Problem I see
Then again, maybe not.
How much understanding is there in the public at large about the mechanisms undergirding
If one doesn’t understand the subject but accepts itsteve-b:
Would you understand any of the evidence? I probably will not and science is my field of work.
That is not true. Part of the scientific method is for theories to be challenged and put to further testing, especially when there are questions as to exactly what the evidence says. Disagreement is a normal part of the process.
Again you have science wrong. No theory is every “proven.” A scientific theory is either refuted by experiment or supported to some degree by experiment. No single experiment is ever the last word such that all future experiments are irrelevant. To be a scientific theory, an assertion must always be falsifiable. That is, there must exist, in principle, an experiment that could be performed where one of the conceivable outcomes is that it disproves the theory.
Simple answer then, no absolute answer from science, then don’t absolutize science to answer/prove climate change. That would be faith in science, and faith is NOT a subject accepted in sciencesteve-b:
That is not true. Part of the scientific method is for theories to be challenged and put to further testing, especially when there are questions as to exactly what the evidence says. Disagreement is a normal part of the process.
Again you have science wrong. No theory is every “proven.” A scientific theory is either refuted by experiment or supported to some degree by experiment. No single experiment is ever the last word such that all future experiments are irrelevant. To be a scientific theory, an assertion must always be falsifiable. That is, there must exist, in principle, an experiment that could be performed where one of the conceivable outcomes is that it disproves the theory.
Therefore support for and provisional acceptance of a theory that has not been proven by “irrefutable evidence” is normal and expected, and is not some kind of anti-science approach.
It is faith in reason that leads a person to accept a theory that he does not understand.MichaelP3:
If one doesn’t understand the subject but accepts itsteve-b:
Would you understand any of the evidence? I probably will not and science is my field of work.
In the broad scheme then
You’re not describing scientific knowledge, you’re describing Faith in science.
maybe in 100-200 years, when we’ve had significant breakthroughs in basic science.
I don’t know who you are addressing that to, but I have not seen anyone here claim that climate science or any other science is absolute and irrefutable.LeafByNiggle:
Simple answer then, no absolute answer from science, then don’t absolutize science to answer/prove climate change.steve-b:
That is not true. Part of the scientific method is for theories to be challenged and put to further testing, especially when there are questions as to exactly what the evidence says. Disagreement is a normal part of the process.
Again you have science wrong. No theory is every “proven.” A scientific theory is either refuted by experiment or supported to some degree by experiment. No single experiment is ever the last word such that all future experiments are irrelevant. To be a scientific theory, an assertion must always be falsifiable. That is, there must exist, in principle, an experiment that could be performed where one of the conceivable outcomes is that it disproves the theory.
Therefore support for and provisional acceptance of a theory that has not been proven by “irrefutable evidence” is normal and expected, and is not some kind of anti-science approach.
Unless they are making money off of it, the rich can make money which ever way the wind blows.
plenty of people have supported the line that it’s settled science, some going so far as demanding legal actions against “deniers”. That approach relies on the position being irrefutable.
I don’t think anyone in this forum has said all of it is settled science. They may have said that some of it is strongly supported by evidence, but not irrefutable.LeafByNiggle:
plenty of people have supported the line that it’s settled science, some going so far as demanding legal actions against “deniers”. That approach relies on the position being irrefutable.
The medical example you use, (CT scan) is provable, it’s a seen result, it is not a guess nor a theory.steve-b:
It is faith in reason that leads a person to accept a theory that he does not understand.MichaelP3:
If one doesn’t understand the subject but accepts itsteve-b:
Would you understand any of the evidence? I probably will not and science is my field of work.
In the broad scheme then
You’re not describing scientific knowledge, you’re describing Faith in science.
There are many instances where you are probably guilty of the same kind of faith. Take for instance the medical field. If you get a diagnosis based on a CT scan, you probably don’t understand the technical details of a CT scan or why the image they show you indicates the specific diagnosis. But in most cases you will accept that both of them are valid. Or, if you are in doubt, you may get a second opinion, or even a third opinion. But no matter how many opinions you get, you are still going to rely on the expertise of the professionals that are giving you the information. You have faith in the medical profession based on a reasonable track record the profession has had in the past.
Climate change science is no different. There are many experts in the field. Most people cannot be expected to fully understand the science behind their conclusions. For those people, the most reasonable thing to do is to examine the track record of those professionals and provisionally accept their conclusions based on that track record. In the case of climate science, there is a reasonably good track record, if you don’t start cherry-picking instances of failure. After all, one can cherry-pick instances of spectacular failures in the medical field, such as blood-letting to cure disease. But a fair survey of the results shows a track record that justifies the acceptance of their conclusions.
Now if you are a scientist doing research in these fields, the rules are a little different. Such a person is expected to understand the science behind other people’s research, and to question that research themselves, and not just accept it, even if it is the current consensus. The trouble is, many people here want to play at being a scientist without actually putting in the education to learn the field well enough to be able to be a scientist for real.
Then in extension, one is free to reject any theory … correct?steve-b:
I don’t know who you are addressing that to, but I have not seen anyone here claim that climate science or any other science is absolute and irrefutable.LeafByNiggle:
Simple answer then, no absolute answer from science, then don’t absolutize science to answer/prove climate change.steve-b:
That is not true. Part of the scientific method is for theories to be challenged and put to further testing, especially when there are questions as to exactly what the evidence says. Disagreement is a normal part of the process.
Again you have science wrong. No theory is every “proven.” A scientific theory is either refuted by experiment or supported to some degree by experiment. No single experiment is ever the last word such that all future experiments are irrelevant. To be a scientific theory, an assertion must always be falsifiable. That is, there must exist, in principle, an experiment that could be performed where one of the conceivable outcomes is that it disproves the theory.
Therefore support for and provisional acceptance of a theory that has not been proven by “irrefutable evidence” is normal and expected, and is not some kind of anti-science approach.
Mr Steve B. Are you a climate change denier?
Yup. That is the jest of it! Point is that we are rarely as smart as we think we are!