Slashdot Mirror
Science By Democracy Doesn't Work
StartsWithABang writes The US Senate just voted on whether climate change is a hoax, knowing full well that debates or votes don't change what is or isn't scientifically true or valid. Nevertheless, debates have always been a thing in science, and they do have their place: in raising what points would be needed to validate, robustly confirm or refute competing explanations, theories or ideas. The greatest scientific debate in all of history — along with its conclusions — illustrates exactly this.
Because the majority said so.
Yes, it's called consensus and no, it isn't science. Not when politicians do it. Not when scientists do it.
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
I don't think that word means what you think it means.
Try "Science by Oligarchy".
Is it a hoax? I'm on tenterhooks.
== Jez ==
Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
Its just as well that we don't live in a democracy
Consensus isn't science, but it's a method of determining which of the competing scientific theories should be used as a basis of policy. It may not be a good method, but other methods are worse.
Just what exactly do you expect will happen if you almost double the amount of the atmospheres main persistent infra red absorber? And if you think it will have no effect can you please explain why you think this.
I'm just curious because I'm sure your stand is based on sound scientific reasoning rather than a rather pathetic attempt at self justification for a "lets carry on business as usual I don't care" approach to the issue which unfortunately is a standard human response to a lot of big problems.
Debate on scientific endeavors does work, because the primary purpose of congress is to fund various programs. Climate change debate in the political realm is all about transferring wealth from other productive areas of the economy. For arguments sake I'll agree there is climate change, and I'll agree to pay a few hundred million of our tax dollars for it, but no more. If you want to spent billions - well then, you've just discovered where the real debate is, and why this is going on in congress. I don't think it's as important as you think it is in dollar terms.
We can also argue about what's causing it, but at the end of the day it's about how many resources get allocated to doing something about it. Some of us think it's a fake issue to reallocate dollars into pet projects. It has happened before. What if we spend the billions and the next 10 years are the coldest on record? Will we get our money back or will we have to fund a new project to deal with global cooling?
Used to be that in a democracy we will weight the facts and then vote on a decision. Now it seems we live in a Yakov Smirnoff joke were we make the decision and then vote on the facts. Except it is not Soviet Russia...
I'd agree with that is the bill was just a vote on whether climate change is real or not. It's attached to another bill.
The democrats voted in mass for Obama Care. Are you saying that means they agree and support everything in it? Because recent history would prove that wrong.
its called political posturing. Instead of actually doing things congress should be doing, like working down the debt, they sit here with a yes or no vote on whether they believe in X. I see a huge problem with it because it does absolutely nothing other than give ammo to congresscritters to say "see, he voted against it look at that idiot!!"
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
...science relies on evidence and is not swayed by what I, arbitrary authorities or consensus believes. But this goes both ways:
Now I'm not familiar with the US vote. It does seem reasonable, as policy makers and legislators are going to have to respond to climate change in their legislation, that they decide whether they buy the arguments for it or not. And given that the US uses a democratic framework for legislating it doesn't seem unreasonable that the legislature uses a democratic vote to take such an opinion collectively.
You see, that's the great thing about science. It's true, they can't just vote it away. But it's not an authority - you can't demand congress address climate change just because the men in white coats say so - you have to address evidence based, logically sound arguments to them. And your opponents can respond with arguments of their own. And the adjudicator has to choose between them.
If you think that no one has the right to challenge the sanctity of the holy scientific truth then you're just as bad as the politician who thinks they can vote objective reality away.
So this vote may be stupid (or it may not be), but, inherently speaking, a group voting on how to collectively respond to some argument isn't necessarily.
The US Senate just voted on whether climate change is a hoax, knowing full well that debates or votes don't change what is or isn't scientifically true or valid.
You think this vote had anything to do with science? This is about power and policy. It's about pandering to a group of voters. It's about setting a stage for the next election. It's about getting votes. It has nothing to do with science and everything to do with power.
Science should inform public policy but nothing forces politicians to actually care what scientists tell them if the facts diverge from political needs. If a politician needs to proclaim that gravity is a hoax to get votes then they will do that and do it with a straight face.
How does one determine when science has "fully resolved" a question ? Also, it's impossible to not have a policy while we wait. Right now, our policy is to keep producing CO2 at about the same rate. What exactly should we base that policy on, if not for our current best scientific understanding ?
This is clearly the wrong approach, they should simply make it illegal. Make everyone worry for the safety of their children (spontaneous combustion!) and explain that climate change is clearly a form of terrorism thus it is super-über-illegal. That should do it.
"Only one thing is impossible for God: To find any sense in any copyright law on the planet." - Mark Twain
How does one determine when science has "fully resolved" a question? When the hypothesis has experimental/observational verification. Policy based on any other standard, like a consensus of dubious objectivity, is a crap shoot.
Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum.
In science nothing ever gets 'fully resolved'. It's not religion where babies burn in hell, then go to limbo to get more believers then they go to heaven to get even more believers. It's driven by understanding and improving that understanding.
The point of "this is perfect and certainly true" does not exist.
Thank you, Bradley Manning, Edward Snowden and so many others, for courageously defending humanity, my freedom and more!
Clearly it's a violation of the separation of powers. Only the judicial branch can decide reality, like the judge ruling that deepwater horizon spilled 3.19 million barrels of oil.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
By 98 to 1, U.S. Senate passes amendment saying climate change is real, not a hoax
Personally, when "the senate just voted" is linked to something in the summary, I would expect the link to tell me more about the outcome.
When things get complex, multiply by the complex conjugate.
here's a link: http://www.partel.ie/blog/?p=3... there are other effects from CO2 then climate changed. Decreased cognition was detected at 1000ppm. its a problem in air conditioned buildings with high recycle. At some increasing levels needs to be addressed.
Science by democracy isn't science.
The data from the last decade fits the rising trend perfectly.
https://tamino.wordpress.com/2...
I take it you are not yet persuaded by the science against smoking cigarettes?
Please mod parent -1 disagree.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
Democracy is counting skulls instead of brains. - Cant remember :)
The US Senate just voted on whether climate change is a hoax
Especially since (1) he doesn't tell us the result of the vote, and (2) he links back to yesterday's article on slashdot that covered the same thing, and to the same article on his web site as yesterday. Nothing - nothing - whatsoever to see here.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
You're right. We should use quantum mechanics instead as a basis for laws regarding houses, roads and bridges, because that's much more applicable to houses, roads, and bridges than Newtonian physics.
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
... only scientifically challenged (read: morons) would vote on whether scientific results are true. Why don't they let SCIENTISTS vote on the issue? Oh, right, because 97% of the scientists stating the climate change is true would overrule the 3% that say it isn't ...
We should base policy on what the majority of 'the people' (read voters without regard for what internationally other people want) wish to do, after they have been made aware of the risk a large number of scientists believe to exist.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
...by democracy really doesn't work too well either.
Its the best we have, but it doesn't work, more so in a polarized society.
If the republicans of the past 15 years wanted what a mass gov pushed for his state, they would have passed it when Bush was in office.
The dems own this.
None. When science hasn't fully resolved a question based on the evidence, none of the competing theories should be used as a basis for public policy.
Bogus. Science is not about "fully resolving" but about "models that work". Yes you could back the "wrong" scientifc theory when making policy, but in most cases they will differ only in corner cases. And even better, you can choose a response that addresses the problem, no matter which theory is correct. Even if global warming today was mainly caused by volcanoes, would it make sense to pump out even more CO2?
However, if there's a debate like there is in the US with climate change, with opinions 180 degrees the opposite, you can be sure that one side is only spouting complete bollocks and propaganda. Especially when you notice that one side has most of the scientists on its side, and the other mostly politicians.
"The more prohibitions there are, The poorer the people will be" -- Lao Tse
None. When science hasn't fully resolved a question based on the evidence, none of the competing theories should be used as a basis for public policy.
Now I understand the denial logic. Let say science is 90% confident that a comet is going to crash on the earth, we shouldn't do anything since the question is not fully resolved, right? That's just plain stupid, whether it's applied to a comet or climate change. Man made climate change is happening. Are we 100% confident? No, but close enough so that we should live accordingly. Again, is the science 100% settled? No. But while we continue research on the matter, there is no reason not to act.
So funny. First you say the data shows no global warming. Then you are shown the data, and the data shows a clear continuation of the trend with no pause whatsoever. Suddenly, when it is clear that the data no longer confirms your preconceptions, you turn against the data and say that it is not trustworthy. Then you go on to talk about how preconceptions can result in biases - but you seem to have no self awareness whatsoever! Classic :)
The future hasn't happened yet.
Sounds good. May be a challenge to get all the Congress members to do that, though.
By creating hypothesis and then testing it, experimentally and verifying results, you know SCIENCE.
That's what 95% of the climate scientists believe we have done. If that's not enough, please explain your exact criteria. WHO must do all the things you mention, and WHEN does the general public know they have been done correctly ?
The difference is that you can duplicate the tests, measurements and models, and that you are invited to come up with alternative explanations.
Science is not the only thing that does not work by democracy, very few things actually work by democracy.
Building a better car doesn't work by democracy.
Economics doesn't work by democracy.
A wealthy and healthy society doesn't work by democracy.
An individual is smart, a mob is made of idiotic, selfish, panicky, stupid animals and that's somehow is supposed to produce better results? Ha!
You can't handle the truth.
That's what 95% of the climate scientists believe we have done.
I don't know why you think that. All climate scientists who are not in a coma (or on vacation in Aruba collecting temperature data) are aware that the models are wrong. The hypothesis is wrong and needs to be adjusted. And scientists aren't stupid, that is exactly what they are doing, thinking of different ways to adjust the hypothesis. But it takes time.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
We should base policy on what the majority of 'the people' (read voters without regard for what internationally other people want) wish to do, after they have been made aware of the risk a large number of scientists believe to exist.
You don't let someone else drive you over a cliff just because they don't understand or care about the consequences of their actions. The electorate in general has not looked carefully at the evidence and many of them clearly do not understand it or are apparently ignoring the good of the many in favor of their own short term interests. It is VERY apparent that the electorate is not well informed on this issue and it is equally clear that short term economic self interest is very likely to result in long term harm.
Not sure what is meant by 'dire', but warming is in line with expectations. Here is a quote from the IPCC TAR in 2001 - a projection that has not changed in recent reports: "anthropogenic warming is likely to lie in the range 0.1 to 0.2C/decade over the next few decades under the IS92a scenario" That is exactly what we have seen.
Regarding fuel supplies, Saudi Arabia plans to pump everything they can while people are still interested in oil. They do not believe they will run out:
"Thirty years from now there will be a huge amount of oil - and no buyers. Oil will be left in the ground. The Stone Age came to an end, not because we had a lack of stones, and the oil age will come to an end not because we have a lack of oil."
"in a world where a producer sees the end of its market on the horizon, then every barrel sold at a profit is more valuable than a barrel that will never be sold. Current Saudi oil minister Ali al-Naimi had this to say about production cuts in late December: "it is not in the interest of OPEC to cut their production whatever the price is," adding that even if prices fell to $20 "it is irrelevant." Implied, if not explicitly stated, is that Saudi Arabia wants its oil out of the ground, regardless of how thin its profit margin per barrel becomes." - http://www.nasdaq.com/article/...
if the same data has been used to claim a warming trend and the same data is used to say otherwise I'd call that invalid data.
The same data has been used to claim men landed on the moon, and that the moon landing was a hoax. Therefore all data related to the moon landing should then be ignored. As it's proven flawed on both counts.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
The denialists will still come up with an alternate interpretation of cherry-picked data from some crackpot blog, to prove you wrong.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
An interesting aspect of science is that all our models are always wrong. And we are always aware of that.
Rethinking email
Over the last 37 years one can identify overlapping short windows of time when climate "skeptics" could have argued (and often did...) that global warming had stopped. And yet over the entire period question containing these six cooling trends, the underlying trend is one of rapid global warming (0.27C per decade, according to the new Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature [BEST] dataset). - http://www.skepticalscience.co...