Do you truly understand science? Okay, do you understand an appeal to authority falacy?
I was just reading my friend @richq11's post on Global Warming Frauds and I found some of the typical responses that were given to him. They are the typical attacks I see for anyone challenging the politically (not scientifically) driven climate change narrative.
There are a couple of things I've realized about people.
They generally have little to no knowledge about an appeal to authority fallacy.
They will respond to posts like @richq11's with something like "I should trust that over that of a climatologist?"
Well that really depends. You see a Climatologist is a label. It means someone allegedly went to some school that has some accreditation indicating that if the person completes their program of study they can be considered a climatologist.
So taking a quick glance at the Scientific Method, you know that thing that all of science is based upon I don't see anything about it only working if you have a title and someone taught you.
The scientific method is a beautiful tool. A scientist is in actuality someone who follows the scientific method. How much schooling they had, what labels they have, etc does not change that.
All that label indicates is that there is a higher probability of the person being accurate in what they say without you having to double check and verify their findings. That does not mean they might not be wrong.
It also doesn't mean some janitor, or patent clerk might not actually have a better answer than them.
As long as they both follow the scientific method then asking questions and challenging everything is part of that. Such challenges should be met with science.
If there is a flaw in a premise and some data is found not to fit then that is something someone truly interested in science should welcome. This is true even if it is poking a hole in something they put a lot of time into coming up with.
Sadly history has shown that so-called scientists are not above becoming more interested in protecting their personal legacy and fame than they are the actual science. This has happened to many people. Albert Einstein bumped against this for decades in Europe. The recent television series Genius which covered the life of Albert Einstein illustrated many such cases.
In history there have been some people burned at the stake for speaking heresy when they were challenging an accepted norm that had CONSENSUS.
These actions are not part of the scientific method. They in fact are two things. First they are backed by appeals to authority which indicate that something should not be considered if someone else that has a reputation in the field challenges it. That person that challenges doesn't even have to take it seriously, and generally they don't. They just dismiss it and then a crowd of people use that dismissal as though it has value. The dismissal was not science. The people then using that are practicing an appeal to authority fallacy.
This is when people claiming to be "scientists" transition into being priests. They now are preaching dogma and you better not challenge all their beliefs. They have forsaken the scientific method. They in a sense are akin to fallen angels.
I've trained myself to see these two things and I'm getting better at it.
- Appeals to Authority.
- Dogma and unwillingness to be wrong
Neither of those things have any value in science. So I will state what I've stated before. A person who does not follow the scientific method is NO SCIENTIST regardless of any label or degree they have.
Furthermore, a person who follows the scientific method can be a scientist without any of those labels or degrees.
Those labels and degrees did not exist forever and they are artificial, cultural, and not a true measure of anything. This is especially true today. The degrees often today are like extremely expensive toilet paper.
Now that doesn't mean we should dismiss a person's degree. That degree may indeed make their familiarity with a subject more probable. Though it may also be a representation of them being indoctrinated and agreeing to a narrative foisted on them by whichever institution and instructor(s) gave them their degree.
That's okay. If you follow the scientific method none of that matters, including the labels and degrees.
Follow that and you can talk with anyone about anything. It doesn't mean you have to agree. It also doesn't mean you should immediately disagree.
Also another thing about the scientific method. It is great on proving things based upon what we can observe, measure, and replicate. It is useless in proving or disproving things we have not found out how to observe, measure, or replicate. Though often people claiming to be scientists will say something does not exist simply due to not knowing how to measure it.
Again there are many things we have only recently learned to measure, observe, etc. Did they not exist until we could do so?
Thus, those that say something does not exist that we have not disproven by measurement are foisting their opinion off as fact. This is not science.
Once we can measure something we can disprove a lot of things.
This does not mean we should believe everything we are told. We still need to live in the world and mostly deal with the things we can understand, observe, etc. It only means we should not immediately dismiss the things we cannot or have not found out how to measure.
Now as to climate change. I despise that term. When it was global warming that was very specific and was something we could measure. Those measurements were not always working out so they chose to instead politicize the term climate change.
This makes me angry. Why? If you understand sets. Climate Change is a superset. It literally contains ALL forms of climate. This means Global Warming fits inside of it, so do ice ages, and ALL other changes.
When they switched to that they could say "see climate change" and it would always be true. It was stupid. It is stupid that we use the term. It is like playing a game with someone who has loaded dice.
The climate has always changed before man, and will continue after man. The issue that started this divide and hijacking of the Earth/Green movement (which I was a strong proponent for) began with the idea of Anthropogenic Global Warming. This was specific. This could be observed, challenged, etc.
Climate Change is a different story. First we must realize Climate Change will happen. It always has. It never stopped changing. The key issue is how much of it is caused by man?
So resisting the natural climate change wouldn't that essentially be man messing with climate and thus be anthropogenic climate change?
How many climatologists actually pay attention to the sun activity?
Oh and you can take the word "consensus" and throw it right in the trash.
Now I know there were some text books written that define the scientific method as valuing consensus. Those are fairly recent and the scientific method predates them.
Rewriting history and changing the tool so it fits your narrative is not very scientific either.
Just follow the scientific method, and welcome questions and challenges. You don't have to agree with them, but you should not be immediately dismissive. You should welcome challenge. If you are dismissive then you are practicing religion more than you are practicing science.
NOTE: If you made it this far. I did not attack any narrative or theory. I attacked people who claim to be interested in science who are not practicing science, regardless of their label.
I didn't state my opinions for/against climate change or global warming other than why I dislike the term climate change.
False Dichotomies rule the stage during this day... we should learn to recognize them... [logical fallacy] - 10 months ago
Scientific Consensus: This phrase should make you cringe. At least if you understand science. - 4 months ago
Word Hijacking 3.0: Anarchy, Climate Change, Occult, Conspiracy Theory - last year
Science, Three Body Problem, Climate Change, Global Warming, Nikola Tesla, Thorium, OH MY! - last year
The benefits of an Ice Age: Hypothetical ramblings to you straight from the curvy passages of my mind. - 5 months ago
 |
 |
 |
I never had a problem believing climate change was real, until all these celebrities started talking about it. What I sense is there is interest in us believing we are to blame, but the disinformation media and govs never had an interest in us taking responsibility for ourselves so I find that Fishy.
Even the pope has started talking about it, he tells us to trust scientists about climate change. Couldn't he had said god gave him a vision and instructed him to tell us we should change our ways to take care of nature? Nahhh, he wants us to believe in scientists... If that doesn't set every alarm off I don't know what will.
I'm a good Catholic boy... I initially liked the pope a lot... Until he started entering conversations that supported popularism. Since when does religion and/or God support popularism? God is absolute... I lost most of my respect for him and his love of rubbing elbows with celebrities, etc.
The Christian god is an absolutist ideology and an appeal to authority. I am not surprised the pope is asking people to trust, I am surprised he is asking people to trust scientists instead of telling us to trust him and his church and their interpretation of the bible.
He could had told us to trust science but that's not what he said, he said to listen to scientists because they are precise. He could have told us god told him scientists who claim we are to blame are right about this one, instead he is giving these people authority and calling mankind stupid while making gestures hitting his own head on camera.
It has nothing to do with populism, which is supposed to be democracy, which is still faulty. This is about the reason why someone who is supposed to be the representation of an all-knowing creature would prefer to give command to others who may not even share the faith. It's unheard of, goes against all history and logic given that he could have just offered any solutions scientists are offering and say god gave him the answers.
Well the fact of the matter is that the climate has always been changing. The question is how much are we impacting it? Are we impacting it the way they say? If so, so what? What are the implications?
If it is a problem then we look for solutions.
The big problem is the carbon tax is no kind of solution. It is a farce. That is clearly power and politically motivated as it solves nothing and actually gives licenses to the largest offenders to keep on keepin' on. It essentially taxes everyone for breathing, and thus living.
There are a lot of alternative approaches. Like maybe stop deforestation. Plant more types of plants known to process carbon and release oxygen faster.
Yet what they are not telling you is that having too little carbon can lead to issues too.
One thing is certain. The climate will change. (I didn't state in what way, as I don't know)
How much of it is our fault or even under our control is another matter all together.
You did hit it. The term science has actually been hijacked. Some aspects of it are essentially now a religion and have very little to do with actual science. Yet if people don't know the difference then they won't be able to tell when they are dealing with science and when they are dealing with the religion of science. The two things are in opposition and do not peaceful coexist. For dogma and blind faith and belief have no place in the scientific method.
Any terms that can inspire people to act will be hijacked unfortunately. We are in the Re-branding Era
U are sooo right with this.
It is so easy to go from man is polluting the earth, to man is responsible for "climate change".
And that is what I see mostly. A group of wanna-be-green freaks that don't want to do anything themselves, but want to lobby govern-cement to fix it. To bad for them, they are asking the wolf, to talk to the fox about guarding the hen house.
If we were a scientific community, when Al Gore said, "Don't they look like the go together?" Everyone in the audience should have shouted, in unison, "Lets put them together and find out." But no, everyone believe Al Gore proved that CO2 causes global warming. When logically, by not doing so, he proved the opposite. (If they showed what he was saying when put together, he would have showed that. Since he didn't show it, they must prove the opposite; which they do.)
And then there is so much happening in the woo-woo community, but that's not scientific. Doesn't matter that many people are getting the same results, it flies in the face of "science" and thus must be wrong. Like consciousness effecting matter; Ice crystal formations altered by the emotions of words.
This debate makes me feel all warm and fuzzy. I went to an Academy of Environmental Science. We studied and grew strains of algae to turn into biofuels, submitted studies to NOAA and researched this topic for years.
The look on peoples faces when I tell them my opinon is priceless.
Saying that man has or has not caused/increased climate change is arrogant.
Arrogant that we can make a conclusion and fill in evidence later. Science isn't politics. Using it to get funding for studies or push your opinion (i.e vegans saying we should reduce meat consumption because cattle flatulence causes global warming) insults the core of science. To question , learn and solve.
It burns me up however when people say deforestation significantly impacts climate change when they do not even know nearly 80 percent of oxygen production comes from algae in our oceans.
Excellent commentary. I had no idea that 80% of oxygen production comes from algae in our oceans. Thank you for sharing this fact!
It blew my mind too. Especially when so many people harp on we are speeding up climate change. We are killing the trees. I remember when they said use plastic to save the trees. Now we need paper to save us from plastic. #politics haha.
If I don't understand it, or see positive proof that it works.
I don't believe it.
If YOU can't explain it to me in terms that I can understand.
that means :YOU don't understand it your self very well.
(probably bogus)
I don't know how much of the changes are man made (or government made haha) but the weather has been different the past 10-12 years. Strange patterns and the seasons are not as I remember as a child. But whether it is this way or that we couldn't make a difference even if we wanted to. There is just to many people and to many countries trying to advance to have the things the first world countries have enjoyed for all these years.
Wonderful post.
Thanks for your post @dwinblood.
The scientists are doing science, and are convinced by the data. The average rant on the internet is done by someone who has little idea of the science, or of the data.
For example:
To which the answer is virtually all of them. Solar irradiance is an important factor in their models. To suggest climate scientists are somehow ignoring it, is just naiive.
Typically, along with sunspot number, solar irradiance undergoes in 11 year cycles. In the past decade, for example, we've seen a much less flux than we normally do. That's something the scientists can, and do, accurately measure.
Climate scientists don't just do it for greenhouse gasses and solar irradiance, they do it for all different 'forcings', accurately quantifying them and their effects. They are they worried about CO2 and antropogenic effects precisely because they have actually done that work.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming-basic.htm
This is a generalization. Back up the statement with statistics rather than opinion and it might be something more than that.
I suggest reading what I wrote.
If a person follows the scientific method they are a scientist.
If they do not follow the scientific method they are NOT a scientist.
No degree, lab, or fame can change any of that.
There are many people using the label scientist these days that are not practicing the scientific method.
There are also people regularly using phrases such as "the science says", or "scientifically" without the scientific method being involved in any fashion.
That is not science. That is someone hijacking the word to try to lend authority to their agenda.
Scientific journals are full of scientists painstakingly providing their evidence.
This is still an appeal to authority. Scientific journals have within the last few years been studied by universities and found to be publishing a lot of of false information as well. Whether someone writes something in a journal, a book or not, does not suddenly make it correct.
At many points in history the majority of the scientists have believed false things which are then disproven.
Even Einstein had to fight against that.
I'll state it again, because you seem to be missing the point.
If you follow the scientific method you are practicing science and are a scientist.
If you do not follow the scientific method then you are NOT a scientist.
Nowhere in the scientific method does it say anything about being published in journals or consensus.
Those increase probabilities, but they themselves do not meet the burden of proof.
NOTE: I have not stated my stance on the issues you seem to be pushing. I've stated what a scientist is, and is not. You in turn keep presenting me with appeals to authority which actually don't change anything I said. They also have nothing to do with the scientific method.
A person or journal does not have "magic" powers to make a thing true.
Al Gore says you are not a scientist...
I'd laugh in his face. :)
Another excellent and well thought out article.
GOOD philosophy.....
I liked the post. Totally agree with you. Science has now become a religion, put the label "scientifically proven" and we are supposed to accept that as an absolute reality, that stupid is that!, Our ancestors laugh at us, the blatant manipulation of institutions this reaching incredible limits. Most of the time I do not give credit to this kind of information and indoctrination, to support something I really have to understand it, and the truth, that I do not, especially when there are also good arguments against.