Story submitted by John Droz.
Today I received an email from an editor, who was saying that “Science” depends on what your political persuasion is. I dispute that opinion and answered as follows —
Briefly, what has happened is that:
1 – Politicians from both ends of the spectrum fully realize that they need the appearance of scientific support to promote their political agenda.
2 – Combine this with the fact that there are thousands of scientists who have left the confines of real science, for their own financial or personal agenda reasons (e.g. which is no different than priests departing from Christian values that they have literally dedicated their lives to upholding).
So, it is an easy matter for politicians in #1 to find rogue scientists in #2 to support essentially any position — and then claim to the public that their agenda is “based on science.” This type of “science” is pseudoscience or “cargo cult science” and is just a sham meant to deceive the gullible.
These agenda promoters have become so brazen that some are now even asserting that traditional science (of Galileo, Newton, Einstein, etc.) is no longer relevant, and that we should be using such alternatives as “Post Normal Science”. This, of course, is preposterous.
The reality is that genuine science is apolitical, and consists of a:
a) comprehensive,
b) independent,
c) transparent, and
d) empirical assessment of claims.
Put another way, there can be a profound difference between “reports by scientists” and “scientific reports.”
So, facing this mishmash of claims, it’s up to objective citizens to discriminate between the real and the pretend. This is not easy to do, but using the four-part template above that will tell the story.
For example, when AGW is claimed as a hypothesis, the appropriate question is:
Show me the: a) comprehensive, b) independent, c) transparent, and d) empirical proof.
For example, when wind energy is claimed to be a cost-beneficial solution to energy & environmental issues, the appropriate question is:
Show me the: a) comprehensive, b) independent, c) transparent, and d) empirical proof.
The indisputable fact is that no such proof exists for either.
That is not a political conclusion, but a scientific one.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“You do pose an interesting question, roughly, what happened to science over the last forty years.”
Well as a person who some thirty years ago realised he would make a good scientist but decided against it, here is my take on it.
I realised that all the best science was already done. The stuff that makes the headlines these days is cosmology, sociology, psychology and sometimes evolutionary science. Why? The fact is that they are forever aiming at making contraversial headlines. Cosmology and evolutionary science are always making headlines by trying to disprove the existence of a (usually Christian) God, whilst psychology and sociology are always grabbing the headlines by making outrageous unprovable statements about the nature of humans/humanity.
The fact is that all the best real science is now undertaken by engineers. Electronics engineers, genetic engineers, pharamaceutical engineers, nuclear engineers et al. All of it is about taking what we already know about nature (and have known for the past 40 years or more) and turning it into something useful. That’s why I became an engineer. And engineering, whilst not being beyond corruption in the very short term, tends to have any corruption rooted out by the laws of nature in the longer term, just as my amplifier design of last week was found to be flawed by the laws of nature when it oscillated madly at 1MHz once actually built.
Cosmologists don’t have to prove anything. Nor do evolutionists (although they could at least try to evolve a species of Penicillin that can deal with new superbugs). Sociologists and psychologists can make bold statements whilst burying their responsibility for being right about anything under the excuse that all humans are different.
Climatologists seem to fit comfortably in the same bracket. They don’t really have to prove anything because they can hradly do experiments on global climate. What they seem to be trying to do now is desparately forcing change on human behaviour fast enough so that their theories are not shown to be false by the passage of time. If they can get humans to significantly reduce CO2 output over the next 20 years nobody will ever know they haven’t saved the world. I don’t think they have a cat’s chance in hell of making that happen, so in 20 years we’re all going they were wrong. That’s why the “wait and see” approach isn’t good enough for them – they have to get us to change right NOW. If we wait and see then time will show them to be wrong.
John David Galt, as far as I am aware, the actual scientific method demands that those promoting CAGW provide empiracal evidence for it. It’s not up to any sceptic to provide evidence denying the existance of any supposed phenomenon that there is no evidence for, that’s illogical and quite wrong.
Mods, please delete my first of these two posts as it contains spelling mistakes.
And why did the (incorrect) post hang about waiting to be posted after I had pressed the ‘post comment key?
[reply] because it’s 4am CA time and I’m the only mod on duty. RT-mod
Ged: Exactly
Alexander K (re Scientific Method): Exactly
All: thank you for your thoughtful comments on this MOST important topic.
Heh. So does the second. (See bold items.) 😉 ;p