I've been slapped around by some who believe in the global warming scenario. I take this position because the facts do not jibe with the theory in many particulars, but I'm often hit with, "But so many scientists do support the theory that it must be true!"
That's not the case. In fact the exact opposite is true. Think about it for a second. If everything we thought was true was true, there would be no ne discoveries. Every major scientific advance came from somebody questioning the established theory, and turning out to be correct. Additionally, every time this has happened, the scientific establishment has resisted the new idea strenuously, despite the facts.
The latest example came yesterday, when the Nobel Prize for Medicine was announced.
What the article doesn't say is that Lauterbur ran into significant trouble even publishing the paper for which he just received the Prize. Nature rejected it as "not of significantly wide significance," before later changing their mind. On NPR's All Things Considered (audio link) Lauterbur says that "The preconceptions were so strong, that people could not only see the results, but be doing it themselves, and still not believe it."
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is my point. Scientists are human. They become attached to their own theories, and will defend them when presented with new theories, even if the facts support the new theories. This is the fatal flaw behind all arguments which are based on authority instead of the facts. So don't tell me that x number of scientists believe this, so it must be true; if you want to convince me, you'd better have the facts to answer my questions.
Posted by Rich at October 7, 2003 12:57 PM | TrackBackIndeed, science is based on tentative truths.
However, claiming that something is false simply because it hasn't been proven as true is fallacious. As is claiming that something is true because it hasn't been proved false. They both create a false dilemma.
What we can do, however, is rely on the common wisdom of our collective body of scientists and judge the likelihood of their consensus being accurate. There's nothing wrong with this.
I honestly have not read enough about global warming to know what the majority of scientists believe or to have reached any conclusions of my own.
What I do think, however, is that global warming is a red herring. We can cite many other harmful effects of air pollution (just ask south knox bubba or anyone else in East TN) that are just as good reasons to curb the trend, whether or not we are heating the earth.
Understanding the cause of global warming is very, very important. Hinging the debate over curbing air pollution on it, however, is not.
Posted by: Chris Wage on October 7, 2003 3:08 PMI agree that dogmatic rejection is just as bad as dogmatic acceptance. However, that is not what I was talking about. What I was pointing out was that basing an argument on authority, particularly when there are facts which dispute the majority opinion, is a very weak argument. The global warming debate was an example which illustrates this perfectly. Despite the fact that the data pretty clearly refutes the commonly held theories about human activities causing global warming, the consensus opinion still clings to that model.
If you're interested in looking at the case against global warming, check out this link
Posted by: rich on October 7, 2003 8:37 PMOne of the biggest dangers I've forseen is that once Global Warming goes bust (and it will, the weight of scientific inquiry has been going that way from the beginning) the public as a whole will lose confidence in science advocacy as a whole.
From saccrine to global warming to cell phone brain damage, science advocacy is getting beaten to a pulp by an ever more mistrustful public.
Remember what happened to the boy when a real wolf came around? That's the danger.
Posted by: Sparkey on October 7, 2003 11:50 PM