SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Fluffeh writes:
"For a few years the National Research Council, National Science Teachers Association, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science have been working to put together a set of standards for teaching science in public education schools. So far, nine states and the District of Columbia have adopted the standards. Wyoming doesn't appear to have issues with evolution. Instead, climate science appears to be the problem. That's not because any of the legislators have actually studied the science involved and found it lacking. The issue appears to be solely with the implications of the science.
State Representative Matt Teeters had this to say '[The standards] handle global warming as settled science. There's all kind of social implications involved in that that I don't think would be good for Wyoming.' Specifically, Teeters seems to think that having citizens of the state accept climate science would 'wreck Wyoming's economy,' which relies heavily on fossil fuel production."
(Score: 5, Informative) by Kell on Monday March 17 2014, @04:34AM
Well, there are some things in the world we've studied very hard and understand pretty well - we call it settled science. Take mechanics, for instance. We have a fairly capable grasp of Newtonian mechanics at non-relativistic speeds and Einsteinian physics at relativistic speeds. These days we even understand quantum mechanics pretty well. So far as everybody but the fringe is concerned, Mutationem motus proportionalem esse vi motrici impressae, et fieri secundum lineam rectam qua vis illa imprimitur is settled and that's that.
Evolution has a similar quantity of supporting evidence and absence of refutation over a hundred years of study - it's hardly controversial to call it settled unless you're unfamiliar with the science. As for climate change, whether you can call it 'settled' largely depends on who you talk to - but even then that doesn't mean they have an agenda. It's simply a question as to whether the consensus agrees that the evidence is sufficiently compelling. To this day, it astounds me that people imagine that science isn't consensus driven.
Scientists ask questions. Engineers solve problems.
(Score: 4, Informative) by khallow on Monday March 17 2014, @04:46AM
To this day, it astounds me that people imagine that science isn't consensus driven.
That's because it's evidence driven. Even you admitted that there had to be evidence that was "sufficiently compelling".
(Score: 5, Informative) by Kell on Monday March 17 2014, @05:15AM
I was actually expecting a reply to this effect. Science is consensus driven because A. science isn't a reasoning thing in of itself, it's made up of the people who need to be convinced (Science is Peeoople!) and B. it is not generally possible to prove anything absolutely.
To gain credence, evidence must convince scientists. Not all evidence is created equal, and what is sufficient proof to you may not be sufficient proof to me. If we are both rational reasoning people, however, we will be swayed by evidence. In the real world, all evidence and all facts come with uncertainty and doubt attached. As we accumulate more evidence that reinforces the conclusions drawn from other evidence, it becomes easier for a particular interpretation to make a convincing argument for truth. When the weight of evidence becomes overwhelming, every reasonable person will be convinced.
It is not possible, however, to ever prove anything "for certain" in the real world. Just because a rock has fallen under gravity a million times before, does not mean the law will not be falsified if it shoots into the sky on the million-and-one-th experiment. At some point, scientists conclude that further experiments will not yield contradictory results; otherwise, we would continue to do basic experiments ad infinitum on the chance that the next one will falsify the thesis. Now, should a contradictory experiment every be performed, then obviously scientists will be swayed by new evidence to revise the law; it does happen with some regularity.
That doesn't mean the science wasn't "settled" (it was); but science is a philosophy and not a dogma. There are no sacred cows.
Scientists ask questions. Engineers solve problems.
(Score: 1) by FakeBeldin on Monday March 17 2014, @10:53AM
That is why *good* science not only explains known stuff (experiments), but makes (testable) predictions about unknown stuff.
Basically, good science explains to you how to falsify itself (and explains to you why that approach indeed falsifies the science), in a testable way. This basically structures (or, if you will, replaces) the consensus process: it's good science if it proposes a good, testable method which can falsify its results, and the results of that good, testable method do not falsify the result.
In that case, there just might be something to the science.
<offtopic> /Needham-Schroeder(-Lowe) and the TLS implementation.
wrt your signature: scientists also identify solutions. They just hardly ever get round to implementing them... Hence the big difference between such things as Diffie-Hellman / RSA / ELGamal
</offtopic>
(Score: 1) by HiThere on Monday March 17 2014, @06:44PM
It's not that straightforwards. Bayesian theory shows that given certain pairs of starting "priors" the same evidence will convince each reasoner that a different theory of what the evidence shows is correct, and that no amount of evidence will be able to change this.
Experimentally, this is confirmed in many tests. For instance the TV show "Archie Bunker" tended to confirm racists in their prejudice while simultaneously confirming to liberals that racism was wrong. BOTH were more confirmed in their beliefs after watching the show for a season. And both viewpoints thought that the show was clear evidence that their view was correct. (A TV sitcom, evidence? Yet they did believe this.)
P.S.: When I say "confirmed", please understand that the theory came after the experiment, though the theorizers didn't know (or don't appear to have known) of that particular study. In any case, the theory is math, and has been verified as math by those expert in the field. (Not me.) One might question whether people are actually Bayesian reasoners, but I feel that they are, though they are more complex with emotional, etc., preferences that need to be included in as priors, even though they don't quite act the way normal priors do. (E.g., they can't be explicitly listed ahead of time. They tend to be active only when stimulated. Etc. This means that any Bayesian model of humans will be drastically oversimplified, but I still believe that the reasoning used by people is Bayesian when it isn't "just" pattern matching.)
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 17 2014, @04:49AM
We see Newtonian mechanics validated over and over in everyday life. Same deal with evolution. We observe mutation over and over.
It's blatantly disingenuous to compare them with the current climate models.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by FatPhil on Monday March 17 2014, @08:54AM
It's not as if we've had to invent invisible-woo-woo matter or anything in the last couple of decades in order to fix it. Not that they call it that, they call it "doesn't interact with light, except we've proved its existence because of how it interacts with light" matter, or something.
Nice invocation of <i>omnia dicta fortiori, si dicta Latina</i>, by the way.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 1) by mvdwege on Tuesday March 18 2014, @10:01AM
Very well indeed, ask any artillerist.
You do realise that OP made it very clear that there are areas where Newtonian mechanics no longer fit? He did mention Relativity after all.
So if you are trying to be pedantic, you are merely making yourself look like an idiot. Don't do that. Or do, but then people are not going to take you seriously.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Sunday March 23 2014, @01:17PM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves