tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10944560.post4443568986417755193..comments2024-01-01T08:18:36.278-05:00Comments on Real Physics: Astronomy, Global Warmth, and TreesLawrence Gagehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01242322119143922513noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10944560.post-11623019341984819342007-08-28T06:43:00.000-04:002007-08-28T06:43:00.000-04:00Well, DL is up to his very ole fallacious trick (c...Well, DL is up to his very ole fallacious trick (called the "genetic fallacy") of trying to discredit arguments based on who produces them ("religious right," "old fossils like Behe")rather than focusing on the merits of the arguments themselves (DL provides no counter argument whatsoever). Can you imagine how DL would froth at the mouth if someone on the other side tried to argue, "global warming is wrong because liberal political losers like Al Gore has a vested self-interest in promoting it... while burning more carbon units in his mansion than a small town"?<BR/><BR/>He does this a lot at other blogs -- relying especially on the fallacy of historicism (e.g., according to DL any argument is wrong simply because a 12th-century theologian proposed it). Logic is clearly not his forte.<BR/><BR/>Anyway, check out the comment here (http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/bstephens/?id=110010529) regarding extremists and alarmists like DL.Holopupenkohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10453361987796262505noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10944560.post-90635824262518219512007-08-28T05:50:00.000-04:002007-08-28T05:50:00.000-04:001. We all live on trust. As a general rule I tru...1. We all live on trust. As a general rule I trust scientists to make progress toward what is true, sometimes with zig zags. But groupthink is always a possibility.<BR/><BR/>2. They have been predicting warming and it seems to be occuring. Hansen's scenario B seems to match the data for the last 15 years or so. Of course, that could just be a coincidence and the other mentioned mechanisms are responsible.SteveAhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00394492083234379612noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10944560.post-72126980956303462212007-08-25T12:38:00.000-04:002007-08-25T12:38:00.000-04:00DL, thanks for your thoughts. Himself, thanks for...DL, thanks for your thoughts. Himself, thanks for a great reply!<BR/><BR/>More about consensus science here: <A HREF="http://realphysics.blogspot.com/2007/06/global-warming-and-scientific-consensus.html" REL="nofollow">Global Warming and "Scientific" Consensus</A><BR/><BR/>LGLawrence Gagehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01242322119143922513noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10944560.post-75584548012141563032007-08-21T20:30:00.000-04:002007-08-21T20:30:00.000-04:00DocLogThey dig up a few old fossils like Michael B...DocLog<BR/>They dig up a few old fossils like Michael Behe who will say that NDE isn't the fact that it is. <BR/><BR/>Himself<BR/>Actually Behe is a young dude. But I'm not sure what Non-Destructive Evaluation has to do with the matter. Dye-penetrant testing? Radiography? <BR/><BR/>DocLog<BR/>Is scientific consensus only valid when it says something you agree with? <BR/><BR/>Himself<BR/>The scientific consensus is not valid at all, and may simply reflect the consensus or fashion of the time. The scientific consensus was set against Galileo, against Pasteur, against Semmelweiss, against Wegener. For a while, Mach and Einstein and the others were in consensus that "space" and "time" were metaphysical intrusions into what should be an empirical physics. (Although Einstein changed his mind when he resurrected the aether.) There is nothing in the scientific method that requires a vote. <BR/><BR/>DocLog<BR/>Of course, these aren't attacks merely on specifics. They are attacks on science in general. <BR/><BR/>Himself<BR/>The most serious attacks on science in general do not come from the woo-woo right. They will never be taken seriously within the Academy. It is from the postmodern left, with its demotion of _episteme_ to _pistis_ via Popperian and Kuhnian itrationalism, which gnaws at the root. It was Kuhn who said that the geocentric system would be just as valid today as the heliocentric, if it had the "consensus" of the scientists. If a scientific theory is only a "story" that reflects power relationships, what has happened to demonstrated knowledge?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10944560.post-90296210977280016392007-08-18T09:26:00.000-04:002007-08-18T09:26:00.000-04:00Here's another take on the politics of Global Warm...Here's another take on the politics of Global Warming from <A HREF="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20122975/site/newsweek/" REL="nofollow">Newsweek</A>:<BR/><BR/><I>Now they contend that the looming warming will be minuscule and harmless. "They patterned what they did after the tobacco industry," says former senator Tim Wirth, who spearheaded environmental issues as an under secretary of State in the Clinton administration. "Both figured, sow enough doubt, call the science uncertain and in dispute. That's had a huge impact on both the public and Congress."</I><BR/><BR/>And that's how the religious right (and yes, they're mostly religious) is undermining science across the board. This is what they're doing with evolutionary biology. They dig up a few old fossils like Michael Behe who will say that NDE isn't the fact that it is. Just enough to sow doubt, and they do so with the intent to alter public policy.<BR/><BR/>Of course, these aren't attacks merely on specifics. They are attacks on science in general. Their aim is to cause the average American to doubt the scientific consensus. That way, science isn't a significant factor in policymaking. Instead, the loudest voice is the important factor, and that often leads us into a stalemate, or worse.<BR/><BR/>So what's the deal, Lawrence? Is scientific consensus only valid when it says something you agree with? Isn't science still the best inference we can make, even if it turns out to be wrong? Or are the vast majority of climate scientists in a giant conspiracy (just like all the evolutionary biologists)?Doctor Logichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03182745193512661770noreply@blogger.com