Skip to main content

View Diary: By hiring a climate disinformer, Nate Silver undermines his entire premise of data-driven journalism (204 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Science changes because people challenge consensus (0+ / 0-)

    We are only where we are because of scientists willing to challenge the consensus of their time. Unless your argument is that we have reached the end of knowledge, there is nothing wrong with challenging every consensus and we certainly can't assume because there is consensus that there is truth in it.

    The first rule of government should be "Do no harm." The urge to act can frustrate the desire to help.

    by Common Cents on Sun Mar 23, 2014 at 05:10:52 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  actually (4+ / 0-)

      science evolves because scientists research. they're not looking to "challenge consensus," they're looking to answer unanswered questions. a scientist looking to "challenge consensus" wouldn't last long. you have literally no understanding of how science works.

      obviously, science continues, because there continue to be worlds of unknowns, and new nuances and new dimensions, and one answer often leads to new questions. that doesn't mean that consensus is challenged. the heliocentric solar system. the germ theory of disease. the double helix. relativity. quantum mechanics. you have literally nothing to add on the subject of climate science.

      The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

      by Laurence Lewis on Sun Mar 23, 2014 at 05:18:06 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Not really. (0+ / 0-)

        Science is all about disproving the status quo. The most prized thing to do in science is to disprove someone else. Sir Karl Popper discussed this in detail. If you can falsify another scientist's hypothesis you have done the ultimate service.

        Science is about finding weaknesses in what we think we know. Constantly challenging the assumptions we make is what makes science the best method of obtaining knowledge. Without skepticism of what we think we know it becomes a circle jerk where everyone keeps verifying what they think they already know.

        There is nothing one can't verify if they seek to do so. That's why science is demarcated and distinguished by its requirement that things be falsifiable. That is the heart of the scientific method. If you develop a theory that cannot be tested against the evidence you have a theory that cannot be falsified and that is psuedoscience.

        The first rule of government should be "Do no harm." The urge to act can frustrate the desire to help.

        by Common Cents on Sun Mar 23, 2014 at 05:49:03 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  you know nothing about science (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Glen The Plumber

          scientists don't give a shit about the status quo, they want to deepen and broaden understanding. discovery of the higgs boson didn't overturn the status quo, it confirmed it.

          i hope you never get ill, because whatever the doctors tell you will be based on the scientific consensus, which no doubt you'll ignore. we should stop vaccinating children, because the consensus will be overturned and jenny mccarthy will be proved right.

          your arguments could not be more ridiculous. i reiterate: you know nothing about science, and less about climate science.

          The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

          by Laurence Lewis on Sun Mar 23, 2014 at 07:02:06 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Science (4+ / 0-)

      changes because people investigate discover and demonstrate things. Challenging consensus with a new theory backed with data and research is fie challenging consensus because Conoco pays your bills and you  pic and cherry data to attack the consensus but do not provide alternative explanation is hackery not science.

      •  Everyone is getting funded by someone. (0+ / 0-)

        And that is one of the great traps. If you are in a field where you are an expert in the current consensus it can be catastrophic if someone challenges your research and your funding.

        The first rule of government should be "Do no harm." The urge to act can frustrate the desire to help.

        by Common Cents on Sun Mar 23, 2014 at 05:50:36 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  What funding?? (3+ / 0-)

          Most funding for scientific research comes either from grants (limited), work in Unis. or other similar institutions.
          Now how is a climatologist going to loose his funding for going against the consensus if he/she has data to back his ideas?

          How is it catastrophic that someone challenges your research? If many fields of science from medicine to physics people with contradictory theories have work for institutions, sometimes the same one, and have not lost their funding. The idea that scientist are hiding things or confabulating to keep up discredited ideas because they will loose their funding is by large a creation of the right wing think tanks that fund deniers.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site