Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by CoolHand on Tuesday June 09 2015, @06:13PM   Printer-friendly
from the controlling-the-papacy dept.

Ed Mazza writes that Republican presidential hopeful Rick Santorum says he loves Pope Francis, but he wants the pontiff to stop talking about climate change and "leave science to the scientists." Santorum's comments come as the Pope, who holds a degree as a chemical technician and worked as a chemist before turning to the priesthood, has become increasingly vocal about climate change. "The church has gotten it wrong a few times on science, and I think that we probably are better off leaving science to the scientists," says Santorum, "and focusing on what we're really good at, which is theology and morality, When we get involved with political and controversial scientific theories, I think the church is not as forceful and credible."

But Santorum's not a scientist either so using Santorum's own logic why is Santorum more qualified than the Pope to discuss climate change? "I guess the question would be, if he shouldn't talk about it, should you?" asked Chris Wallace of Fox News. "Politicians, whether we like it or not, people in government have to make decision with regard to public policy that affect American workers," answered Santorum, adding that while "the pope can talk about whatever he wants to talk about," he questions the Pope's use of his moral authority to combat the issue of climate change.. Santorum — a devout Catholic — disagrees with the Pope's stance that climate change is man-made and has often called climate science "political science," arguing that a scientific consensus on climate change underscores this point. "All of this certainty, which is what bothers me about the debate, the idea that science is settled," says Santorum. "Any time you hear a scientist say science is settled, that's political science, not real science."


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 09 2015, @08:03PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 09 2015, @08:03PM (#194236)

    Underdeterminism is roughly that all science relies on other science to make its statement. There's nothing for certain that says one thing in science is absolutely right and science adapts itself to new discovers. Science does not prove what will happen or what exists. It only offers a very reliable prediction mechanism.

    But to use underdeterministic rhetoric here as a disproof of a specific topic and not a disproof of everything is not using the concept accurately. To be honest though, I think he just heard telling of the indeterminate nature of science and says that without looking into why it is indeterminate.