![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
lady-oneiros.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsHere'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.
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.
(no subject)
Date: 22/4/10 06:38 (UTC)