I’m not sure that’s an essay or a collection of turns of phrase.
He repeats what is beginning to look like a common theme among many columnists: (1)Science should not be polluted by politics. (2)This is scandalous, corrupt behavior. (3)I personally think there is a long term warming trend but these people are no longer credible. (Optionally 4)Climate skeptics are not free of politics, either.
He wasn’t too keen on Sarah Palin, either.
I’m not too keen on John Derbyshire.
I like Derb but he’s got it all wrong. Science it about proof, not trust. If you want to say you trust a theory once it’s been proven, well fine, but that’s trust only in the very weakest sense of the word. And to trust someone’s “scientific” claim before it’s proven is not scientific in any sense of the word.
These bozos weren’t behaving as scientists at all. They were charlatans skilled in manipulating the trappings of science, and to the extent that most layman can’t tell a true scientist from a false one the best policy for all of us is to trust none of them. Make them prove it, period — that’s the scientific way.
Derb said to trust science, not scientists. You seem to have misread him.
Derb said to trust science, not scientists. You seem to have misread him.
Perhaps, but what does it mean to trust science if one is not talking about the scientific establishment, which is nothing if not the scientists themselves.
If I hit the table with my hand and conclude that it is hard, I am observing and theorizing. If I do it over and over and finally convince myself that the table is hard, am I “trusting” science? I think I am merely yielding to the overwhelming weight of my observational experience and accepting what appears to be evident.
If all Derb is saying is that we can hold onto the scientific method regardless of how some people abuse it, well fine. But I don’t see that as a matter of trust.
what does it mean to trust science
Let me put it another way:
Trust evidence, not assertions (and the asserting asserters who assert them).
I’m not sure that’s an essay or a collection of turns of phrase.
He repeats what is beginning to look like a common theme among many columnists: (1)Science should not be polluted by politics. (2)This is scandalous, corrupt behavior. (3)I personally think there is a long term warming trend but these people are no longer credible. (Optionally 4)Climate skeptics are not free of politics, either.
He wasn’t too keen on Sarah Palin, either.
I’m not too keen on John Derbyshire.
I like Derb but he’s got it all wrong. Science it about proof, not trust. If you want to say you trust a theory once it’s been proven, well fine, but that’s trust only in the very weakest sense of the word. And to trust someone’s “scientific” claim before it’s proven is not scientific in any sense of the word.
These bozos weren’t behaving as scientists at all. They were charlatans skilled in manipulating the trappings of science, and to the extent that most layman can’t tell a true scientist from a false one the best policy for all of us is to trust none of them. Make them prove it, period — that’s the scientific way.
Derb said to trust science, not scientists. You seem to have misread him.
Derb said to trust science, not scientists. You seem to have misread him.
Perhaps, but what does it mean to trust science if one is not talking about the scientific establishment, which is nothing if not the scientists themselves.
If I hit the table with my hand and conclude that it is hard, I am observing and theorizing. If I do it over and over and finally convince myself that the table is hard, am I “trusting” science? I think I am merely yielding to the overwhelming weight of my observational experience and accepting what appears to be evident.
If all Derb is saying is that we can hold onto the scientific method regardless of how some people abuse it, well fine. But I don’t see that as a matter of trust.
Let me put it another way:
Trust evidence, not assertions (and the asserting asserters who assert them).