Some thoughts on their foolish political tendencies. And as noted, this Sagan quote is crucial in the “settled climate science” debate:
Science is more than a body of knowledge, it’s a way of thinking. A way of skeptically interrogating the universe with a fine understanding of human fallibility. If we are not able to ask skeptical questions, to interrogate those that tell us that something is true, to be skeptical of those in authority, then we’re up for grabs for the next charlatan, political or religious who comes ambling along.
“Scientist” isn’t a profession. We are all scientists to one degree or another, if we are successful at every-day living.
The most important thing I learned from “Cosmos” was how science was not the realm of the privileged and the anointed. Science was a tool that anyone could use. The show repeatedly made it clear that science was not about orthodoxy, it was about a search for the truth. Everyone could believe that something was true and it wouldn’t make a difference the minute that a single person showed (with science ) how it could not be true. When Sagan showed how until recently Andromeda was thought to be a nebula until one person did enough observation to conclude that it wasn’t a nebula, it was an entire galaxy. Until that happened, the idea of more than one galaxy was considered crazy. When Hubble showed his data, all the consensus in the universe wouldn’t convert Andromeda back into a simple nebula.
Scientists may eventually concede to evidence, but bad ideas are often enforced by public policy. This hampers true investigation through improper funding and campaigns to “educate the public”.
“The real question of government versus private enterprise is argued on too philosophical and abstract a basis. Theoretically, planning may be good. But nobody has ever figured out the cause of government stupidity—and until they do (and find the cure), all ideal plans will fall into quicksand.
—Richard Feynman
This should be printed on a t-shirt and given to Jim.
Actually, Hayek did identify the cause, and in so doing, also showed that there is no cure.
“then we’re up for grabs for the next charlatan, political or religious who comes ambling along.”
He left out scientists.
“then we’re up for grabs for the next charlatan, political or religious who comes ambling along.”
Al Gore is both a political and religious charlatan. He’s far from the only one in the AGW/Climate Change camp.
Not sure where I read this but it might have been “Surely you’re Joking, Mr. Feynman”
Anyway he wrote to the effect that if your write a paperand propound a theory or explanation, it’s not good enough to give all the supporting evidence.
You must also include all the things that could destroy your pretty idea.
Ah a Google Search has helped:
Quote:
“For example, if you’re doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid — not only what you think is right about it; other causes that could possibly explain your results; and things you thought of that you’ve eliminated by some other experiment, and how they worked — to make sure the other fellow can tell they have been eliminated.
Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them. You must do the best you can — if you know anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong — to explain it. If you make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well as those that agree with it. There is also a more subtle problem. When you have put a lot of ideas together to make an elaborate theory, you want to make sure, when explaining what it fits, that those things it fits are not just the things that gave you the idea for the theory; but that the finished theory makes something else come out right, in addition.
In summary, the idea is to try to give all of the information to help others to judge the value of your contribution; not just the information that leads to judgment in one particular direction or another.”
End Quote.
Every paper must contain, within it, the seeds of it’s own destruction.
This rigorous standard that Feynman promulgated in that speech is not the low standard to deflect a ruling of “fraud”, and maybe that is the way it should be.
I think there is evidence that some Climate Science does not live up to those tough standards.
“Back off, man. I’m a scientist. ”
Just had to get that in there.
It doesn’t help that the school system (even up through college/university) actively discourages critical thinking, exploration, and skepticism. We put students in the equivalent of intellectual prison for a decade and a half. We reinforce slavish obsession with rules, memorization, and acceptance of whatever one is told. It’s shocking that anyone can become a free thinker or acquire a scientific mindset after bathing in that toxic stew for so long.