Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Dave G on February 26, 2011 at 4:45am

So...the claim that 'If we lose the ozone layer the major cause of death will be skin cancer', followed by us not losing the ozone layer means that ... skin cancer not being the #1 cause of death is a problem?

 

If A, then B. Since not A, not B should not be surprising.

 

I think I'm misunderstanding you somehow, Arcus. I feel like you're trying to make a point that I am somehow not seeing.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Arcus on February 26, 2011 at 6:31am

The point was that scientists are not very good predictors of the future. They are the best we have, but they are not 100% correct.

As a child my parents smeared me in with SPF 50 before going outside to play in the sun. It was the right choice for the wrong reasons; the fear of skin cancer caused by the hole in the ozone layer instead of the fear of skin cancer caused by being sun burnt. Pragmatically such a distinction does not matter, intellectually it does.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dave G on February 26, 2011 at 2:42pm

Ah, I see.

Frankly, it depends on what they are predicting. If a scientist were to predict that there would be a total solar eclipse in Maine in the year 2548, I'd lay good odds of it being accurate. As the system involved gets more complex and the data less certain, the accuracy decreases, which is why things like climate science have large error bars.

 

The prediction that skin cancer may be the #1 cause of death if the ozone layer had continued to be destroyed may have been accurate. We'll never know, as we stopped destroying the ozone layer and thus the X part of 'If X, then Y' was negated. If someone predicts "If X happens, then Y will happen" and people prevent X from happening, it is not a condemnation of the prediction that Y does not happen.

 

Plus, while scientists tend to add qualifiers to their predictions to express the uncertainty in them, such as 'given current conditions' or 'barring new evidence', it does not help matter when the media takes a scientist stating "If X and Y continue as their current rates, and Q occurs, then Z might happen" and put out a headline stating "Scientists claim Z inevitable!!"

Permalink Reply by Arcus on February 26, 2011 at 3:47pm

I didn't start reading complex text and moving on to science magazines until i was 11-12, so these studies were published in the early nineties, after the CFC ban.

I think their models back then were inaccurate...

 

Permalink Reply by T A A on February 25, 2011 at 8:56pm

Remember too, that in the process of consensus building, it is not only the number of papers in agreement for the quality of the papers. Always follow the money behind a study. Scientific research is as prone to political corruption as any other area of investigation/thought. If you follow the money and find lots of money, then you know the study is in conflict of interest and automatically loses a degree of credibility. Multinationals work very very hard at hiding their money trail for good reasons, it allows them to dominate paradigm with their own discourse and rationalisations.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Radu Andreiu on February 26, 2011 at 2:40am

Is it possible that political corruption reaches scientists, academias and institutes all over the world with the same goal? How can a consensus be forged like that when you need to have most scientists in the world? Should I mention the National Academies of Science again?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Arcus on February 26, 2011 at 6:20am

Take the example of Intelligent Design.

It's not really researched or even considered outside of the U.S., the average European have probably not even heard about it, but everyone on this board seem to think it is somehow important enough to discuss because it's a hot topic in one country. The fact that it is discussed here is more a part of the problem than the solution - idiocy can't be combatted with logic and reason, and should be ignored until it goes away.

It is not corruption per se, but it is an example of how something which is clearly wrong ends up on the agenda, taking focus and resources away from real knowledge development, only because some people in one (important) country talks about it and therefore give it creedence.

As for scientific consensus, the field of economics is built upon the assumption of people always making rational choices. Economists hate when this assumption is being tested because it's often found not to hold. Yet modern society is based upon these models.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by T A A on February 27, 2011 at 12:14am

I completely agree that atheists should stop discussing ID, it's so entirely ridiculous I can't even conceive how anyone can have the patience to discuss it. People who believe in it should be placed in mental asylums. Economics is a pseudoscience. Nothing is testable in any given lifetime, we are simply a huge ongoing experiment. With very clear winners and losers.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by T A A on February 25, 2011 at 8:52pm

-no more shallow than recent atheists who suddenly become purveyors of "truth" against religious people... :P

-Environmentalism is NOT obsessed with greenhouse gases, that's populism and GOREism, you'd do well not to mix the two.

-We are dying of cancer MORE than before, for 2 reasons: because live longer, and we live in a fouler world than before, the same thought processes result in corporate greed being more important than human health is also causing species die off (talking about any one species in particular is pointless).

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mark Josefsberg on February 25, 2011 at 2:21pm

I will say this, Judaism has embraced environmentalism for years; in fact, land ethic and stewardship are the main tennants of the Torah...generally.  World Jewish leaders have recognized that mankind has a responsibility to protect our planet and have responded with concerted efforts at making environmentalism a central figure in Hebrew schools and congregations around the world.  There are organizations dedicated to this idea...including the Jewish Envrironmental Network, COEJL, The Jewish Federation, etc....

 

So, whether you see a world religions embrace of environmentalsim as an insidious plot to win over young minds with a popular issue, or as a real effort at preserving a culture, way of life and our planet...is up to you.  But, something is happening. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Radu Andreiu on February 25, 2011 at 2:31pm

Embracing environmentalism isn't an insidious plot to win over young minds. Childhood indoctrination does this job much better than that, a neurologically and statistically proven fact.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by T A A on February 25, 2011 at 9:27pm

Looks like a lot of "look how 'good' I am" and 'intellectual masturbation' as opposed to being actively engaged in improving the planet's ecosystemic health :(

Same as Earth Day in Canada, it has become as huge as a religious holiday (tho I hate to agree with Arcus on this point), but talking cutely about environmentalism does not MAKE ONE and environmentalist and does little to change the world.

I'm a 'deep green' and against Earth Day, it's stupid.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 4
• 5
• 6
• 7
• 8
• Next ›
• Page