A Radical Prescription

[The_Barmecide]

You're idealizing the past. I believe there was a time when politicians who disagreed would pace off in a field and try to kill each other.

No, there was a time when scientists were actually trusted to know their field. Now any yahoo with access to a computer thinks he's Einstein if he can add 2+2 and find the right trash pseudo-science online that makes them feel good.

 

[The_Barmecide]

It was mainstream media news in the 70s.

You might have missed this earlier but in the 1960's and 70's the number of peer reviewed science articles predicting WARMING outnumbered those predicting cooling 6:1.

This is from an article by Peterson (2008)

http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/131047.pdf

 

[sjastro]

Here is a simplified example of the science supporting AGW.
Global Warming Denial: Is there a good argument?

If the science is wrong by all means spell it out.
Remarks such as "I refuse to be brainwashed", "scientists make up this nonsense to preserve their paychecks" or "scientists are engaging in a world wide hoax" is not addressing the science but an expression of modern day anti intellectualism.

 

[durangodawood]

Something we hear frequently in this forum is that "science is descriptive, not prescriptive". So what do you guys think of this?

Scientists endorse mass civil disobedience to force climate action

I dont think they are "doing science" with that endorsement.

They are doing civics, which any person can participate in.

 

[Resha Caner]

No, there was a time when scientists were actually trusted to know their field.

Scientific debate has often been quite heated. It's nothing new. I don't know what you're talking about, so … citation please?

 

[Chesterton]

No, they aren't. The meaning of the phrase is much closer to the Is/Ought problem.

The methods of science are used by scientists to determine how the world actually is in reality. Science describes (and explains) what is.

Anyone (including scientists) can opine about their prescription for how things oughtta be. And these opinions can be informed by scientific results.

Then what does the phrase mean when people use it? That science is prescriptive when we "feel" it should be, and not when we don't?

 

[Chesterton]

I dont think they are "doing science" with that endorsement.

They are doing civics, which any person can participate in.

I didn't say they were doing science. God forbid. They also aren't doing civics, because advocating "civil disobedience" is pretty much the opposite of civics.

 

[Resha Caner]

The methods of science are used by scientists to determine how the world actually is in reality. Science describes (and explains) what is.

It doesn't really impact your point - just nitpicking - but this statement is too close to claiming science is the means for discovering truth for my comfort.

Science doesn't determine how the world actually is. Science models our perceptions as best it can. To claim science discovers reality is a philosophical claim, not a scientific one.

 

[The_Barmecide]

Scientific debate has often been quite heated. It's nothing new. I don't know what you're talking about, so … citation please?

Scientific debate is not the same as public respect for science.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Then what does the phrase mean when people use it? That science is prescriptive when we "feel" it should be, and not when we don't?

No. I just told you. Science attempts (thank you Resha) to tell us what is. Descriptive.

It does not tell us what ought to be. Prescriptive.

 

[Resha Caner]

Scientific debate is not the same as public respect for science.

That's not a citation. I searched on your phrase "public respect for science" and found 2 studies, both which say it has been flat for a very long time:
Public confidence in scientists has remained stable for decades
https://www.amacad.org/sites/defaul...ownloads/PFoS-Perceptions-Science-America.pdf

The Pew study shows confidence levels around 40%. I'm not sure exactly what the number means, but the chart shows the metric being very flat.

And public controversies about science are not a new thing. They run all the way from Socrates being forced to drink poison to the Science Wars of the 1980s. Resistance to vaccination has been a thing since vaccination was first introduced by Edward Jenner around 1800. Darwin has been controversial since day one. The list goes on.

 

[durangodawood]

I didn't say they were doing science. God forbid. They also aren't doing civics, because advocating "civil disobedience" is pretty much the opposite of civics.

Youre asking about the nature of science in terms of the article you quoted below. So if the article isnt even about doing science, then you chose the wrong article for posing your question.

Something we hear frequently in this forum is that "science is descriptive, not prescriptive". So what do you guys think of this?

Scientists endorse mass civil disobedience to force climate action

 

[Ophiolite]

Right, it's not a question. It's a statement of a fact from the article, and includes no expression of skepticism regarding human driven global warming.

Would you mind quoting my questions and statements which indicate that, so I can know what you're talking about?

If you can't quote anything supporting what you say about me above (and you can't), then you need remedial courses in reading comprehension.

Cut to the chase; drop the avoidance tactics; introduce a little directness and integrity to your posts. What is your position on AGW?

 

[Chesterton]

No. I just told you. Science attempts (thank you Resha) to tell us what is. Descriptive.

It does not tell us what ought to be. Prescriptive.

Youre asking about the nature of science in terms of the article you quoted below. So if the article isnt even about doing science, then you chose the wrong article for posing your question.

You guys are splitting hairs.

Cut to the chase; drop the avoidance tactics; introduce a little directness and integrity to your posts. What is your position on AGW?

Me: Hey what do you guys think of ice cream?
You: You've clearly indicated you hate yogurt.
Me: I have? Show me where.
You: Drop the avoidance tactics. What is your position on yogurt?

Cut to the chase; drop the avoidance tactics; introduce a little directness and integrity to your posts.

Okay I'll try.

What is your position on AGW?

The findings of science dealing with the relevant and requisite phenomenology must be perceived vis-à-vis their continuing approximation to, and intertwining with, the essence of the spectrum of the ontological landscape, so to speak, wherein all truths, per se, create their own paradigms and therefore, ipso facto, must and/or must not be utilized in every case on a case by case basis or otherwise.

 

[The_Barmecide]

The findings of science dealing with the relevant and requisite phenomenology must be perceived vis-à-vis their continuing approximation to, and intertwining with, the essence of the spectrum of the ontological landscape, so to speak, wherein all truths, per se, create their own paradigms and therefore, ipso facto, must and/or must not be utilized in every case on a case by case basis or otherwise.

This is your position on AGW? Or is it random walk through the OED?

 

[essentialsaltes]

You guys are splitting hairs.

No, we're exposing the misunderstanding at the root of the OP.

 

[SLP]

She can make it clear to her representative that she votes based on how that representative allocates funds, thereby affecting how those funds are allocated (given enough people share her view). The money belongs to the voters, not the government. It is elected representatives who allocate those funds (if you recall the powers of Congress). They are to do so based on the wishes of their constituents, not based upon "expert" opinion or their own personal opinions.

LOL!

Wow, OK...

Next question then: Are you advocating representatives ignore their constituents?

If your constituents are ignorant, hate-filled racist degenerates, I do hope so.

Saw an oh-so-clever meme on the FB a couple of days ago - it was Obama shaking hands with Trudeau, whose face had been made jet-black.
One of the first comments was "Buhlack Obama".

I checked out the guys FB page. Any guesses as to what I found there? Let me not keep you in suspense - a lot of Trump worship, coupled with a lot of Bible references.

Imagine that....

 

[SLP]

We USED to be a nation in which scientists and educated people were heroes. Now we are a country with a president unable to even grasp simple concepts leading a party that has spent nearly 40 years demonizing education as somehow "elitist".

And we have one Party to thank for that.

 

[SLP]

Where did I say science is a religion? The propaganda surrounding the worldview promoted by some is at issue.

The projection is comical.

 

[SLP]

It was mainstream media news in the 70s.

No, it wasn't - two articles do not = mainstream. And even if it was, it was NOT what climatologists actually considered. But thanks for admitting that you have no intention of having your lie-based beliefs corrected - you could have read or watched my links, but you seem to prefer keeping your lie-based 'reason to ignore intelligent people who say things counter to what my favorite right-wing extremist tells me to believe' intact.


Sad, and all too common these days.