way: I'm 100% certain he usually just makes them up on the spur of the moment.

 

But then you might ask, why would his ratings stay that high if he's always staying stuff that is just plain wrong? Well, like you say, he explains what his position is very well (even if he often supports that position with utter bullshit) and in an entertaining way, and can articulate what a lot of people agree with but can't articulate. And so people like that and listen in. And those people aren't especially bothered by falsehoods for the most part because they believe them, and they believe them because the people who point them out are dismissed as propagandists for those devil -fiends, the liberals. They're just "biased websites" and the like. (Anyone who looks into the matter discovers his B.S., thereby becoming "anti-Rush" and not trustworthy!) And after all, if he said things that weren't true all the time, surely he wouldn't be on the air so long and have so many listeners.... right? Yet the same people who rationalize on those grounds have no problem believing that 80% of the things out of Hillary Clinton's mouth are lies, and that's how she gets all her support....

 

[/rant]

[Pangloss]

Now go to something like talk radio and Rush Limbaugh. He's not a "journalist" either, and nobody is holding him accountable to tell the truth. His accountability is in continuing to bring in the listeners, not to stick to factual accuracy. If he says things all the time that are factually not true, and the ratings are still soaring despite it constantly being pointed out by third parties, why would he get fired? He wouldn't.

 

Just out of idle curiosity, do you hold Air America to the same standard? Or are they less accountable because their listenership is smaller?

[Sisyphus]

Just out of idle curiosity, do you hold Air America to the same standard? Or are they less accountable because their listenership is smaller?

 

Actually, I've never listened to Air America. I wouldn't be at all surprised if it was basically the same situation, though. I also wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't.

[swansont]

Again, Rush would be insignificant overnight if he lied. That's silly. I can't stand card carrying liberals, but I wouldn't call them liars because of it. Prove your statements please. Show me the lies. And please don't insult my intelligence by posting links to anti-Rush sites - only unbiased sources.

 

Ironic that this is an example of ideology affecting science. Facts are facts. You can't validly exclude them because you don't like the source or disagree with their ideals. To attempt to counter a fact because the source is supposedly biased would be a fallacy; poisoning the well and/or ad hominem.

 

And a book or site that listed alleged lies made by Rush would almost always be thought of as biased, wouldn't it?

 

Anyway, Al Franken has a couple of books that list many statements by Rush that are not based in fact. Donald Trent Jacobs apparently has one, too.

[ParanoiA]

Ironic that this is an example of ideology affecting science. Facts are facts. You can't validly exclude them because you don't like the source or disagree with their ideals. To attempt to counter a fact because the source is supposedly biased would be a fallacy; poisoning the well and/or ad hominem.

 

 

But that's the issue, when they are biased they quote Rush inaccurately in order to make their "fact" fit. The "fact" they tout in response can be right on the money - but his supposed quote is always in question. I've just seen it so much and get tired of hearing it. They repeatedly misquote him - and if he didn't play back his original broadcasts to these people over the air, I would probably have believed these so-called "fact" sites. Thank goodness I critically think for myself and don't poison my own knowledge potential by excluding Rush based on prejudice and emotion.

 

Now, is CNN biased? Is MSNBC biased? The AP? Of course they are, but I would still listen to them if they referenced factual inaccuracies by Rush, as they are considered fair and balanced, at least in the mainstream sense. The anti-Rush sites I've seen are geared for people who hate him and just need some ventilation. They say whatever they want - unchecked....talk about irony....

[swansont]

But that's the issue, when they are biased they quote Rush inaccurately in order to make their "fact" fit. The "fact" they tout in response can be right on the money - but his supposed quote is always in question. I've just seen it so much and get tired of hearing it. They repeatedly misquote him - and if he didn't play back his original broadcasts to these people over the air, I would probably have believed these so-called "fact" sites. Thank goodness I critically think for myself and don't poison my own knowledge potential by excluding Rush based on prejudice and emotion.

 

Now, is CNN biased? Is MSNBC biased? The AP? Of course they are, but I would still listen to them if they referenced factual inaccuracies by Rush, as they are considered fair and balanced, at least in the mainstream sense. The anti-Rush sites I've seen are geared for people who hate him and just need some ventilation. They say whatever they want - unchecked....talk about irony....

 

 

But that's rejecting things because they are in error, and that's perfectly acceptable. The problem arises when one rejects the criticism ahead of time, for reasons other than e.g. "that's not an accurate quote"

[john5746]

... Of course, this is nothing new, this type of thing has been happening for millenia. But you'd think that in this day and age people would know better. As it turns out, that is not the case, and I find that quite disturbing. .....

 

Politicians need to make decisions based on information given, not just follow scientists. There are numerous "discoveries" and reports everyday. It must be filtered, not just thrown out knee-jerk like a boy crying wolf.

 

You example with second-hand smoke: Common sense tells me that if brief exposure to second hand smoke can cause damage, maybe all air pollution can cause damage. What do we do, legislate that everyone wear an oxygen mask? Are there competing studies validating or countering this find?

 

I too am frustrated at the mistrust of solid evidence by lawyers, but some prudence is needed.

[swansont]

Politicians need to make decisions based on information given, not just follow scientists. There are numerous "discoveries" and reports everyday. It must be filtered, not just thrown out knee-jerk like a boy crying wolf.

 

You example with second-hand smoke: Common sense tells me that if brief exposure to second hand smoke can cause damage, maybe all air pollution can cause damage. What do we do, legislate that everyone wear an oxygen mask? Are there competing studies validating or countering this find?

 

I too am frustrated at the mistrust of solid evidence by lawyers, but some prudence is needed.

 

One of the points of The Republican War on Science is that there's an important distinction between not following some scientific recommendation for political (or other) reason(s), and misrepresenting the science. i.e. one can say that X is a problem and we just won't do anything about it (and justify that with a politics-based explanation), but it would be very different if one were to misrepresent the science in order to say X isn't a problem in the first place. And it's not necessarily mistrust of evidence as it is having decided that the evidence must show certain results, before it's even been reviewed, because of some ideology. The former is skepticism, the latter is not.

[lucaspa]

No they're not. That's an obvious give away that you haven't listened to Rush for more than 15 minutes. Anyone who says this doesn't really listen to Rush.

 

Let me give you an example from a couple of years ago. An oil tanker had sunk in the Atlantic off the Spanish coasts. A newspaper article was giving the ecological consequences of the oil leaking from the tanker and Rush decided that there would be no ecological consequences. His example? The Titanic sank and the oil for its engines did not cause any ecological problems! Do you see the several lies here? The obvious one was that the Titanic used coal for fuel. As I listened Rush acknowledged that several people had e-mailed him informing him that the Titanic used coal, not oil. Rush's response "It's the same thing."

 

Now, even a computer geek such as you must know that this was a huge lie. Coal is solid and oil is liquid. Not the same thing when applied to the situation. Of course, Rush also implied that the Titanic had as much oil as the tanker when, of course, the difference is at least 3 orders of magnitude between the amount of oil carried by a tanker and that carried as fuel by a cruise ship.

 

You don't get 20 million listeners and stay on top of the game for years and years and become the radio talk show king by telling facts that are "all lies".

 

Sadly, the data says, yes you do. You yourself gave the reason people will listen to lies:

Anyway, I was talking about the philosphical side of politics. Validating my suspicion of high taxes, big government, the characteristics of liberalism, incrimentalism, frustration with beaurocracy, affirmative action, and etc. Not little factoids that you find offensive to your ideology.

 

Let me ask you: how does Rush "validate"? By telling you "facts", right? Rush used the story above to "validate your suspicions" that ecological "liberals" were exaggerating the danger. He used the "fact" of the Titanic as his evidence. And you accept the lies because Rush is telling you what you want to hear.

 

Thank you for so thoroughly refuting your position and supporting mine.

 

Let me ask you another question: How "valid" are your suspicions if they are based on "factoids" that are not true?

 

Again, Rush would be insignificant overnight if he lied.

 

See above as you tell us why that is not so. As long as Rush is "validating your suspicions", you like him.

 

I'm not attacking science, I'm holding science up to its own standard. Denying what data? No one denies your thermometer readings. No one denies your CO2 gadgets and your measurements. They're denying your interpretation of what the data means.

Another way to attack science. Simply say the conclusions don't match the data. But on what basis? As you acknowledged in the previous post, the data clearly falsifies that 1) climate is staying the same and 2) humans are not involved.

 

It's the scientists that are doing the interpreting - with their models that can't figure in every single little thing to do with climate change - period.

 

Now you attack the methods. Look what you said from last post: "you're not going have the time to train, for example, nuclear physicists to understand, for example, meteorological models. "

 

You seem to "understand" them well enough to say that they don't work! How is that possible? You can't have it both ways. You can't say you don't understand the models but then say you understand them enough to say they are faulty! Look at the article from the recent SciAm and see if you can understand this: the graphs of the models go from the past to the future and they are plotted with the known values from the past. Now, if the lines from the models match the known values from the past, they are also going to be accurate going into the future. After all, we don't know everything that happened in the past, either, to cause temperature, do we? But the model has enough of those to give an accurate prediction of what those past temperatures were.

 

You should be immune from credibility? You should be able to say whatever you want and the public should bow before you?

 

The public should be looking at the data, not at us as people! You still keep doing this. You are making it personal. Science isn't personal and about scientists. Remember I said one way to deny science is to attack scientists personally? Look what you are doing.

 

You don't look at the data but then say you shouldn't believe what is being said? You do realize how hypocritical that is, don't you?

 

Non-scientists don't understand things the way you do. So, with that partition firmly in place, most of what you say becomes a choice whether to believe or not - not a proof one way or the other. So, when they chose to believe you, 3 times before, and nothing happened, it has raised their suspicions. I'm just providing a theory as to why republicans deny your data, as you put it.

 

Yes. And the "theory" is that they are not looking at the data! Instead, it is more convenient to attack "you" and "believe you" and make it personal instead of looking at the data. So now you have an "excuse" to attack the person of the scientists and ignore data you don't like.

 

You know, Paranoia, you are giving a great teaching lesson of the invalid ways people use to avoid data they don't like and to attack science.

 

----------

 

Originally Posted by Pangloss

At some point you have to work at above the level of data, and that becomes a matter of imprecise judgement based on your understanding of the qualifications and background of the person making the assessment that you're reading.

 

Do you think a scientific consensus is built on just one paper or one person? If you are a nuclear physicist you don't go into the detail of the meteorological models. What you do instead is look at the data in all the papers and compare the data based on different models. When the work from different labs is all giving comparable results, then you are still looking at data, not on "qualifications and background" of the authors! Accepting nuclear winter wasn't done because Sagan was one author, but because several groups all ended up with similar results even tho they used different modeling programs.

 

Lucaspa: I disagree. The Dems at least used critical thinking. What you have said is that conservative Republicans deliberately misused critical thinking. That is, gave people what looked like it but was not. If the Dems were guilty of faulty reasoning, surely the corrective action was not to give a different form of faulty reasoning.

 

I don't dispute that this has been a key trend for a while now, but I think that's a unilateral view, and much like your unilateral view of what constitutes science, it doesn't stand the test of historical truth. Not all Dems used critical thinking. Not all Reps were guilty of avoiding it. It just isn't that simple, guy.

Don't make a strawman of my position. I never said "all". Several books have documented the changeover in tactics and that, overall, Democrats are still stuck in Enlightenment ideas: that evidence, reason, and logic will sort accurate ideas from inaccurate ones and prevent people from accepting inaccurate ideas. The Republican Attack on Science does say that Democrats sometimes ignored sound science, but they didn't attack it like the Republicans are doing.

 

I really think your beef is more about timing than recognition of truths. Maybe I'm reading between the lines too much, and I don't mean this in a derogatory manner, but you seem more upset with the amount of time it takes society to come to conclusions and reach a consensus than anything else.

No. What I am objecting to is the widespread use of invalid arguments against conclusions that are already there. Arguments such as "judgement based on your understanding of the qualifications and background of the person making the assessment" and then attacking the qualifications of scientists who have published data that you don't want to accept.

 

Another tactic is to try to say the data is incomplete: "But it's also not a good idea to go leaping here and there with one idea or another without immediate, direct knowledge of what's actually happening." This is used to say that we must have more and more research because the data we have now is incomplete. You can see this tactic in your quote and in the global warming debate. You can also see it as a common tactic of creationists.

 

But the evidence today (and certainly his point of view) suggests that he was basically just doing what Johnson told him to do, and actually tried to prevent Vietnam.

But this is politics, not science, right? Interesting you did not use an example from science. You are looking at "his point of view". Science doesn't do that. The data is the same for everyone who takes the time and effort to do the same experiment.

 

I'm not a climatologist, a physicist, a biologist, an astronomer (well that one's never very controversial I guess), or anything else except a maybe somewhat knowledgable about computers (working on a PhD in the subject). All I can do is rely on the knowledge of others, What else can I really do?

 

In science, we make our knowledge public. And why do we do this? So you can have the same knowledge we do! There is no arcane hidden "well, climatologists know how to do this and no one else does". HOW they did their research is right in the papers they publish!

 

All you need to do is read Science, Nature, and Scientific American and you can get the data for yourself. The most recent SciAm has a great article on climatology, with the graphs of the data. You can evaluate the data expressed in the graphs and apply some common sense to tell you whether the methods were reliable. For instance, I gave you a hint before: the models must predict past values. If the model corresponds to values we already have, there is no reason to think it is suddenly just going to stop working when it moves to the future, is there?

 

You also look for consensus among several papers from different research groups. What we are talking about is NOT taking a single paper and touting it as the answer. Instead, we are talking about consensus within a disciplinary community. You know how much computer scientists argue among themselves over data and interpretation. Why do you think climatologists (or any other area) are any different? So when you see the community reach consensus, it's just like in computer science: they reach consensus because the data compels them to. Yes, there are a few holdouts who are just too stubborn to give in (I'm sure you can name a couple in your field), but they are just no longer in touch with the data.

 

You also look at where the agreements and disagreements are. Remember, claims are taken separately. In climatology, climatologists all agree global warming is happening and that it is anthropogenic. They also agree on what the general consequences are going to be. There are disagreements on just how fast the planet is warming and what the magnitude of specific consequences. You know enough to know that disagreements there do not negate the areas of agreement.

 

You should also know enough that, when dealing with a scientific issue, you don't get your stories from the mass media. It's OK to read the News section of Science or Nature, because they know enough about science to get it right. You need to look through the literature and get some review articles (for background) and then look at some of the primary papers in Science and Nature.

 

In any case, you are looking at DATA, not trusting to people.

[ParanoiA]

Let me give you an example from a couple of years ago.

 

No, you're not getting off the hook that easy. You said Rush says "all lies". Why did you have to reach back 2 years if Rush says "all lies"?

 

I guess I'll do the research for you to find the facts on the story, but even if it happened as you say, he just got caught being stupid, that's obvious. Aren't coal and oil basically the same, minus the water content? I know they both come from decayed plant material and I thought they basically share the same process, heating and drying over and over again, except oil contains the water that couldn't escape??

 

It's ridiculous to say that Rush was "lying" by saying coal and oil are the same thing - like he was saying both are a liquid. You know very well what he was saying. And you and I both know he didn't say that one sentence and leave it alone - he probably went off for 30 minutes trying to dig himself out of that hole.

 

He did exactly what I told you he does, he twists things and creates disingenuous arguments. The fact that coal and oil are similar would only be relevant in a different context, not in the case of a spill, yet he used it anyway - classic Rush. It's stupid, but it's not a lie. I know you hate the guy but geez, at least hate him for the right reasons.

 

Let me ask you: how does Rush "validate"? By telling you "facts", right?

 

No, you're still not understanding what I'm saying. I mean validated in that he said what I felt, only articulated, which I couldn't do. That's actually popular among Rush listeners. It felt good hearing someone say the things I had always wondered myself - he validated my thoughts. And my thoughts were and still usually are on the philosophical, ideological side of things. Not what particular incident is going on somewhere and how "the liberals" are at it again, that always bored me and still does.

 

As for Rush factoids, I've always questioned them because he will be as honest as a lawyer. Yes maybe volcanoes do flood the air with flourocarbons, and maybe that even compares to what mankind puts out in a decade, but you don't have to be a climate expert to wonder about the difference between accumulated C02 output and sudden eruption of that output. Again, I don't think you're going to catch him "lying" about things, I think you're going to see him "squirming" all the time.

 

As long as Rush is "validating your suspicions", you like him.

 

I like him for the reasons I stated earlier, in my post from which you started assailing me for it. No factual "validations", but rather philosophical validations, alternative thought, the first time I'd heard the term "critical thinking". He got me interested in politics and suggested the idea of thinking for yourself. So I did, and critically thought out his views and eventually decided it was as illogical as liberalism, just as hypocritical and oppressive, for lack of a better word. But, also like I said earlier, I just like him. He still has a handful of views I agree with and when he hits those I do enjoy it, he has a good talent for pursuasion. But we're way out of phase, I'm quite libertarian anymore.

 

Another way to attack science. Simply say the conclusions don't match the data. But on what basis? As you acknowledged in the previous post, the data clearly falsifies that 1) climate is staying the same and 2) humans are not involved.

 

Data doesn't interpret anything. It's just numbers, measurements, variables - it doesn't do anything. So the data doesn't falsify a thing. Humans look at it and interpret that it falsifies something.

 

Some of your colleagues disagree with you. I'm not attacking science, I'm demanding a more convincing consensus from science seeing as how 3 previous scientifically prophesied climate catastrophies didn't happen. I see that not all of your hands are up, so do others, and we want to know why before we jump on the bandwagon. So, let it play out. Let the skeptics do their thing, and call everyone out and I'm sure before too long this will get settled.

 

Now you attack the methods. Look what you said from last post: "you're not going have the time to train, for example, nuclear physicists to understand, for example, meteorological models. "

 

I didn't say that. Must have been somebody else's post.

 

The public should be looking at the data' date=' not at us as people! You still keep doing this. You are making it personal. Science isn't personal and about scientists. Remember I said one way to deny science is to attack scientists personally? Look what you are doing.

 

You don't look at the data but then say you shouldn't believe what is being said? You do realize how hypocritical that is, don't you?[/quote']

 

We're not qualified to interpret the data. I made that point already, and you took issue with that too. I could give you the data on AT&T network congestion, but that doesn't mean you're going to know how to interpret pages of mess. Yes I can read your pie charts and graphs - and then a skeptic will provide their own, a different time line, or the same one but including other variables left out of yours, and vice versa. Both are arguing and counter arguing and I really can't tell who's right or wrong.

 

You know, Paranoia, you are giving a great teaching lesson of the invalid ways people use to avoid data they don't like and to attack science.

 

That's really not fair because I have already assumed global warming is true as predicted by science. Logically, it makes more sense to believe the majority than the minority when you have no faith in discerning for yourself. There is no data I "don't like", it all looks convincing to me. I'm prepared to believe we are solely to blame and will ignite in a ball of fire in 10 years, as I'm prepared to believe it's all BS and the world will have an oil fire party.

 

So, I default to the current consensus on the matter, and humbly wait to be convinced.

[Pangloss]

Do you think a scientific consensus is built on just one paper or one person? If you are a nuclear physicist you don't go into the detail of the meteorological models. What you do instead is look at the data in all the papers and compare the data based on different models. When the work from different labs is all giving comparable results, then you are still looking at data, not on "qualifications and background" of the authors! Accepting nuclear winter wasn't done because Sagan was one author, but because several groups all ended up with similar results even tho they used different modeling programs.

 

Of course, I understand all that. But we live in a complex and busy world. I don't have time to read scientific data and form conclusions on every issue that affects the entire world at any given moment. I need objective, comprehensive analysis to boil it down for me.

 

And even if *I* find time for that sort of thing, as I frequently do on many (but not all) issues, how is the average person, with far less experience at this sort of thing than I have, supposed to do it? The answer is that they can't, which is why we need objective, comprehensive analysis that's not tainted by bias.

 

Like I said, at some point you have to work at a level above the data, and that becomes a matter of imprecise judgement based on your understanding not of the issue, but of the qualifications and background of the person making the assessment that you're reading. I stand by that statement.

 

 

 

Don't make a strawman of my position. I never said "all". Several books have documented the changeover in tactics and that, overall, Democrats are still stuck in Enlightenment ideas: that evidence, reason, and logic will sort accurate ideas from inaccurate ones and prevent people from accepting inaccurate ideas. The Republican Attack on Science does say that Democrats sometimes ignored sound science, but they didn't attack it like the Republicans are doing.

 

I'm not making a strawman of your position at all, I'm holding you to what you said. You oversimplify and overgeneralize these issues, and you're doing it right there in that quote, as if "The Republican Attack on Science" (your caps) is a formal organization that meets every Tuesday at Rush Limbaugh's house. That's absolutely a generalization, and your assessment of that group's membership, goals and characteristics is different from other people's.

 

Note that I didn't say you're wrong. I said you're overgeneralizing. There is a difference.

 

 

No. What I am objecting to is the widespread use of invalid arguments against conclusions that are already there. Arguments such as "judgement based on your understanding of the qualifications and background of the person making the assessment" and then attacking the qualifications of scientists who have published data that you don't want to accept.

 

Another tactic is to try to say the data is incomplete: "But it's also not a good idea to go leaping here and there with one idea or another without immediate, direct knowledge of what's actually happening." This is used to say that we must have more and more research because the data we have now is incomplete. You can see this tactic in your quote and in the global warming debate. You can also see it as a common tactic of creationists.

 

I agree, and I have the same problem with it that you do. Where you and I might not agree, however, is what constitutes a valid counterargument, and where I *know* you and I don't agree is that each of us gets to decide what constitutes a valid counterargument. I agree with you that facts are facts, but you don't get to take evidence and call it fact when it's actually just evidence OF fact, as is so often the case in modern statistical analysis, especially when it comes to climatology and medicine. And there is a huge difference between those two things (fact and evidence).

 

 

 

In any case, you are looking at DATA, not trusting to people.

 

I snipped a bit because I think I've covered the gist of what I wanted to say in the bits above, but the last point I just wanted to make here, which seems applicable in response to the quote above, is that I'm actually IN science, and yet I only have time to read up on a small number of scientific papers out there. I imagine it's much the same for you -- I'm sure you've spent as much time (or perhaps far more) in searching those databases as I have, and have probably been just as surprised at some of those topics (and wished you had time to read those papers).

 

I can't cover it all. And if *I* can't cover it all, what about Joe Workaday, with three kids, two ex-wives and an extra part-time job? He still has to vote, guy. And that means he still has to understand the issues well enough to contribute an informed opinion, does he not?

 

-------

 

Let me give a perfect example of something that I think is absolutely disputable, but which many people seem to feel cannot be disputed without "attacking science".

 

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jul2007/2007-07-30-01.asp

 

The above article is from a news story today that is headlined "Climate Change Linked to Doubling of Atlantic Hurricanes". The story goes on to talk about the link between global warming and Atlantic sea temperatures (which is based on two peer-reviewed studies of actual temperature data, and which therefore I don't even have to read (hint, hint) to know is valid).

 

But then it goes into what I consider to be perfectly disputable territory:

 

"At least two recent peer-reviewed scientific studies indicate a significant statistical link between the increased frequency and global warming," the IPCC said earlier this year, "but research to identify a mechanism explaining this link is ongoing."

 

In other words, there's an obvious statistical link between warming temperatures in the Atlantic -- that's a fact that can't be disputed. But the link between water temperature and hurricane severity (and formation) is not understood well enough to actually form conclusions here. So it's perfectly valid to talk about whether or not this is actually causing more and greater hurricanes. Absolutely it is.

 

It's even worse when you look at medicine, with studies contradicting each other practically every week. You see studies all the time that are peer reviewed and then a couple of years later turn out to be utter hogwash, either because the methodology or data were flawed, or because some variables were not accounted for.

 

No, you CAN'T expect an outsider to always spot these shortcomings. You just cannot.

[pioneer]

Science tries to deal with facts, while politics deals with images. A scientist will try to prove x=y. The politian can make x=y or not. It all depends on where the cards need to fall to get or remain in office. The problem that science faces is, poltitians hold the purse strings so if these bosses of science want x to equal y or not, science needs to get with the program or else risk losing funding. One can buy expert testimony to support any image the politians need in science.

 

Right now the global warming image is suppose to equal y, because poliitian can get more political mileage out of that result. Doom and gloom makes then look strong and give them a reason to raise taxes and interfere in the life of the citizens. So the funding gets slanted to make this image appear like a reality. The pie is not shared equally to seek the truth but to forfill the image needed by the polititians. Science is not always atruistic when the bosses are politians. Many will cater to needed images especially if they aspire to political promotions.