Re: [Phys-L] "Climate science is not settled"

["John Clement" <clement@hal-pc.org>]

JD's commentary was certainly very good.  When politicians line up opposite
to the scientific concensus, there is a big problem.  Of course this is our
problem because the politicians were not properly educated to understand
science and how it works.  The lecture system does not change embedded
paradigms about science so politicians, even those who have training in
things like medicine can deny evolution, global warming, psychology,
economics...  The problem of what is valid evidence has gotten so bad that
some Supreme Court decisions have even quoted doubtful web sites.

As a sidelight to this comment the case of horse racing is interesting.  At
one time the winner was determined by an umpire or judge.  Then the
photofish process was invented.  One would think that the number of ties
would vanish at that point.  Actually, the number of ties increased.  It
seems that the judge would see a difference when there was none that could
be seen in the photo.

Would a judge be better than a photofinish?  I suppose one could blow up the
picture and perhaps see a difference at the "grain" level.  In the end a tie
would be a case where the evidence was inside the error bars, or more
properly 3x the error, to use a usual rule of thumb.  In the end there is
value to the customers to have a definite decision, so whatever method is
used is "settled".

I don't know what they use for a photofinish now, but the old one involved a
camera that took a picture through a slit aligned with the finish line and
with the film moving continuously.  The pictures are interesting.

John M. Clement
Houston, TX
  
> The climate science "debate" is in this category.
>
> Here is another analogy:  In baseball, the umpire has to call 
> balls and strikes.  There will always be marginal cases, 
> where the call could have gone either way.  Still the call 
> has to be made.  There is value in having a settled non-null call.
>
>   Pretending that a marginal call is "not scientific" 
>   betrays a fundamental non-understanding of science.
>   Real science does not provide -- or even pretend
>   to provide -- complete certainty.  Instead, science
>   provides good ways to make decisions, even when
>   the data is imperfect.
>
> Now suppose a baseball umpire hires a "scientist" to measure 
> the trajectory of the pitch.  The "scientist" 
> determines that the pitch was outside the strike zone by
> 25 ± 2 cm.  The "scientist" and all 50,000 spectators know 
> the pitch was outside, and know that the batter never took 
> the bat off his shoulder ... yet the umpire refuses to call 
> it a ball, claiming that the science is "not settled".
>
> Maybe video review would reduce the uncertainty, so that the 
> ball was outside by 25 ± 1 cm ... but why bother?
>
> If you want the scientist to make the call, he can certainly 
> do that.  It's an easy call.  On the other side of the same 
> coin, if the umpire won't let the scientist make the call, 
> the umpire has to do it.  That's the umpire's job for crying 
> out loud.  It's just ridiculous to forbid the scientist from 
> making the call and then blame him for not making it.