I have been wondering about the mind-set of those who are drawn to rather fantastic and certainly scientifically unsupported explanations of phenomena. I'm not sure whether this mind-set is more widespread now or not. It does seem there is a great deal of it these days. I know that this mind-set retains an attitude that truth is hidden (literally, occult) from mainstream, scientific view; and that it is "revealed" somehow to self-trained "investigators" (and nearly no one else; it's good for book sales!).
I recall my excitement in the late 1960s to read Emmanuel Velikovsky's Worlds in Collision, which was widely read and finally discounted by scientists. My interest in it ended when it was attacked by them. That was good enough for me.
The question, then, that I am interested in concerns the mind-set of discounting science and believing what is unscientific. Why? What is this need about? Why distrust what science says? Is not the true history of the Sumerians, for example--as written by historians who use established methods of historiography--sufficiently wonderous? Is this a phenomenon that is more prevalent in the U.S.? Is it growing? If so, why?
Showing posts with label science. Show all posts
Showing posts with label science. Show all posts
21 February 2009
02 February 2008
INJECTING CHAOS--PHYSICAL AND SOCIAL
I was mentally preparing to walk into my school after our three-day Mardi Gras holiday and announce to anyone who would listen that I had been exposed to some legitimate research that shows that CO2 has no influence on global climate change.
After all, some have concluded that this is what the scientists found whose study is summarized in ScienceDaily (linked below). I went to the linked article. It says nothing about CO2. I then sought out Anastasios Tsonis, the lead investigator, by going to his Webpage and looking at his articles there. He is a mathematical climate scientist who studies climate cycles statistics and chaos (and refers to global warming as a fact). There is nothing there about CO2 not being a factor. He mentions nothing about external inputs to the system, except to conclude in one of his articles--quote: "Global warming has resulted in an increase in randomness in the system"--that as the climate warms, there is greater random, instead of synchronized, chaos in the system. This is hardly a denunciation of anthropogenic global climate change.
If you click on this link http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/08/070801175711.htm,
it takes you to the ScienceDaily Webpage which summarizes the Tsonis et al. article. Notice that in the left margin, under "References," there is a link titled, "Consensus of scientists regarding global warming." This might be interesting to you, as it shows there is a consensus.
Again, in order to understand our current situation and not inject any personal bias into my teaching, I have sought out research that supposedly debunks current views about global climate change. The Tsonis et al. article is legitimate research by lgitimate researchers. It does not do what some claim it does. They have made a conclusion that the researchers themselves have not done.
I'll return to school in a few days and again feel justified in siding with what nearly all climate scientists say: Human-caused inputs to the system are wreaking havoc (increasing randomness) to the system. It's going to become interesting in the coming years. I'll keep an eye on science to see what it says.
I'm forming a social theory which says that as the Planet's normal physical cycles become more disrupted from outside inputs (read anthropogenicity), there will occur concomitant social disruption, including to civic culture, part of which includes valuing the only experts we have on climate--real climate scientists. In the meantime, we will have to expect and contend with those who externally inject random chaos into the public's views on global climate change.
After all, some have concluded that this is what the scientists found whose study is summarized in ScienceDaily (linked below). I went to the linked article. It says nothing about CO2. I then sought out Anastasios Tsonis, the lead investigator, by going to his Webpage and looking at his articles there. He is a mathematical climate scientist who studies climate cycles statistics and chaos (and refers to global warming as a fact). There is nothing there about CO2 not being a factor. He mentions nothing about external inputs to the system, except to conclude in one of his articles--quote: "Global warming has resulted in an increase in randomness in the system"--that as the climate warms, there is greater random, instead of synchronized, chaos in the system. This is hardly a denunciation of anthropogenic global climate change.
If you click on this link http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/08/070801175711.htm,
it takes you to the ScienceDaily Webpage which summarizes the Tsonis et al. article. Notice that in the left margin, under "References," there is a link titled, "Consensus of scientists regarding global warming." This might be interesting to you, as it shows there is a consensus.
Again, in order to understand our current situation and not inject any personal bias into my teaching, I have sought out research that supposedly debunks current views about global climate change. The Tsonis et al. article is legitimate research by lgitimate researchers. It does not do what some claim it does. They have made a conclusion that the researchers themselves have not done.
I'll return to school in a few days and again feel justified in siding with what nearly all climate scientists say: Human-caused inputs to the system are wreaking havoc (increasing randomness) to the system. It's going to become interesting in the coming years. I'll keep an eye on science to see what it says.
I'm forming a social theory which says that as the Planet's normal physical cycles become more disrupted from outside inputs (read anthropogenicity), there will occur concomitant social disruption, including to civic culture, part of which includes valuing the only experts we have on climate--real climate scientists. In the meantime, we will have to expect and contend with those who externally inject random chaos into the public's views on global climate change.
WHY BELIEVE GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE?
As a high-school teacher of geography, I teach about global climate change (as the scientists label it). But, the way I see my role as an educator, as one who sees the need for intellectual honesty, propels me to continually revisit why I believe as I do, the bases for those beliefs, and on the other hand the arguments of opposing views. For these reasons, I read material about and by climate-change deniers. I remain unconvinced.
Here is one thought. As a non-scientist, I see no reason to disbelieve what the overwhelming majority of climate scientists believe to be true. If you argue that the sociology of scientific paradigms shows that through time scientific paradigms become ripe for eventual overthrow, as posited by Kuhn, you would be voicing the accepted view of science. But this does not mean EVERY paradigm is destined for the dustbin of history. True, science itself is always in flux--that’s the nature of science: continually testing evidence and forming testable hypotheses. All paradigms are modified through continuing scientific investigation. So, many of the specifics of current climate science will certainly become modified. But as of now, practically every bona fide climate scientist supports the view that some significant percentage of present climate change is anthropogenic.
That’s good enough for me. Yes, you can muster a few climate scientists who oppose the prevailing views, but would you agree with me that they are no more than a handful compared to hundreds and probably thousands on the other side? True, they could all be wrong and the dominant paradigm re global climate change could be erroneous. However, it seems prudent to me to base my beliefs, and some aspects of my life, on the prevailing views, and to support policy makers who are following the prevailing science, and not follow the so very few climate change naysayers.
Two summers back, while at Texas State, I picked up a climatology journal and read about a meta-analysis of climatology research that found that there was NOT A SINGLE study published by climatologists in peer-reviewed climatology journals that refuted that global warming/global climate change is occurring and that anthropogenic causes are not real.
It is my duty, I feel, to believe as almost all the experts do. That seems prudent and even essential.
Here is one thought. As a non-scientist, I see no reason to disbelieve what the overwhelming majority of climate scientists believe to be true. If you argue that the sociology of scientific paradigms shows that through time scientific paradigms become ripe for eventual overthrow, as posited by Kuhn, you would be voicing the accepted view of science. But this does not mean EVERY paradigm is destined for the dustbin of history. True, science itself is always in flux--that’s the nature of science: continually testing evidence and forming testable hypotheses. All paradigms are modified through continuing scientific investigation. So, many of the specifics of current climate science will certainly become modified. But as of now, practically every bona fide climate scientist supports the view that some significant percentage of present climate change is anthropogenic.
That’s good enough for me. Yes, you can muster a few climate scientists who oppose the prevailing views, but would you agree with me that they are no more than a handful compared to hundreds and probably thousands on the other side? True, they could all be wrong and the dominant paradigm re global climate change could be erroneous. However, it seems prudent to me to base my beliefs, and some aspects of my life, on the prevailing views, and to support policy makers who are following the prevailing science, and not follow the so very few climate change naysayers.
Two summers back, while at Texas State, I picked up a climatology journal and read about a meta-analysis of climatology research that found that there was NOT A SINGLE study published by climatologists in peer-reviewed climatology journals that refuted that global warming/global climate change is occurring and that anthropogenic causes are not real.
It is my duty, I feel, to believe as almost all the experts do. That seems prudent and even essential.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)