Help with characterizing antiscience debate

[macdoc]

I don't like the term debate - debate should be reserved for peers.....this should be exposed or debunked.

 

[Alex Libman]

I'm sorry, but you are wrong.

You simply don't have the right to use violence to force your opinions on others, even if those opinions are objectively verifiable to be correct.

 

[fls]

I'm sorry, but you are wrong.

You simply don't have the right to use violence to force your opinions on others, even if those opinions are objectively verifiable to be correct.

Wrong thread?

Linda

 

[bpesta22]

No good can come from debating people who don't recognize reason as the ultimate determiner of truth.

 

[macdoc]

I'm sorry, but you are wrong.

You simply don't have the right to use violence to force your opinions on others, even if those opinions are objectively verifiable to be correct.

If you are referring to my post, science is not about opinions and as layman yours counts for nada.....take it to the politics forum

You may well have a valid position on the policy approach of a scientific issue - ie how to approach climate change from an economic standpoint.

That is not a science issue it's a policy decision.

 

[bpesta22]

I think scientists are all about opinions and as biased as any other humans. So what. At the end of the day, data or gtfo!

So, the method is not biased but the people who use it certainly are. But, we all have different sets of biases and only those that map on to reality will stand the test of time.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

No good can come from debating people who don't recognize reason as the ultimate determiner of truth.

But how do you approach that without doing an equal amount of harm because they use the fact they are excluded from the debate as proof they aren't getting their view of science heard?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I think scientists are all about opinions and as biased as any other humans. So what. At the end of the day, data or gtfo!

So, the method is not biased but the people who use it certainly are. But, we all have different sets of biases and only those that map on to reality will stand the test of time.

Claiming radiocarbon dating is not valid is not the same as claiming you have a different interpretation of the evidence.

Claiming there are no transitional fossils or that there is only evidence of micro but not macro evolution is not a valid scientific opinion.

There have to be limits here. Otherwise you might as well call science just speculative opinion.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Science is not law or politics where opinion actually has some weight and there is a judgement to be made by the jury/judge or the voters....

The nature of science is not the same as politics or law and the difference should be respected.

Watch the Nova series

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/program.html

Is worthwhile to see how the difference is laid out before the judge by a scientist. It's worth the time.

It's a lot easier with the evolution theory debate. The science is cleaner.

But how about with the global warming debates? There the science is quite muddied, yet the mud has been applied by purposeful campaign to discredit the science, not by some legitimate debate within science.

 

[JJM]

It's a lot easier with the evolution theory debate. The science is cleaner. ...

Yes, to us the evidence for evolution is manifest. However, creationists, also, deliberately muddy the science supporting evolution at every turn. For example, they claim that radio-dating techniques used on recent lava flows shows the lava to be very old. The first time I heard that, I was gobsmacked and could not respond. Then, I researched that claim and found that some minerals are not 'rejuvenated' in lava; and it was those minerals, not the lava, that gave an older date as expected.

You also must realize that your audience is likely to consider everything that you say is opinion, not fact. And they consider all opinions to have equal weight. Thus, if the creationist names six things that counter evolution, and you only have time to explain why one is wrong, the audience thinks you have a difference of opinion on one topic and you are overwhelmed by the rest of it.

 

[macdoc]

But how about with the global warming debates? There the science is quite muddied

It's actually not at all .....it's a manufactured controversy from a science perspective, the science is clear and has been known as to mechanism for over a century. More is learned all the time as it is with evolution and of course there are many aspects to Anthro impact beyond just GHG.

How to deal with the occurring, established, observable changes is very much a matter of opinion and policy and science can only go so far in informing that valid debate which has economic and political components of far reaching consequences.

This is exactly the differentiation that needs to be maintained.

Science does not deal in opinion but evidence - policy and what to do with what science reveals is the arena of opinion and debate unless two peers are debating two propositions explaining the same evidence.

That's a narrow arena and peer review works.....mostly.

••

To put in terms you might be comfortable with.

Science might determine that a particularly expensive drug works very well for a particular condition.

The debate is how to introduce that into a medical system with limited resources.

Another was the science of building the atomic bomb versus the debate on it's use.

Clear demarcation of the roles.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Yes, to us the evidence for evolution is manifest. However, creationists, also, deliberately muddy the science supporting evolution at every turn. For example, they claim that radio-dating techniques used on recent lava flows shows the lava to be very old. The first time I heard that, I was gobsmacked and could not respond. Then, I researched that claim and found that some minerals are not 'rejuvenated' in lava; and it was those minerals, not the lava, that gave an older date as expected.

You also must realize that your audience is likely to consider everything that you say is opinion, not fact. And they consider all opinions to have equal weight. Thus, if the creationist names six things that counter evolution, and you only have time to explain why one is wrong, the audience thinks you have a difference of opinion on one topic and you are overwhelmed by the rest of it.

I wasn't implying the anti-science was any less vigorous, just that countering anti-evolution science or anti-vaccine science and similar examples are cleaner arguments than climate science which has a gazillion variables to sort out.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

It's actually not at all .....it's a manufactured controversy from a science perspective, the science is clear and has been known as to mechanism for over a century. More is learned all the time as it is with evolution and of course there are many aspects to Anthro impact beyond just GHG.

How to deal with the occurring, established, observable changes is very much a matter of opinion and policy and science can only go so far in informing that valid debate which has economic and political components of far reaching consequences.

This is exactly the differentiation that needs to be maintained.

Science does not deal in opinion but evidence - policy and what to do with what science reveals is the arena of opinion and debate unless two peers are debating two propositions explaining the same evidence.

That's a narrow arena and peer review works.....mostly.

I can look at the CO2/temperature graph and I'm totally convinced there is global warming and the industrial revolution is producing enough CO2 to be driving it. So maybe I'm just mistaken that the muddiness is coming from the science and not just the usual suspects.

Why were there so many more scientists with alternative interpretations of the data then? It seems like until the most recent IPCC consensus there was not so much scientific agreement. Is that not true?

To put in terms you might be comfortable with.

Science might determine that a particularly expensive drug works very well for a particular condition.

The debate is how to introduce that into a medical system with limited resources.

Another was the science of building the atomic bomb versus the debate on it's use.

Clear demarcation of the roles.

I don't have an issue sorting this part out.

 

[JJM]

I wasn't implying the anti-science was any less vigorous, just that countering anti-evolution science or anti-vaccine science and similar examples are cleaner arguments than climate science which has a gazillion variables to sort out.

I see your point.

 

[macdoc]

Why were there so many more scientists with alternative interpretations of the data then? It seems like until the most recent IPCC consensus there was not so much scientific agreement. Is that not true?

Never was in the climatologist community....there are some disagreements as to scale and outcomes and timing - not to underlying mechanism.

Here is what Gammon had to say concerning links between humans and climate change.

*“This is like asking, ‘Is the moon round?’ or ‘Does smoking cause cancer?’ We’re at a point now where there is no responsible position stating that humans are not responsible for climate change. That is just not where the science is.…For a long time, for at least five years and probably 10 years, the international scientific community has been very clear.”

In case there is any doubt, Gammon went on:
*“This is not the balance-of-evidence argument for a civil lawsuit; this is the criminal standard, beyond a reasonable doubt We’ve been there for a long time and I think the media has really not presented that to the public.”

Dr. Richard H. Gammon
Professor of Chemistry and Oceanography*
Adjunct Professor Atmospheric Sciences, University of Washington

This is why I'm being nit picky about using the term debate in this context as we have an example of how dangerous it can be taking climate issues as an example. ( there have been others - cigarettes and cancer etc many by the same "advocates" )

Here's a good article on it

Manufactroversy (măn’yə-făk’-trə-vûr’sē)
N., pl. -sies.
1. A manufactured controversy that is motivated by profit or extreme ideology to intentionally create public confusion about an issue that is not in dispute.
2. Effort is often accompanied by imagined conspiracy theory and major marketing dollars involving fraud, deception and polemic rhetoric.

more

http://www.scienceprogress.org/2008/04/manufactroversy/