Isn’t that relativism, the philosophical doctrine that all criteria of judgment are relative to the individuals and situations involved; knowledge is determined by specific qualities of the observer? There are no facts unless I personally measure them?
I could just pull the historic data myself.
I pointed out before that making informed decisions about different claims does not necessarily require particular scientific expertise. Data are collected. Are the arguments that the data are inadequate reasonable? The data must be analyzed. Are the arguments about the analysis reasonable? Conclusions are drawn. The biggest question here is this: are the conclusions merely hypotheses, or are they irrefutably drawn from data that is itself sufficient to lead to that conclusion? That is, is the conclusion fact or opinion? Most people can understand the logic of an argument. That is a skill quite separate from the ability to acquire data.
This is an interesting question. Global warming has been under the more intense scrutiny in the last 30 years than probably any other single scientific question ever studied. More money has been spent, more scientists have been involved, more experiments have been run regarding this topic than anything in the history of science. And after all that, there is still a scientific question as to what the global temperature has been doing over the last 18 years? Really? With all the measuring devices, with all the attention paid to the subject, how can we not even know that, and if we can’t even answer what ought to be the most basic of all questions, how can we claim to know anything? If our best scientific efforts are inadequate even to tell us what *has *happened how in the world can we believe they are sufficient to tell us what will happen?
That reminds me of Lord Dorwin’s view of the scientific method (look it up). Asimov did a much better job of showing it for what it is than I could. But no, you can’t just read two conflicting scientific results and decide between them based on their logic alone. You would have to preform a third experiment (and a fourth, if necessary) to decide between them. That is the scientific method.
That is not what I am asserting. I am asserting that there is no alternative to relying on consensus, unless it is to do original research. If you are unwilling or unable to do the later, you must accept the former.
You cannot just “pull together the historic data” yourself without relying on the consensus of what that data is. And based on the arguments I see here, people disagree on what that is.
I could and I did.
…because there is a consensus on what that data is? It seems you are using consensus when it suits you and disregarding consensus when it doesn’t suit you.
You just described everyone. Even yourself.
When have I disregarded a consensus that doesn’t suit me?
If you have to ask them introspection us needed. We all do it. Many do it with pro life issues…
Let me remind your of the topic: scientific truth, and more specifically, climate change. If you really did want to talk about pro-life issues, you should start another thread.
I have no desire to stray off topic. In your posting history you are left leaning. Which is fine. But if you don’t recognize that your ideology is sometimes dismissive of facts and science then you are being disingenuous.
And I said you can’t do that without implicitly relying on the fact that the actual data is a matter of consensus. If I said to you that the actual data is different from what you say the actual data is, how could you refute my claim? By relying on the consensus of scientists who perform the measurements. Unless you personally make temperature measurements, the only way you can know the actual global data is by believing what someone else who did make measurements says.
It is also a matter of public record what climate scientists have said about global warming.
Actually, it does. There are surface readings and satellite readings. Which one is more reliable? How are satellite readings actually calibrated? How do we know they measure what they are supposed to measure. And for surface readings, how do we take into account changing conditions around the monitoring sites? How do we know that the distribution of monitoring sites is correct for the global average we want to measure? Not so simply after all, is it?
Actually, there are ways to say that one discussion is more reliable than another. One such way is by the reputation and numbers of the experts who are making the claims. Another way is by performing original research to test the claims that are made.
You may speak to your own abilities, but you cannot speak for those of anyone else. I’m quite comfortable that I can adequately judge between the arguments presented for and against certain claims.
Even you don’t believe what you’ve just said. What consensus? The one that Naomi Oreskes says exists, or the one Benny Piser says does not? By your own admission you are incapable of judging which of these two claims is valid since you have not done the research yourself. If you believed what you said in your first statement above you could not take a position on the issue, but since you have taken a position it is clear that you don’t actually believe one has to be able to do basic research before coming to any conclusions. That is, you’re no different than anyone else: you feel quite capable of making judgments about what you read regarding this issue.
Would you be as comfortable and confident deciding between two controversial views of techniques of neuro-surgury by reading the arguments presented by their practitioners? Or how about deciding between two camps of experts in materials for casings in oil drilling? Can you evaluate the arguments of nuclear scientists about the relative safety of two methods of storing spent fuel? I think the reason you fell so confident opining about climate change is that you don’t think it is as real science and does not involve technical expertise. I would not venture to put my opinion up against experts in any of those fields.
By I can count. And the number of scientists who say global warming is real outnumber those who do not.