SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Claims that the "the science isn't settled" with regard to climate change are symptomatic of a large body of ignorance about how science works.
The first thing to understand is that there is no one method in science, no one way of doing things. This is intimately connected with how we reason in general.
[...] Those who demand the science be "settled" before we take action are seeking deductive certainty where we are working inductively. And there are other sources of confusion.
One is that simple statements about cause and effect are rare since nature is complex. For example, a theory might predict that X will cause Y, but that Y will be mitigated by the presence of Z and not occur at all if Q is above a critical level. To reduce this to the simple statement "X causes Y" is naive.
Another is that even though some broad ideas may be settled, the details remain a source of lively debate. For example, that evolution has occurred is certainly settled by any rational account. But some details of how natural selection operates are still being fleshed out.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 16 2016, @04:40PM
I call it "backwards logic": start with the conclusion you want, build up evidence in support, and ignore anything that doesn't help you win. Kinda like how my dad defends his cherished belief in young-earth creationism.
While I think Karl Popper [wikipedia.org] is well worth studying, but I suspect the article that will best encapsulates the differences between your dad and those scientists is this: http://www.csicop.org/si/show/field_guide_to_critical_thinking [csicop.org]
In particular, the Mars Rover team had a falsifiable hypothesis, they comprehensively studied where they though water would be (from the evidence they had), then they tested it. The hypothesis "Water exists in location X" was a very testable statement. Sure, they hoped to demonstrate water did exist, but it was falsifiable. Does your dad have a falsifiable hypothesis, comprehensively studied the existing knowledge and then taken the time to demonstrate it with sufficiency? Has he tried to develop a method for dating the earth?
Starting with a "conclusion" (a hypothesis, like "Water exists in X location") is certainly science in that you are able to disprove it. It appears to me the Mars Rover people did just that, tried to disprove their theory, by intentionally going to the most likely place to have water and see if there was any.
In my opinion, falsifiability is the most important aspect of science today, but some of the other pieces James Lett mentions are valuable too.
- JCD