Oh sweet environmental science. When did scientists stop using the scientific method to determine scientific facts?
Sadly, the answer lies with Congress. When did they stop? They stopped when Congress started handing out money for scientists to study the impending catastrophic collapse of Earth’s environment. They didn’t offer money for scientists to create ways to help us reduce our effects on polluting the environment. They didn’t offer money for scientific development. They offered money to prove that there is a problem.
The scientific method does not allow for this. It does not state that one is supposed to draw a conclusion and prove it. You are supposed to test it. Test it some more. Test it again. If it seems to hold true, call it a theory. Let others test it. Test it some more. Look for other possible reasons. Test it again. Retest it. Hesitantly claim it is a fact, but requires more testing. Keep testing it until there is almost no reasonable doubt as to its accuracy. For a refresher on scientific method, visit this website: http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node6.html#SECTION02121000000000000000.
Historically, Congress and science do not mix well. Need I remind everyone of the debacle where scientists “proved” that there were four shots fired at Kennedy’s assassination? They took audio that obviously indicated four shots. Except it didn’t. Science needs to be kept out of politics. Government funding is fine, but must come without strings. Otherwise, it needs to remain exclusively the science of the free market.
But Al Gore says the Earth is crumbling and we’re all gonna die! I know. I know. We also have to avoid stray killer asteroids and the ever present danger of bird flu. Or we can keep our wits about us. The temperatures of other planets are experiencing similar fluctuations without the assistance of humanity. Couldn’t it just be that there is a less dramatic reason for “global warming”? Study it. Come up with reasonable solution that would not lead to the total collapse of every major economic power in the world. If you believe that this is impossible, then go live like a hippie in the woods while scientists with some tenacity create solutions that function within the confines of reality.
2 comments:
Hi Lit, Thanks for checking out my blog. I took a peek at this entry and we could get in a great heated (pun intended) debate about this one.
You can't get politics out of science - that is very naive. Taxes fund science. Taxpayers are voters. There are issues between the religious right (also voters and usually uneducated). Everything is swirled up in one big mess.
Your blog entry seemed to be suggesting that global climate chage cannot be disastrous because that would be inconvenient. Part of the scientific method is separating your emotions for the process of forming a thesis and testing it, and letting the data speak.
It is a tremendously complex problem. The bigger the problem gets, the more effort humans will put into solving it. And the more it will cost to solve it. That's how things have always been.
Right now it isn't hurting people directly enough. The more it hurts, the more people can directly see the threat, the more will be done to determine causality and fix it.
-Adam
http://old-things.blogspot.com/
Thanks for the comments. Allow me to clarify a bit.
I'm not suggesting that the government should stop funding research, but it should not come with strings. In other words, the government should fund "environmental research" but should not fund "proving that global warming is a threat". Do you see the distinction?
Also, I am not suggesting that global warming is an impossibility. I'm also not suggesting that nothing needs to be done about the potential threat of global warming. What I am suggesting is that the majority of solutions being presented are not practical. If the only solution that "scientists" can come up with is something that would cause a complete economic collapse then it is a bad solution.
There is always a solution. The key is to decide if you are going throw your hands up in defeat or continue to strive towards a workable solution.
Post a Comment