Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] Climate Change

Subject: Re: [OM] Climate Change
From: Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2018 00:29:24 -0400
On 10/7/2018 12:54 AM, Jan Steinman wrote:
From: Nathan Wajsman <photo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Just keep sticking your heads in the sand, deniers.
We are in an age where scientific evidence is seen as equivalent to belief in 
what is heard on Fox News.

This kind of thing drives me crazy. To get away from attacking you, and allow my rant full scope, let's look at this statement, reproduced on T-Shirts, etc. by Neil deGrasse Tyson:

"The good thing about Science is that it's true whether or not you believe in 
it."

Anyone who looks at the history of science would know that this is the opposite of the truth. At all times in the past, science has not been true. It's progress has always disproved what was "known". I can't imagine why that isn't still the case.

The other thing that bugs me is "the consensus of scientists" as measure of truth. The consensus of scientists was wrong at the times of Copernicus, Newton, Pasteur, Einstein, quantum mechanics, and so on, and on, and . . .

Einstein's Special Relativity led to at least one fist fight at a physics meeting. His Nobel was not for relativity. Darwin's idea of evolution as observable phenomenon holds up, just as falling fruit confirms the phenomenological truth of gravity. His ideas of the mechanism are in the dustbin, just as understanding of the reasons for gravity have changed. Lamark was, in the same way, correct, although again for the wrong reasons.

Further as to the consensus of scientists, consider What Max Plank had to say:

“A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”

Climate change, sure; it's always changed in the past. "Climate Change" as PC code for Global Warming? Based on history, perhaps not.

Real science is theory, and ever subject to change. Anyone who speaks of "scientific 
truth" is not to be trusted.*

Ranting Moose

* Jan cites "scientific evidence", so he's not on the hook, although Max Plank 
may be. :-)



--
What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz