The Great Divide: Science and Politics

[lady-oneiros.livejournal.com]

Here's to hoping it's okay to post on an issue that is not directly related to the "topic of the week."




The most important thing to remember about science is that science never proves anything. It technically has not even proved gravity—that is why we have the “theory” of gravity, rather than the “law” of gravity. Unfortunately, this inherent uncertainty does not sit well with politicians and pundits. As a result, debates over the issue of global climate change are often plagued by confusion, rhetoric, assumptions, and misunderstandings (some of which are deliberate).

While it is true of any scientific issue, one must be especially careful in debates on climate change of declaring any one study as “proving” or “disproving” the phenomenon. To do so is to misunderstand the fundamental nature of science itself. What an individual study does is it adds to an existing body of knowledge, which, as a whole, suggests an upward trend in global temperatures due to human activities.

I have always been perplexed when I hear someone remark, “I believe/disbelieve in global warming.” First of all, it’s not a religion, though people on both sides of the debate may act like it is. Second of all, to say you don’t believe in global warming is like saying you don’t believe in thermometers. Any scientist worth his or her salt is not allowed to have a bias either way—we can only have our judgments based on what the data says. Should the overall conclusion of the data end up changing its direction, we have no choice but to change our own opinion on the matter. While there may be some studies which contradict the hypothesis of climate change, they are in minority to the numerous studies that say otherwise and, just as in the democratic system, majority opinion rules, though I use the term ‘opinion’ lightly when talking about scientific data.

We then have the inevitable conflict between the natural sciences and politics, wherein politics demands certainties and results (usually within a reasonable political cycle, such as during reelection time). This unfortunately leads to the scientists and politicians essentially yelling at each from across the room, rather than collaborating on effective and reasonable solutions to obvious problems. We need, then, a bridging of the two fields; we need scientists who understand politics, and we need politicians with scientific backgrounds. Only then can we effectively respond to the looming problems on the environmental front.

Comments

[abomvubuso.livejournal.com]

Its totally okay to post on whatever political topics interest you. The weekly topic is just for distraction :)

[chemchick.livejournal.com]

I agree with you for the most part but just want to point out that even in the scientific community we have our own politics that we like to play. Mainly stemming from the peer-reviewed journal article system. I still find it baffling when I come across four page papers that have over 100 "authors".

[fizzyland.livejournal.com]

I think that's a good point - there are certainly topics like global warming research that have demonstrated that scientists are sometimes willing to be less than completely honest.

A basic difference however, is that science is fundamentally open to revision as our understanding changes and religion doesn't have those built-in mechanisms to question their basic assumptions.

[spaz-own-joo.livejournal.com]

This might be newbie scholars piling in with a prestigious researcher in order to lower their own Erdos numbers.

[chemchick.livejournal.com]

Normally it's the other way around. The big names push their names onto papers that they had little to do with because maybe once upon a time they had a conversation with this other guy who maybe helped with one small aspect of the paper. And, you know, since you're a lowly graduate student you put whoever's name your advisor tells you to. Because if your advisor isn't kissing the right ass than HIS papers get denied.

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

One issue with language (even english though the context is much lower than many other languages) is that the meaning of words and terms often has more to do with the contextual history of how the word has been used than with the literal meaning of the word.

An argument against a very specific definition of the word when its not the standard understood usage is generally considered a fallacy, because it doesn't disprove the actual information as it is understood, it disproves different information entirely.

In the case of your claim about 'not believing in global warming is like not believing in a thermometer' I believe this is the case. People are not saying they don't have faith in global warming, and people aren't saying that they don't believe that the earth has the ability to warm up.

The contextual culturally understood meaning of 'I don't believe in global warming' is 'I don't believe the earth is currently warming because of human activity' You won't find many people that believe that the earth is not capable of globally warming (though I guess there might be some creationists...), nor that it does not warm globally from time to time. Not believing a thing can happen is a valid standpoint (though I'd argue they're wrong)

Second, is the issue of 'prove'. I think you're arguing against a more strict definition of logical or mathematical proof. The more common contextual definition people use in their everyday lives deals more with 'shows to be likely true, or sufficient evidence to believe is true' is more the 'beyond a reasonable doubt' version. Science does this. Gravity is basically proven beyond a reasonable doubt to exist in some manner.

[wyrrlen.livejournal.com]

Interestingly, evolution and global warming because of human activity also have this level of scientific proof, yet have much greater opposition than gravity.

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

I don't think that's completely true. For gravity you can pick something up and drop it, and you just proved that, at the basic level, there's some force at work. You can't just evolve something or show climate change in such an obvious way. I agree that there is a lot of evidence for both, just not at the same personal, hands-on level as gravity.

[wyrrlen.livejournal.com]

The simplicity of the evidence for gravity is not a good argument against the evidence for evolution and climate change, and further that wasn't my point. What I said was that they have the same amount of overwhelming evidence for support regardless of the difficulty for the layman to understand that evidence. However, I do think you've identified a strong component of why opposition to the theories exists.

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

It's not really the simplicity, it's the accessibility.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Part of the problem is that concepts of a global climate change are rather hard to fathom unless one studies climatology in the long term. To term it warming itself is problematic, while temperature across the planet would rise, the effects in particular regions of the planet would vary quite dramatically. The irony of someone in the hard sciences arguing that science is not political, however, given that eugenics was dumped as a part of biology not for lack of scientific method but instead the politics surrounding the victory of the Allies in World War II is quite profound.

To say, however, the historical truth that eugenics was never discredited scientifically does nothing to make it less evil. Because while science is apolitical, it is also amoral.....

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

So I guess "conversion" is a concept that just flew right over Sagan's dear, sacred head.

no point to my comment

[ineedsleepy.livejournal.com]

" While there may be some studies which contradict the hypothesis of climate change, they are in minority to the numerous studies that say otherwise and, just as in the democratic system, majority opinion rules, though I use the term ‘opinion’ lightly when talking about scientific data. "

I always find this statement to be a little weird. The way I feel is that if you have something to say and you can back it up with data, you have a proper interpretation of the data, and more importantly you can back up the assumptions of whatever particular model you're using, be dammed with democracy.

I think a lot of the problems that people are having with "Climate Change" or actually with any sort of applied science, is the fact that according to them, the models are just so piss poor ( I would have no clue about that since I don't even know why it rains :( ) and while that's important, it's a game one can always play when one is using simplifying assumptions in understanding complex phenomena. If it was well understood it wouldn't be research

Re: no point to my comment

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

Data is just data, but the conclusions people draw from the data are often misleading or flat out wrong. People will have some data that says that cats exhale carbon dioxide then conclude that CO2 in the atmosphere is all from cats. Or people will note that CO2 has existed before cats and conclude that no CO2 in the atmosphere is from cats. Both are 'something to say' that they will tell you 'is backed up with data', but both are assuming a whole lot from the data they claim supports them.

Re: no point to my comment

[ineedsleepy.livejournal.com]

there's this interesting book out there written by serge lang (a kind of hero in math nerd world lol) called challenges

http://www.amazon.com/Challenges-Serge-Lang/dp/0387948619/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1271954545&sr=8-2-spell

it's sort of interesting in that it extensively documents some past cases of scientific fraud and shows how politics can enter scientific debate and gives one sort of a a view of how outsiders are treated. it's an extremely dry book though omg. it also shows how and why the press can be corrupted which I think is particularly relevant to this post (at least if you buy lang's evidence and point of view)

every time i hear the word data i think of data mining and I want to cry :.( lol. but yeah, from my limited exp. real world data is so messy that it takes quite a lot even to see something as simple as differences among means.

[stewstewstewdio.livejournal.com]

Actually, there have been laws of gravity ever since Sir Isaac Newton. Science demands observability and reproducibility, while politics does not. There really is no such thing as political "science" per se. Politics is an art form. It is the art of persuasion concerning the truth. It favors epistemology more than observability.

Regarding global warming, there are differences of opinion because it is about future impact. The future cannot be determined from current observations no matter how accurate or reproducible they are. As a result, there are believers and non-believers.

There has been disparity among scientists about global warming just like there are differing opinions about the future in any industry or profession. That doesn't make the majority wrong or right. It just makes the majority choose the direction or action that needs to be taken.

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

Actually, the future is constantly predicted based on observation, it's just that both magnitude and distance in the future raise the unpredictability, but certain things are so certain as to be fairly accurately predicted. The chance of there being another rain storm for instance is so overwhelmingly probable that you can predict it in the future with a high degree of accuracy.

[mrsilence.livejournal.com]

Regarding global warming, there are differences of opinion because it is about future impact.

All scientific theories are predictions.

[anfalicious.livejournal.com]

The problem with climate change is that we're unable to run reproducible experiments. We're doing the only experiment we'll get right now, and we won't be able to change any of the variables.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Since Galileo. He first confirmed a principle of gravitation, but it took Newton to make heads or tails of the principle.

[anfalicious.livejournal.com]

I thought gravity was a bad example, personally. Sure, we have laws, but we don't really have any decent theories, and it doesn't seem to be consistent with the other three fundamental forces (ElectroMag, strong and weak nuclear).

To all those wondering why so much has been spent on the large hardon (teehee) collider, this is why. IF we find the Higgs-Boson, then it may hopefully point us in the direction of the graviton, our best theory to date.

(to those out there that actually know a whole lot more about this than me, feel free to correct my stupids).

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

IF we find the Higgs-Boson then it may hopefully point us in the direction

Also true if we don't find it, because then we'll be sure we have more to rethink.

[anfalicious.livejournal.com]

I don't like to talk science with anyone who hasn't read Lakatos, Popper and Kuhn.

[lady-oneiros.livejournal.com]

In that case, my pretentious friend, feel free to talk science.

[mijopo.livejournal.com]

Brilliant, so you'll end up talking to philosophers of science rather than actual scientists.

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

I need some clarification: which is more pretentious? Speaking about philosophers or speaking about "actual scientists"? (It is a wonderful phrase, I must admit; not that any "actual scientists" have such a weird view of things.)

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

It technically has not even proved gravity—that is why we have the “theory” of gravity, rather than the “law” of gravity.

Yes, in the strict mathematical sense of the concept of proof that is true. Nonetheless, I bet you look both ways before you cross the street.

I have always been perplexed

You have to look past sloppy semantics.