Text 11593, 120 rader
Skriven 2007-02-05 14:30:32 av Charlie Edmondson (15032.babylon5)
  Kommentar till text 11399 av rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated (14838.babylon5)
Ärende: Re: Cath0licism and Creati=nism
=======================================
Josh Hill wrote:

> On Fri, 02 Feb 2007 09:05:33 -0800, Charlie Edmondson
> <edmondson@ieee.org> wrote:
> 
> 
>>Josh Hill wrote:
>>
>>>On 1 Feb 2007 17:10:22 -0500, vorxion@knockingshopofthemind.com
>>>(Vorxion) wrote:
> 
> 
>>>Dude, science is science: it cannot be suborned, because to do so, one
>>>would have to suborn thousands of scientists, academic institutions,
>>>and journals. For a well-known example, look at the failed attempt by
>>>the tobacco industry to suppress the evidence linking smoking and
>>>cancer.
>>>
>>>As it happens, the "commercial and governmental interests" are the
>>>ones who are pretending that global warming does not exist; see, for
>>>example, this article about the Bush Administration's attempts to hide
>>>the facts on warming from the American public.
>>>
>>>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/30/AR2007013000985.html

>>>
>>>Part of their cynical campaign consists of convincing the public that
>>>science has somehow been corrupted, while oh-so-honest politicians and
>>>oil companies have quaffed at the grail of truth.
>>>
>>
>>Josh,
>>WHAT UNIVERSE DO YOU LIVE IN?????
>>
>>Of course Science can be suborned!  It has happened hundreds of times 
>>over the centuries, and will no doubt happen again and again in the 
>>future!  All it takes is for the "common sense" viewpoint to reach a 
>>"consensus" and all the power of human greed and self delusion kick in 
>>to maintain it!  It stays in place until finally, facts come along that 
>>can no longer be denied, and then a new consensus is established.  That 
>>is how human minds work, despite the wish of thousands of scientists 
>>that it didn't.
> 
> 
> That wasn't what I had in mind when I used the term "suborned" -- I
> was referring to the accusations that commercial and governmental
> interests could suppress science. They can't, not more than
> temporarily.
> 
> But regarding social pressure, how many longstanding examples can you
> point to in the modern era? I'm not talking about medieval doctors and
> Galen, or about things that were briefly suppressed by special
> interests, such as the side effects of pharmaceuticals. Sometimes,
> discoveries can be suppressed for a few years, e.g., the relationship
> between smoking and cancer. Or they can be ignored or talked into a
> corner -- Mendel's research, say, or Semmelweis's, or the theory of
> continental drift. But the truth always seems to come out, even when
> opposition is overwhelmingly powerful, as the Church was in Galileo's
> day, or a majority is dead-set against something, as in the case of
> Darwin or Freud, or the scientific establishment is skeptical, as in
> the case of Special Relativity.
> 
> 
>>Now, with AGW, it originally was an interesting theory that maybe the 
>>amount of CO2 that we produced was effecting the global climate. 
>>Someone then made a statement that it could be bad.  The radical 
>>environmental movement than took hold of it as another reason for humans 
>>to hate themselves, and pushed it for all its worth.  It quickly became 
>>the 'cause de jour' for political pundits and activists, and the 
>>pressure was put on the scientific community to come up with the 
>>evidence to support it!
>>
>>So, as more and more grant money and tenure was available for AGW 
>>supporters, and less and less for AGW opponents, Science soon went out 
>>the window.  The 'PROOF' was found.  All data and computer models were 
>>massaged and interpreted to make sure that the conclusions needed came 
>>out.  Today, you can hardly find anyone in the field willing to go 
>>against the flow.
> 
> 
> But no one was able to come up with reasonable models that showed
> other results. It would only take /one/ scientist, /one/ model to
> prove the other models wrong. Besides which, there were initially many
> skeptics among climate scientists, who were certainly not shy about
> contesting the models or expressing their opinions.
> 
> 
>>So, what is the truth?  The truth is that change is happening.  Has 
>>always happened, and will continue to happen.  Personally, I think the 
>>changes we have made have been to our (the human race's) advantage 
>>overall, with deforestation and rice swamps having a much greater effect 
>>than all our vehicles.  I also personally believe that in 10 years a lot 
>>of us will be driving electric vehicles (at least 10%) and that using 
>>less oil is just a smart thing, apart from any climate effects that 
>>might have.  But that is just me, and has no scientific basis at all.
> 
> 
> I'm content to follow the science here, since I've been given no
> scientific reason to doubt it. The people who are arguing against it
> at this point are arguing against it for political rather than
> scientific reasons, and in those arguments, science always wins. If
> someone came up with a good /scientific/ argument against it, that
> would all change.
> 
Hi Josh,
Well, right now I am no longer actively meeting and working with folks 
in the field.  I do know that 8 years ago, when I was regularly meeting 
students and researchers in earth systems science, that the fix was in. 
  Researchers that worked against the 'official' consensus that AGW was 
a major crisis found little grant money and little academic support. 
those that that supported it got published, got grant money, and got 
promoted.  And this consensus was not the 'government' but the academic 
community itself.  Just like continental drift, until real evidence is 
in, which is going to take 20 years or so, we won't know whether they 
are calling "Wolf" or are being too timid.  And, there are nay sayers, 
but you sure don't much of them, do you!

Charlie
--- SBBSecho 2.12-Win32
 * Origin: Time Warp of the Future BBS - Home of League 10 (1:14/400)