tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2156536327610779049.post8204175432950732010..comments2024-02-23T11:23:45.971-05:00Comments on Lost Motorcyclist: A Lesson from The Flat Earth Wager of 1870Lost Motorcyclisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08873504561959138792noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2156536327610779049.post-84569584583623429882010-02-14T08:59:24.934-05:002010-02-14T08:59:24.934-05:00The scientific method recognizes the fallibility o...The <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method" rel="nofollow">scientific method</a> recognizes the fallibility of human beings, and attempts to provide 'checks and balances' to minimize the risk of bias and error.<br /><br />In its purest form, the scientific method relies on the testing of hypotheses (explanations of phenomena) through reproducibility of the claimed results. 'Peer review' - independent evaluation of scientific papers - is one of the more visible aspects of the method.<br /><br />What makes the science of climate change contentious is that it is more like economics than physics.<br /><br />Anyone contesting that the speed of light in a vacuum is anything other than approximately 300,000 Km/sec is quickly dismissed as a nut (although some <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/3303699/We-have-broken-speed-of-light.html" rel="nofollow">recent arguments</a> propose that <b>under special circumstances</b> that may not be true). The speed of light can be empirically (and independently) confirmed.<br /><br />However, in climate change science, like economics, it is impossible to perform controlled experiments to confirm hypotheses and scientists must largely rely on mathematical models. (Although, one may well argue that we <i>are</i> actually conducting a massive global experiment in failing to take serious action to respond to climate change.)<br /><br />When one analyzes the hypotheses <a href="http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11462" rel="nofollow">proposed by the deniers</a>, it is clear that few of them truly qualify as 'science' and that many of their arguments consist simply of 'proving' that generally accepted hypotheses cannot possibly be valid.<br /><br />But the general public (and especially those who really, really hope that climate change is not occurring, hope that their lifestyles will not have to change), as you write, generally 'see only two equally earnest sides.' This phenomenon is exacerbated by the media who, in the spirit of 'balanced' (or in the case of Fox, 'fair and balanced') reporting, present both sides of the 'argument.' <br /><br />In effect, the contentions of the (unqualified and unscientific) few are being presented as having equal weight to the <a href="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID1457879_code1321219.pdf?abstractid=1450804&mirid=1" rel="nofollow">preponderance of scientific opinion</a>.<br /><br />As you say, the lesson to be taken from the infamous <i>Flat Earth Wager</i> is that 'anti-scientists' are often prepared to prevaricate in order to support their position. And, in the case of climate change 'anti-science,' to <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/thinktanks-take-oil-money-and-use-it-to-fund-climate-deniers-1891747.html" rel="nofollow">spend millions</a> in their dissimulation efforts.Madeyehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02593933575568389288noreply@blogger.com