Science is one of the few institutions
remaining that seeks the truth. It is a highly effective tool that simply wants
to figure out how the universe works. It is self-correcting, building on the
knowledge of those who went before, and constantly improves on that knowledge
as new technology comes along, such as bigger telescopes, or more sensitive
instruments that let us see the world in better detail. It is a system
that works because it is based on hard evidence.[1]
This quote from the article by Bob McDonald, Science “Trumped”' by belief, highlights the attitude that truth,
to those who defer to science is objective and factual. While truth, if tainted
by belief is faulty and of no account. I didn’t live in the dark ages, but back
enough that when I attended high school I was taught that the atom was the
smallest thing there was. At that time, I was taught objective scientific
truth, which turned out later to be wrong. To McDonald scientific truth is very
elastic, but still better than belief. His praise of science as “one of the few
institutions remaining that seeks the truth” is somewhat naïve. Below are some
quotes on science:
Proofs have two features that do not exist in science: They are
final, and they are binary. Once a theorem is proven, it will forever be
true and there will be nothing in the future that will threaten its status as a
proven theorem (unless a flaw is discovered in the proof). Apart from a
discovery of an error, a proven theorem will forever and always be a proven
theorem.
In contrast, all scientific knowledge is tentative and provisional, and
nothing is final. There is no such thing as final proven knowledge in
science. The currently accepted theory of a phenomenon is simply the best
explanation for it among all available alternatives. Its status as the
accepted theory is contingent on what other theories are available and might
suddenly change tomorrow if there appears a better theory or new evidence that
might challenge the accepted theory. No knowledge or theory (which embodies
scientific knowledge) is final.[2]
Black/white absolute truth doesn’t
exist in real science. Many people state that science “seeks truth,” and it
does, if we do not ascribe moral qualities to the word “truth.” Actually,
science seeks evidence to support or refute a hypothesis (or some other
scientific principle like a theory). It’s all about the evidence (and the
quality thereof), not about proving that it’s either this or that.
Part of the problem, amongst both
“pro-science” and anti-science types is that they both think that science is
some magical word to either be loved or despised depending on the answer it
provides. But science is, in reality, a coherent method to find an answer to a
question about the natural universe, but it is not itself the answer. Science
is a systematic and logical process, using the scientific method, that finds
and builds data, and eventually knowledge, into testable explanations and
predictions about the natural universe. It is not a magical word that implies
truth, but it is a rigorous process to separate meaningless information from
high quality evidence in support or refutation of an explanation of the natural
world.[3]
According to a popular picture, science
progresses toward truth by adding true and eliminating false beliefs from our
best scientific theories. By making these theories more and more verisimilar,
that is, truthlike, scientific knowledge grows over time (e.g., Popper 1963).
If this picture is correct, then over time scientific knowledge will become
more objective, that is, more faithful to facts. However, scientific theories
often change, and sometimes several theories compete for the place of the best
scientific account of the world.[4]
Whatever it is, it should come as no
surprise that finding a positive characterization of what makes science
objective is hard. If we knew an answer, we would have done no less than solve
the problem of induction (because we would know what procedures or forms of
organization are responsible for the success of science). Work on this problem
is an ongoing project, and so is the quest for understanding scientific
objectivity.[5]
McDonald writes that science “is self-correcting, building
on the knowledge of those who went before, and constantly improves on that
knowledge as new technology comes along...” This is of course true, science
changes as new evidence comes to light. At the point that new evidence is
accepted, the old truth becomes false. So in the words of Pilate, “What is
truth?” To those who believe everything science says, truth, is whatever
science says, until more evidence comes along to suggest otherwise. McDonald
believes that science is objective and true because it is based on hard
evidence. There is more than enough hard evidence to suggest that current
scientific truths will become obsolete or changed with the finding of newer
evidence.
Each person’s previous experiences will have led to the development of
particular concepts of things, which will influence what objects can be seen
and what they will appear to be. As a consequence, it is not unusual for two
investigators to disagree about their observations if the investigators are
looking at the data according to different conceptual frameworks. Resolution of
such conflicts requires that the investigators clarify for each other the
concepts that they have in mind.[6]
With the changes that have taken place
in physics in this century, however, the historicality of what counts as a fact
in the natural sciences has been made evident and has raised the problem of
just what facts are if they can change from time to time.[7]
Roughly speaking, the natural sciences
are considered "hard", whereas the social sciences are usually
described as "soft".
Precise definitions vary, but features
often cited as characteristic of hard science include producing testable
predictions, performing controlled experiments, relying on quantifiable data
and mathematical models, a high degree of accuracy and objectivity, higher
levels of consensus, faster progression of the field, greater explanatory
success, and generally applying a purer form of the scientific method.[8]
Despite the
volume of protestations from climate change scientists, their objectivity is
less than perfect. It is obvious that climatic conditions in many parts of the
world are changing in some way, but what is not obvious is the cause.
Scientists touting anthropomorphic causes are blind to any other option. The
foundation of their science is emotionality. Fanatical science is not good
science, it is based on fear and panic. It appears that much of the evidence
supporting anthropomorphic climate change is actually soft evidence. The
statement that “97% of scientists believe that humans are the cause of climate
change,” at best is soft evidence, if not deceitful. One of the main factors of
evidence becoming hard evidence, is the consensus of scientists within that
specific field of study. Which could be translated as, scientists of like mind
support each other’s belief. That strikes me as “group think” and possibbly
collusion.
In order of declining value, items on
the soft-evidence scale include:
- Authoritative opinion. (However: remember, even at
the top of the soft-evidence scale, it’s still just soft evidence.)
- Non-authoritative opinion.
- Random guessing.
- Seeing who argues the loudest and/or the longest.
(This is worse than nothing, because it gives the biggest advantage to the
biggest scoundrel, and just encourages bad behavior.)[9]
Science tells of
the mini ice age; taking that as a starting point the world has definitely got a
lot warmer. There is hard evidence that at one time the islands in the arctic
were tropical, they are very much colder now. Egypt was once a fertile area,
whereas now it is predominantly desert. The Sahara has been encroaching
southward for centuries. I read from some scientist that volcanic eruptions
have had little impact on GHG’s. The cause behind the accumulation of GHG is
human It seems to me that there are many more questions that need to be
answered before accusing humanity of ruining the cosmos. Human activity
contributes to GHG production, but to say that it is the only factor or even
the major factor is irresponsible and misleading. If the attitudes and
practices of climate change advocates were analyzed it would show that the
movement is a cult. The hysteria and panic behind the evangelical rhetoric of
climate change advocates suggests a fear of being found out. The certainty of
their claims, climate change scientists preach, may indicate closed minds rather
than reality. It is stated that, peer reviews change theories into hard
evidence:
Scholarly peer review (also known as refereeing) is the process of
subjecting an author's scholarly work, research, or ideas to the scrutiny of
others who are experts in the same field… Peer review requires a community of
experts in a given (and often narrowly defined) field, who are qualified and
able to perform reasonably impartial review. … Peer review is generally
considered necessary to academic quality and is used in most major scientific
journals, but does by no means prevent publication of all invalid research.[10]
The peer review
process is important, and people place great confidence in it. It verifies the process
of validation followed by a peer when testing a theory, and is appropriate
concludes that the theory is based on hard evidence. Peer review is a valid
process in every discipline and all sectors of research. Scientific theories are
said to be based on hard evidence through the process of peer reviews. Accordingly,
I suggest that there is more hard evidence for creation than evolution. Over
centuries scholars and researchers have reached a high level of consensus
regarding the evidences of creation, to attest that the theory of creation is
based on hard evidence. Like in the field of science, peer review in the field
of religion is restricted to its specific field. Evolutionary scientists may
not agree with the creationist theory, but they have to accept that it is based
on hard evidence, since it has undergone centuries of peer review. Evolutionary
scientists say assert that they deal in hard evidence, and creationists rely on
faith. Evolutionary scientists cannot accept peer reviews within their field
and deny it for creationist in their field; that would be tantamount to saying
that, what they say is true, because they say it is true. Peer review is no more than having other
scientists who think alike approve what they collectively believe. Unlike Mr.
McDonald, I expect that belief has more to do with what evidence scientists
find than that which is produced objectively.
Loeb contends. “One would have naively expected scientific activity to be
open minded to critical questioning of its architectural design, but the
reality is that conservatism prevails within the modern academic setting.”
In other words, the best possible source of fresh ideas — the youngsters
whose brains are not yet fossilized by standard dogmas — are ostracized or
bullied if they challenge the prevailing paradigms. And scientists wonder why
they have so many problems that stubbornly remain so hard to solve.[11]
Based on hard
evidence there was a tower of Babel. Based on biblical research the tower of
Babel was the enterprise of people who believed they could do anything, their
objective was to build a tower reaching to heaven. The attitude and
self-importance of the people engineering the project was idolatry. People who
take it upon themselves to improve nature, or interrupt natural processes are
in the same class as the designers of the tower. Idolatry is not only bowing to
manmade images, it is also self-importance or self-worship. Idolatry can also
be the all-consuming investment in a cause. Some groups championing climate
change have used deceitful practices and false information to support their
cause, stating that the end justifies the means.
Based on the many
changes in science, and the acknowledgement of current scientists that present
“truths” will change as new evidence comes into play, why should anyone believe
the hype of human impact on GHG’s? Behind the hysteria promoting human causes
of GHG’s, there may be the need to gain funding for programs in which the
scientists are employed. Could it be that their self-interest is driving the
cause, not the desire to improve the global climate? It is the flimflam and
hysteria around the doom of the world due to CO2 that keeps
Greenpeace and other associations afloat. The evidence that human beings are
the cause of climate change is not sound science.
The contention that human emissions are now the dominant influence on
climate is simply a hypothesis, rather than a universally accepted scientific
theory. It is therefore correct, indeed verging on compulsory in the scientific
tradition, to be skeptical of those who express certainty that “the science is
settled” and “the debate is over”.[12]
On “belief”, that
which is disdained by disciples of science; I consider belief to be a
fundamental constituent of human life. Without belief humanity would become
animalistic and degenerate. I don’t just believe in everyday events like the
sun coming up in the morning, or that spring follows winter; I believe that God
created the universe and everything in it. I believe that Jesus walked this
earth as the human representation of God. I believe all people have hope
through the sacrificial death of Jesus. I also believe that Jesus said, “If you continue in my word, you
are truly my disciples; and you will know the truth, and the truth will make
you free.”[13]
Jesus prayed to God, “Sanctify
them in the truth; your word is truth.”[14] The psalmist and other writers of
scripture point to the universe as evidence of God. The collection of
scriptures come to us from antiquity. They are not scientific texts, but they
mention things, which at their writing, were unknown to people. “By faith we understand that the
worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out
of things which are visible.”[15] The author may have been schooled in
the Greek classics, but the concept of atoms did not emerge in modern society
until the sixteenth century, interesting.
I believe that death and decay came into the world because
of human pride. The cycle of death and decay is as natural as life. It is
idolatry, to presume that humans can stop the process of nature, and that we
are somehow greater than the Creator. As much as some scientists think they are
capable of reversing the natural trend toward decay, they are sadly mistaken. However,
believing that the world follows its designed course, does not give people the
right to produce things harmful to life on earth, or the environment. Humans
are caretakers of the world and must behave responsibly. Special interest groups
do not have the right to impose their beliefs on everyone else. Special
interest groups use saleable causes to further their own interests. It’s time
to put in place checks and balances to prevent special interest groups from
pushing their ideals down everyone’s throat. It’s not enough for scientists to
have peers vet their proposals; if their theories cannot stand scrutiny from
other disciplines they should be discarded. The world and climate are
multi-faceted, and no single branch of science should have the right to force its
theories on others without serious vetting by all. I think that governments and
society should all read Hans Christian Andersen’s, “The Emperor's New Clothes”.
[1]
Science 'Trumped' by belief: Bob McDonald, CBC News Posted: Jan 20, 2017 3:40
PM ET
[2]
Psychology Today, Common misconceptions about science I: “Scientific proof”, Satoshi
Kanazawa
[3]
Science is not based on
absolutes–Richard Dawkins proves that, 2013/08/13 The Original Skeptical Raptor
[4]
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Scientific Objectivity, First published
Mon Aug 25, 2014
[5]
Ibid
[7]
https://www.rasch.org
[8]
https://en.wikipedia.org
[10]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholarly_peer_review
[12]
Dr. Patrick Moore, (Founder of
Greenpeace) 2015 Annual GWPF Lecture Institute of Mechanical Engineers, London
14 October 2015
