Aliens Cause Global Warming

[Mr.Shroom]

A interesting link was posted by user bort in another thread, one which I feel deserves mention in its own topic. Unless it already has, and I've just freakin' missed it. Bygones.

Michael Crichton on the failings of science. (Its long. If you're not going to read the entire damn thing, then this thread isn't for you. Wait untill you REALLY want to read something long. Then post.)

Its the 4 out of 5 dentists we listen to. Its the top ranked security systems in our cars. Its what Crichton calls consensus science, and its rearing its ugly head blatantly in these past four years. And he's currently the only person I know whos talked about it so goddamn well.

The mixing of dirty debating and falacious argumentation in the media is bleeding into our science; Hell, they're replacing science with something new that fits their schema. Private interest groups of politics are now focusing on science; putting a 'spin' on data or making it upon on their own.

Personally, I think Crichton's solution is a pipe dream. The data will be spun regardless, one voice will always attempt to scream down or villify the other. Its useless without a firm scientific backbone that CONSTNATLY reinforces the FACTS...but that also flys in the face of science.

Science, by its nature, doesn't give us truth. It gives us very good ideas. But people and groups don't want really good ideas. They want blacks and whites, no middle area greys. Yes and No, Right and Wrong. Science doesn't play that game.

So rather than remake the game?

They're remaking science.

Thats my reaction. Not much of one, but...hell. You folks gimmie something to chew on in turn, and maybe my wheels will churn out something a bit more refined.

[YH]

I think Crichton provides an excellent critque on the failings of the scientific community, but like you, I don't have much faith on the "double blind" system of research he is proposing...

First of all, I'm not quite sure what type of research system he is proposing. Is he proposing to set up multiple teams on the same type of research (i.e. each team has its own direction, its own hypothesis and its own experiment)? Or is he proposing to set up multiple teams that conduct their own experiments, based on the same hypothesis? Or does he want multiple teams to conduct the exact same experiment? In any case, I have a feeling that scientists feel very personal about their own research, and such "cooperation" can backfire very easily, especially when one research team disagrees with another. In fact, in Crichton's books scientists are mostly portrayed as selfish, flawed people; if these were the scientists that make up these research teams, I doubt that any research could be done!

The other thing I am worried about is the effect on the public's view on science; to be blunt, I don't think it will make a damned difference whether research is properly done or not. Even if Crichton's system works... that just means that scientists can go to bed and sleep peacefully at night. To the outside world, research will still be treated as it is now: whenever some eye-catching research paper is released (e.g. Dogs show 20% more loyalty to Americans, etc.) the media jumps on it immediately. We look at it with interest, maybe post it in RLF with some commentary; politicians, (and high school students alike) note it down and use this "fact" whenever they need quasi-scientific rhetoric in a debate. Most of the time these papers go unquestioned by us, mostly because we have no scientific authority to "peer-review" them.

So it doesn't really matter whether the scientific paper is properly controlled or not! It's very ethical to research to be thorough and open-minded...... but unfortunately, people wouldn't really appreciate that fact.

[Vektor T. Gecko]

I think what he's proposing is merely a system of verification, managed peer review, in essence. He says that researchers must fund multiple teams for a given area of research. This doesn't mean that there will always be two teams independently researching, say, particle weapons at the same time, independently. What he means is that there would be, say, two (or more) particle physics teams. One may be working on particle weapons, and another on solar sail development. Then, team A makes a breakthrough and develops some method of developing feasable man-portable particle weapons. Instead of publishing results and waiting for someone else to peer-review as they see fit (because if nobody's willing to peer review your work, they can always just dismiss it, "but that work hasn't been peer reviewed. It's worthless. I'm going to dismiss it now! HA!"), there's another team of independent particle physicists available to confirm your results. And of course, it goes further to say that there would actually have to be different teams to actually collect data from test runs, and a third team to analyze the data. The whole thing sounds a little bureaucratic, really.

Also, have you considered that Chrichton portrays scientists as selfish, flawed people because of his disappointment in the integrity of the scientific community?

[Mr.Shroom]

I think we're all in agreement in what the general idea of Chrichton's plan; but I'm so in agrement with YH's assertion that the public and media outlets will continue to blatantly abuse the produced data. It'd...be akin to a scientific "United Nations" bitching about other nations. Yes, they can complain and commit outside acts that hinder or at least discorage such abuse. But they can't exactly flat out stop it. You'd need enforcement behind this backing; but then that'd just lead to more chances for even MORE political nitpicking and skewing of information.

And actually, I think Chrichton portrays scientists just as how they are, frankly. They're either arrogant and full of hubris, in it for the power and pristige as opposed to the actual science, or are stumbling children in the dark who often deal with things bigger than they can even handle.

Pretty much humanity as a whole, really.

[edge]

I also agree with YH. I think that a lot of what we see is a matter of control. The media, the government, etc. What Chrichton says really makes a lot of sense. I've always believed that you can't just predict so far ahead in the future. It's completely impossible to know exactly what's coming. There are so many improbabilities in the things we "study" that nobody can really be certian. But anyone who can gain influence, and has a will to do so, is probable to do so. There are many people out there who would love to control what large groups think and believe in.

If I had a little more time to write right now, I would elaborate a lot more on my own opinions, and what I've said above. How ever, it was a fantastic lecture, and I enjoyed the read.

[Grumlen]

That is one helluva pessimistic view of science.

I'm not gonna claim to be a true part of the scientific community, but I'm working on it, so I think I have the knowledge and backgraound to say this:

He's doing the same thing that he accuses the scientific community of doing.

Think about it. Really. Just as he says that science and consensus never mix, he's looking to garner a consensus from everyone who reads his paper that he's right and anyone who says otherwise is wrong. He fails to mention that for every person who went against the consensus and was right, there were 1000 more that were wrong. Science isn't perfect, nor will it ever be. It's just a set of theories that we use to describe our world in an attempt to understand it. Any real scientist will admit that everything he knows could very well be wrong. It comes with the job.

As for his bit on having experimental results verified by other scientists, that already gets done whenever possible. It's worth noting that during the whole nuclear winter thing, was it the scientific community that scrambled all over it or was it the general public? Think on that one for a bit.

Finally, as for the part with Lomborg, he fails to mention that in a scientific theory, it only takes ONE factual error to render the entire damn theory pointless and wrong. The same rule applies to mathemetical theories. If, for example, I assume that dividing by zero is allowable, I can literally prove ANYTHING in math. 1=2, 3x9=2, etc. I've only made one factual error, but that single error renders ANY conclusions that I draw from it useless unless that false assumption is true. So yeah, before you let a fancy paper influence your position on a subject, run it through the grinder and think "How can this essay be wrong?" Until you learn to do that with any theory or essay you read, you're still just another brainless american.

I'm not saying that everything he said is wrong though. Politics and science really should be seperated, and it should not be abused in an effort to simply make money at the cost of credibility. But nor is it as rife with corruption as he says it is.

[Mr.Shroom]

[quote="Grumlen";p="457166"]Think about it. Really. Just as he says that science and consensus never mix, he's looking to garner a consensus from everyone who reads his paper that he's right and anyone who says otherwise is wrong. He fails to mention that for every person who went against the consensus and was right, there were 1000 more that were wrong. Science isn't perfect, nor will it ever be. It's just a set of theories...[/quote]

Okay. Lets also think about what you just typed there. Really. You just compared a expression of opinion, with no stated call for nays OR yays towards it, to different groups of people who basically told the world things they considered to be 'well documented facts'. Note the problem there?

That is one helluva pessimistic view of public speaking...not to mention a heckuva lot of inference towards the actual message given. I'd say quite a bit of mutual respect but demand for addmission from both the scientific community and the people who absorb and use their findings is pretty equal paced, rather than a blatant slamming of simply science in general.

It's worth noting that during the whole nuclear winter thing, was it the scientific community that scrambled all over it or was it the general public? Think on that one for a bit.

Fair enough. Large group of respected minds with hidden agendas present good case with a positive spin without calling any reason to question them, and providing fallacious evidence which only few were able to uncover.

I think its pretty mutual there...and I think that was also addressed in the sections which mentioned 'who wants to cry out and support nuclear war?' and the like.

Finally, as for the part with Lomborg, he fails to mention that in a scientific theory, it only takes ONE factual error to render the entire damn theory pointless and wrong. The same rule applies to mathemetical theories. If, for example, I assume that dividing by zero is allowable, I can literally prove ANYTHING in math. 1=2, 3x9=2, etc. I've only made one factual error, but that single error renders ANY conclusions that I draw from it useless unless that false assumption is true.

No offense, but when you defy the basic face value concepts of logic, its pretty easy to prove logic wrong. Making assumptions of inductive inference must still adhere to the laws of logic.

[Grumlen]

Okay. Lets also think about what you just typed there. Really. You just compared a expression of opinion, with no stated call for nays OR yays towards it, to different groups of people who basically told the world things they considered to be 'well documented facts'. Note the problem there?

My point has nothing to do with the information being conveyed, just the method of conveyance. He says that scientific consensus is absurd, yet attempts to garner a consensus to get rid of another consensus. Plus, as I noted, everything we know in science could be wrong. Until one can verify the truth of a statement, it is an opinion.

There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.

That sure as hell sounds like he's trying to state a fact right there. He says the consensus has a horrible track record, but the fact of the matter is that people are always more inclined to remember when a scientist succeeds then when he fails. 99% of the time, the consensus was right when they told the pariah scientist that "You'll never be able to build a flying machine using granite to fasion your frame out of!" The consensus is not always right, but nor is it always wrong.

No offense, but when you defy the basic face value concepts of logic, its pretty easy to prove logic wrong. Making assumptions of inductive inference must still adhere to the laws of logic.

Dividing by zero has nothing to do with logic. It defies the basic laws of mathematics, sure, but it's perfectly acceptable by logic. All logic involves is taking a series of assumptions and drawing a conclusion from them. You can use any assumptions you want. Now, you can pick assumptions that will never be true and still be perfectly find as far as logic is concerned. Whether or not any logic you perform while using those false assumptions will ever matter is a different story. It's known as being vacuously true.

Still though, if you want a better example, lets say that in the beginning of a 20 step derivation I subtract instead of add. That single mistake could either have no meaningful effect at all, or it could throw my final number off by several decimal places rendering all my derivations useless. The point I was trying to make is that 1 mistake, no matter how small, has the potential to completely destroy the credibility of anything related to it.

Always remember than when a person makes an arguement, they are NOT going to present both side of the arguement to you. If they do present a case for the other side, they do so either to mock it or to disprove it.

Fair enough. Large group of respected minds with hidden agendas present good case with a positive spin without calling any reason to question them, and providing fallacious evidence which only few were able to uncover.

Please note some of the tactics that were used here. He uses specific names for those who speak out against the Nuclear Winter theory, but generally refers to those who supported it as a "team," thus implying that there were a large number of them. While parts of the scientific community went with it, sure, it was by and large the general public that bought into it and convinced themselves that it must be true. And of course, once the general public decides that something is scientific fact then the entire scientific community must have already accepted it, right?

I may write more later, but for now I'm tired. Neither one of us is gonna have our opinion changed, so any arguing we do here is really just for shits and giggles.

[Mr.Shroom]

I'm gonna just ignore (for the mo') the whole semantical debate you're having with the concept of 'consensus' and Mikes attempts to commit it being hypocricy, since its more of a confusing side-point than the spearhead of your case.

I take your second quote not to mean 'consensus isn't science' but rather 'consensus that makes a claim of a final and unchallengeable truth isn't science', since in the whole context of his speech, THATS what he's really saying.

...And for gods sake, shoot whoever taught you the core ideas of logic.