Media Criticism, Philosophy, Political Commentary, Science And Society

Science, Epistomology…

5 Comments

…and science reporting. An interesting post by Derb:

…science has more epistemic depth than most of us can cope with. That water quenches thirst and puts out fires, I can confirm by experience. That it is composed of hydrogen molecules bonded to oxygen molecules by electromagnetic forces, I take on trust. “What the deuce is it to me?” I take it on trust because water’s real useful (see above). I’d likely be skeptical about the hydrogen/oxygen business if it were detached from the thirst-quenching and fire-extinguishing. It sounds improbable on the face of it, and one can easily think up folkish objections, of the kind that creationists make against evolution. (Hydrogen’s highly flammable. If there’s hydrogen in water, why isn’t water flammable? Etc., etc.)

When unmoored from utility, abstract ideas have to appeal to the human mind on their merits; and the human mind is so structured that the only abstract ideas it regards as having merit are those that concord with the “naïve duality” that is our default metaphysic — “medium-sized dry goods” being acted on by human wills, or by invisible spirits possessed of human-like wills. That’s as much epistemic depth as most of us can handle. Abstract ideas at odds with that schema just irritate us. And of course, an abstract idea widely held among people we dislike for personal, social, or tribal reasons, is doubly unappealing.

When the science has as powerful real-world implications as climate “science” (sorry, it’s hard to say it without scare quotes at this point) does, it must be trusted much more than it currently deserves to be, based on the behavior of its ostensible practioners.

5 thoughts on “Science, Epistomology…”

  1. I know enough about statistics to realize how much effort would be required for me to develop an opinion worth expressing. Nor is it obvious that, even if I invested years of work, I would be able to add much value to the discussion.

    After all, both sides in the debate over anthropogenic global warming debate are lavishly funded …

    Indeed. The problem is compounded by money and politics (redundant, I know). If superstring theory were this vested, the agnostics would have to suffer insults like “string deniers!” (or whatever side the Left would align themselves against.)

  4. Feynman on Climategate

    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.

  5. You don’t need to understand statistics or climate science to make your mind up about AGW alarmism. Just like you don’t need to understand anything about molecules or chemistry to make your mind up about the plausibility of water being made up of hydrogen and oxygen. It can be demonstrated via a simple electrolysis setup. I remember doing it in junior high school.

    I’ll start believing the AGW alarmists have a clue when they show they can predict something. When will the level of the water in NY harbor be a foot higher than it is today? An inch? Ten years ago they predicted that not only would temperatures continue to rise but that the rise would accelerate. Not even close.

    This whole discussion of trusting science is silly. All of it is only mental models until someone can demonstrate something or successfully predict something. That’s when a non-scientists can start to believe there must be something to the science without understanding anything about it.

    Seeing is believing. What’s trust got to do with it?

Comments are closed.