Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: [Phys-L] just for fun



To add to John's comments, it is unreasonable to expect scientists to ignore the consensus view until and unless there is convincing evidence to the contrary.

I am not surprised from the references below that we have a better understanding (both scientifically and in the general public) of health and medicine now than we did in 1990s. Surely we know more now than we did 10, 50, 100 years ago. And sure, there were critics of the consensus view, there always are and sometimes they are right. But it is an error of historical perspective to think the people of the 1990s were stupid or naive or only politically motivated to base their health recommendations on the studies at hand; they evaluated the data and came to a consensus that, Taubes not withstanding, was not entirely incorrect (and Taubes hypothesis that carbohydrates are more dangerous than fat is certainly not supported by current data). This is like faulting generations before the 1960s for not using seat belts; they didn't exist. Consensus changes because we learn more, not because the people agreeing on the consensus were stupid or uninformed or ignored their critics. It would be folly to investigate alchemy today but it was totally a rational pursuit in the days before a solid understanding of chemistry. Newton was not irrational for trying to do experiments in alchemy, there was no consensus.

As to human caused climate change, I think it is quite irrational to reject the evidence out of hand. If I were a climate scientist (or any scientist, really) and came to doubt anthropogenic caused climate change I would work like hell to find undeniable evidence that overturned the consensus view (guaranteeing myself an important place in the history of science). But I wouldn't expect anyone to believe me until I had that empirical data at hand. You cannot falsify a scientific claim by citing political bias, financial gain or past errors that other scientists or governments have made. The consensus on fat in the diet was overturned (well, actually just modified/refined) by better data, not political wrangling (and not until 2001, a decade after the recommendations of 1988).

I have been reading the science journals on climate (NOT the popular press) for about a dozen years. In my view there has been a honest attempt by many climate scientists to answer or respond to serious (empirically based) criticisms of the consensus view and a frank assessment of what we do and don't know. There are numerous examples on the RealClimate web page: The slowing of warming in the past decade is an example; this issue has not been ignored or swept under the rug (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/10/why-the-continued-interest/). Cosmic rays as a possible source of climate variability has been addressed (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/10/why-the-continued-interest/).

The great thing about science is we can and are suppose to change our minds if we get better information. So far on the climate consensus I don't see convincing science to the contrary.



---------------------------------
If we knew what is was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?

kyle forinash
kforinas@ius.edu<mailto:kforinas@ius.edu>
http://homepages.ius.edu/kforinas



Today's Topics:

1. Re: just for fun (John Mallinckrodt)
2. Re: just for fun (Ze'ev Wurman)
3. Re: calc probs for physics (John Denker)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Wed, 1 Jan 2014 11:54:11 -0800
From: John Mallinckrodt <ajm@csupomona.edu<mailto:ajm@csupomona.edu>>
To: "Phys-L@Phys-L.org<mailto:Phys-L@Phys-L.org>" <Phys-L@Phys-L.org<mailto:Phys-L@Phys-L.org>>
Subject: Re: [Phys-L] just for fun
Message-ID: <D1CD2B0B-B408-4042-8EC8-5D73898398CC@csupomona.edu<D1CD2B0B-B408-4042-8EC8-5D73898398CC@csupomona.edu">mailto:D1CD2B0B-B408-4042-8EC8-5D73898398CC@csupomona.edu>>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

I didn't say scientists don't make mistakes, I said that it is exceedingly rare for a scientific consensus as overwhelming as that on anthropogenic global warming to turn out to be flatly wrong. I don't see how any of the proffered examples challenge that statement for one or more of the following reasons:

1) they exist at the fringe of what I would call "the scientific community," even more so the "physical science community,"
2) there was nothing like an overwhelming scientific consensus, and/or
3) they weren't in any clear sense flatly wrong.

John Mallinckrodt
Cal Poly Pomona

On Dec 31, 2013, at 10:38 PM, Ze'ev Wurman wrote:

Here are a few basic links in response to John Mallinckrodt's request for more information about cases
of recent failed scientific consensus. Primary sources can be followed from there as needed.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/09/science/09tier.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print

http://www.csicop.org/si/show/science_and_pseudoscience_in_adult_nutrition_research_and_practice/

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/16/magazine/16epidemiology-t.html?_r=2&sq=Taubes%20health%20September%2016&st=cse&scp=1&pagewanted=print



------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Wed, 01 Jan 2014 12:46:07 -0800
From: Ze'ev Wurman <zeev@ieee.org<mailto:zeev@ieee.org>>
To: Phys-L@Phys-L.org<mailto:Phys-L@Phys-L.org>
Subject: Re: [Phys-L] just for fun
Message-ID: <52C47E8F.3030801@ieee.org<52C47E8F.3030801@ieee.org">mailto:52C47E8F.3030801@ieee.org>>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed

I think you are underballing those events. They were not "just
mistakes," which do happen all the time. These were not accepted truths
at a fringe as you claim, but at the mainstream of medical and
governmental rule making, with huge impacts for school nutrition and
promoting medical interventions on a large segment of the population.
These were cases of very strong consensus heavily promoted by the
Surgeon General and major national medical associations.

Today's AGW consensus is not any stronger. It just has so much more
money behind it to paint its critics as "deniers" rather than critics.
And the AGW "consensus" does not need to be "flatly wrong" to be wrong.
If there is some warming but it is not anthropogenic, there is less need
to investigate it to death and no need to impose onerous economic
sanctions on large segments of the economy to pretend to minimize it. If
the global warming itself is simply temporary and caused by natural
fluctuations of something, constraining economic growth might be
actually destructive in that it eliminates funds that could be dedicated
to alleviating its effects rather than constrain its putative (albeit
politically correct) cause.

A year ago I mentioned the radiation LNT model (as opposed to radiation
hormesis) as another one lacking strong scientific substantiation yet
promoted by politically-correct attitude that burdens nuclear energy
construction and cleanup with huge developmental and regulatory costs.
That has been with us for more than half a century.

Ze'ev

On 1/1/2014 11:54 AM, John Mallinckrodt wrote:
I didn't say scientists don't make mistakes, I said that it is exceedingly rare for a scientific consensus as overwhelming as that on anthropogenic global warming to turn out to be flatly wrong. I don't see how any of the proffered examples challenge that statement for one or more of the following reasons:

1) they exist at the fringe of what I would call "the scientific community," even more so the "physical science community,"
2) there was nothing like an overwhelming scientific consensus, and/or
3) they weren't in any clear sense flatly wrong.

John Mallinckrodt
Cal Poly Pomona

On Dec 31, 2013, at 10:38 PM, Ze'ev Wurman wrote:

Here are a few basic links in response to John Mallinckrodt's request for more information about cases
of recent failed scientific consensus. Primary sources can be followed from there as needed.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/09/science/09tier.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print

http://www.csicop.org/si/show/science_and_pseudoscience_in_adult_nutrition_research_and_practice/

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/16/magazine/16epidemiology-t.html?_r=2&sq=Taubes%20health%20September%2016&st=cse&scp=1&pagewanted=print
_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@phys-l.org<mailto:Phys-l@phys-l.org>
http://www.phys-l.org/mailman/listinfo/phys-l