In a couple centuries, cutting off body parts to fight cancer will be seen as horribly crude. But in a couple decades? I hope. But there is, in fact, a doubt in my mind.
I think that things that are “true” can stand up to scrutiny and conflicting opinions. Take evolution for example. Pro-evolution opinions tend to come from scientific research, trusted academic institutions, peer reviewed journals and learned scholars applying the scientific method. Anti-evolution opinions OTOH tend to be based on agenda-driven religious ideology.
I come from a scientific education. Which means I understand how and why things work and to a certain extent, the history of how scientists came to discover how and why those things work. i.e. Einstein didn’t just pull the Theory of Relativity out of his ass. Through experimentation he found that Newton’s laws of motions didn’t work under certain circumstances.
At some point, you have to trust that certain things are “true”. When you start thinking like “well how do we know ANYTHING is true”, then you are simply indulging in post-Matrix stoner dorm room fantasy bullshit.
I recommend:
Einstein’s Luck: The Truth behind Some of the Greatest Scientific Discoveries
I’m pro-science. But there’s good reason to consider scientific truths tentative. I know when you say that, some creationists feel vindicated. But it takes so little for people to feel vindicated in their beliefs that they are going to feel vindicated anyway.
You missed a lot then.
Indeed.
I like the point made by Rationalwiki:
One item I like to mention when discussions like this come is how to identify good resources, that is, groups that check where the truth exists in a general way and looking at many topics like the OP wonders.
One test I like to do is to see how the group deals with an item that I know has the consensus of the scientific world in their favor and that many of an ideological bent like mine mostly oppose, and one example is the use of Genetic engineering in our food. *
So how good is a previously used resource like the just mentioned Rational Wiki is on avoiding ideological traps and just going all Greenpeace on us?
They do a good job on bruising the opponents of GMO:
- (This is actually a so-so example, it is true that a good number of the loud voices against GMO are coming from the left, but regarding science there are many researchers looking at GMO like Dr. Paul Nurse, cancer researcher, that are leftists and defenders of GMO, and science people like him pointed before that this issue is not just scary for left leaning people)
I am unimpressed by the argument that all scientific findings and theories are suspect if you can point to some benefit accruing from espousing them.
Every position pro and con can be argued to involve a degree of self-interest.
Constantly whining about “conflicts of interest” often is a cover for one’s laziness and lack of critical thinking skills.
If you don’t make the effort to study the subject and aren’t capable of understanding basic principles of critical thinking, you need to defer to those who have made such efforts and have the brains to make logical conclusions.
Thanks – looks interesting and I’ll be sure to read it. I’ve read a handful or so of books on the history of science, and my favorite continues to be Kunh’s “Structure of Scientific Revolutions”. But first I have 1500 pages of Twain, and then Clausewitz. So much to read, so little time! I might cut Twain short.
Can you clarify/amplify? Great video! However, the critics I was trying to asses were attacking the kinds of evidence provided in that video. The best resource I found for both good criticism and responses was one by the defenders of the IPCC conclusions (don’t remember the site now). The criticism was quite technical, and the responses went over my head.
If I’ve missed practical applications of climate theory that we benefit from, I’d like to know about them.
That’s not quite the argument.
You’re right that this smacks of ad-hominem. It’s not a reason for discrediting a view, but it is a reason for being extra suspicious, especially when the overwhelming majority of those who espouse a view have an agenda.
Of course, as reasonable skeptics, we should be suspicious as a matter of habit. But we have to learn from others, so it’s most fruitful to – at least at first – learn the consensus view. (Kuhn points out that many of the paradigm-shifters come from outside the fold, so it’s good that not everyone follows this path, but it’s likely to be best for those of us who don’t plan to be experts but rather want an intelligent layman’s understanding.)
The clarification was in the rest, it is actually the consensus view that human caused global warming is a problem that is getting worse,
It has been my experience that just like creationists do, fake skeptics of AGW rely on the tactic of telling all people that there is an ongoing controversy in scientific organizations, many people that study pseudoscience movements can tell you the reason, because once people become aware of what are the actual levels of the experts agreeing on something then most people follow the advise of science.
The problem in assuming that the critics already attacked that video is that they could not, it was just released, what you are missing is that the video from Science writer Peter Hadfield is a **reply **to those critics’ attacks to already agreed by many researchers climate science findings.
As for benefits, where I live there is a very good example of an ongoing benefit that is not mentioned by the skeptics, you see, even if many right wing politicians claim to deny AGW they usually* do not interfere with local planners when scientists tell them what the most likely outcome is for the southwest or other regions in a warming world, so currently projects to deal with the expected shortages of water are being constructed around Phoenix and other south west states.
*Usually, because sometimes the denial is strong.
The benefits should be clear, only the ones denying the changes that are very likely to come will have to pay dearly for being unprepared. Or course, to prevent the situation from getting even worse, we have to control our emissions.
That only holds if the person doesn’t expect you not to take them up on their offer to verify. Look at all the scams and myths that circulate with “I was sure this was made up, but Snopes verified it!” when Snopes did nothing of the kind.
That (flawed) argument is constantly dragged out in the threads about pit bulls. If a thread goes on long enough, someone inevitably says “You are only defending pit bulls because you own (live with) them! I am objective because I do not have any relationship with pit bulls!”
I see that people are suspicious of bias, but, in a sense, that argument is “You know about this subject from direct experience, whereas I have no direct experience myself – I know more than you do!”
Yes, people can bluff using that technique, and hope you don’t call them on it.