At least, not when addressing the subjects about which you are so loftily declaring a refusal to consider other ways of looking at the data - what we call EVIDENCE.
Look, there are some hard-core assumptions in science:
- Newtonian Physics works, as an approximation for most of life's easily observable forces and motions. It might be tweaked by newer aspects of physics (Einsteinian, Quantum), but the basic operating rules pretty much are set in stone.
- When you mix two or more inorganic, non-radioactive, natural and 'pure' substances together, the results of that outcome will be predictable (assuming that the quantities are known). Pure meaning that no contaminants are present.
- The Earth's substance, its rocks and magma, its deeper layers, it's topmost biologic layers, and its atmosphere and hydrosphere - all of those components that make up the planet - are constantly interacting and changing. Claiming to be able to predict the future course of those interactions is just voodoo. You might get lucky, and have your WAG (wild-ass guess) be the eventual outcome. More likely, not.
And, then, there is Science in the Grey Area:
Just about everything we 'kind-of' know about people is based on studies conducted on WEIRD people - Western, Educated, Industrial, Rich, and Democratic. Those people are Western European in heritage, and honestly life in a different world from the rest of the planet. The way they live their lives, the norms they unthinkingly follow, the societal interactions that they engage in - ALL are so different from the rest of the planet (including that part occupied by the Western underclasses) as to make them seem like alien beings. Conducting business with those other peoples, using WEIRD norms, is not only doomed to failure, but likely to get your ass kicked. Fair warning.
So, what am I saying?
Well, when it comes to science, surety of the principles on which you base your assumptions when solving problems is a VERY limited thing. The minute you branch out of those narrow areas where we are PRETTY sure that we understand what's going on and why, you take the risk that you are going to fall flat on your face.
You can shore up your likelihood of being right by doing a LOT of experimentation (like Galileo did with motion - a LOT of VERY tedious observation in a VERY controlled environment). That creates a firmer foundation for your conclusions.
But, you could still be wrong. Many of the areas of science currently under investigation - the 'hot' areas - are both complex, interdisciplinary, and hard to reduce to observable experimental variables that can be used to justify public policy.
They end up being papers that, in VERY qualified ways, say things like "Under these limited conditions, and in a short time frame, we got these experimental results that SEEMED to show a significant result". Not exactly EUREKA!
And, not something that should justify more than some money released for new research. Not up-ending our economy and political and social structures for a MAYBE good result. Or, no result at all. Or, worst case scenario, a BAD result.
That's the situation we have in social 'science', climate science, and many other areas of controversial study. The results aren't exactly undebatable. The actual data is limited in scope. And, too often, the jackasses claiming to "FOLLOW THE SCIENCE" will admit no deviance from acceptance of the proclaimed results.
That's Anti-Science. Actual science involves releasing the data, the methodology, and the reasoning behind the analysis, and allowing any and all to pick it apart.
It can be frustrating, defending your experiments and conclusions against your enemies, clueless politicians, media looking for a sensational story, and honest critics. But, that is what actual scientists have to do.
Not loftily proclaiming "The science is settled!".
Not aggressively attacking opponents as stupid and anti-science.
Not shutting up dissenters from making their case.
No comments:
Post a Comment