End of Science

8 Responses to End of Science

1. John Quiggin says:

   November 26, 2008 at 6:13 pm

   The real science problem for the political right isn’t evolution, it’s climate change. If you are willing to swallow the elephant of a claim that modern climate science is a conspiracy cooked up to attract grant money or to bring about world government, why strain at the gnat of creationism?

   I haven’t read enough here to know if you’ve stated a position on this, but I’d certainly be interested to find out where you stand.
2. Zen Kalar says:

   November 26, 2008 at 7:55 pm

   Let’s not resort to hyperbole, Mr Quiggin. If you’re really claiming that there is no difference between disputing the so-called facts of climate change and asserting that an Unfathomable God Beyond Science (and here I mean no disrespect) is responsible for creating all around us, then you’ve no practical knowledge of the scientific method, and only a scant familiarity with the science surrounding the climate change question.

   In the end, there is little difference between a Creationist, and a Climate Change disciple.
3. Zen Kalar says:

   November 26, 2008 at 7:57 pm

   And putting aside that momentary distraction : Bradlaugh, you are insightful as always. Cheers.
4. Andrew T. says:

   November 26, 2008 at 8:06 pm

   Zen: huh?

   It seems to me that the Secular Right position on science should be to determine what the consensus is among experts publishing in open, reputable, peer-reviewed journals in their field. Then, in the absence of a VERY compelling reason to disregard the consensus position of scientists, we should fit our political opinions to the facts rather than the other way around.

   Thus, we reject creationism because (1) it is held by a tiny minority of religiously-motivated cranks; and (2) it is rejected by scientists of every stripe, religion, ethnicity, political affiliation, nationality, etc., etc., around the world. Pretty simple.

   Similarly — notwithstanding the hyperbole (and sometimes outright lies) of the Al Gore set — the academic literature seems to uniformly support some degree of man-made global warming. The dissenters (e.g., Bjorn Lomborg) seem to be some combination of (1) non-scientists and (2) politically motivated.

   I can be convinced otherwise, but it seems as though the facts are facts.

   Now the larger question of what we DO with those facts remains an open political question. The fact that global warming is man-caused does not lead inexorably to swallowing the Kyoto protocols or what have you; instead, we should weigh the costs caused by global warming against the costs incurred by various proposals to fix it. But we shouldn’t pretend that there are no costs.
5. John Quiggin says:

   November 26, 2008 at 11:08 pm

   Zen illustrates the problem pretty clearly. Note the relativism of “so-called facts”, and the equation of mainstream science with religion. Both are favourite ploys of creationists, who regard themselves as fighting the religion of “secular humanism”, and who have eagerly embraced postmodernism and “teach the controversy” tactics.

   Andrew T., you’ve put the position pretty clearly. Acceptance of mainstream science is a minimal condition if you want to take a serious part in reality-based policy debate. After that we can discuss costs and benefits.
6. Gian says:

   November 27, 2008 at 3:24 am

   I should very much like to have your opinion on the puzzle noticed by JBS Haldane:

   A strict materialism refutes itself for the reason given long ago by Professor Haldane: ‘If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true…and hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms.’ (Possible Worlds, p. 209)
7. TrueNorth says:

   November 27, 2008 at 10:22 am

   @John Quiggin
   Personally, I don’t doubt that pumping gazillions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere is having some effect on the climate. (After all, if a butterfly flapping its wings can, over time, move the earth 180 degrees in its orbit, man made global warmng isn’t such a stretch to believe in is it?).

   The real questions are: How many degrees/year? Is the change good or bad for humanity? Is it worth doing anything about it? If so, what is the most sound approach to take? These are the kind of questions that are taboo to those for home Al Gore is a sort of prophet in their environmental religion.

   I don’t deny that there are also some on the right who are happy to denounce climate change regardless of the evidence or believe all kinds of other foolishness. The existence of this blog seem so acknowledge as much.
8. John Quiggin says:

   November 28, 2008 at 6:19 pm

   TN, the questions you ask are central issues in IPCC reports (in fact, the three volumes (Physical Science, Impacts and Adaptation, Mitigation)) match them pretty closely. Short answers
   (i) How many degrees per year (0.02-0.05 under business as usual, 2-5 degrees per century)
   (2) Good or bad for humanity (mixed impacts at 0-2 degrees of warming, bad at 2-4, catastrophic above that)
   (3) Is it worth doing anything (Yes – see Stern Review for example).
   (4) What’s the best response: Market based instruments such as carbon taxes and emissions trading

Comments are closed.