In enlivening the spring of objective truth, which is undoubtedly Gazeta Wyborcza, there's a new trend. It applies to cases of old, but included a new aspect-worthy thing to notice, given the dogmatic jam masters of journalists.
In short - it comes to global warming.
D of the journal editors are now enlightened and educated stubborn pride themselves Polish society, according to a simple prescription. It's disgraceful, deplorable human species is responsible for the deplorable state of pramatki Gai. Why? Because the scientists say so. We have the hard evidence. Why? Because scientists publish them. Why are they scientific? Because scientists are scientists, not domorosłymi worshipers conspiracy theories, or inferior dziennikarzynami of competing titles.
anthropocentric theory of the impact of CO2 warming is so scientific and so true, scientific unction scientists themselves.
But ... ... what would the science itself?
B y compliment learning about scientific evidence and argument to scare the authority ("Why, it must be true because I wrote the scientist, and what he wrote, printed in Nature"), trza first know how science itself operates.
This mechanism has decided to introduce readers to the article "Can science lie."
And it brings this informative - and so does not treat the adjective "scientific" as a magic formula, enchanted in the dust, which blows into the eyes of ignorant people, dressed in a bandage from the iliac powyrywanych pages IPCC report, moaning holy indignation journalist - ideowiec.
So:
ever since learning does not give certainty. What's more, it is not said that scientists on global warming are right.
N e gives, since "Truth" in science is completely different (compatibility of rights in the accepted theory) than the "truth" in philosophy, and so imperceptibly - and our belief (which is absolute and dogmatic tone, as aimed at building our personal, subjective value). Similarly, as another of concepts such as "knowledge".
No but let's go further.
The editor notes that scientists can and many times they were wrong, that could be seduced owczemu momentum that they have feelings and emotions so you know.
I falls again to agree - at least in matters in which science actually tries to speak. It can therefore susceptible to damage mechanism and various zwieszki, but the mechanism that works and is pretty well. Science is so nice. Aug knows.
And suddenly, unexpectedly into the arena of the lecture about the science of global warming is entering the case.
reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are the essence of all published research papers on climate change (including those few that challenge the human influence on climate). It is our collective knowledge, as always incomplete and not entirely sure. The latest report estimates at more than 90 percent. the probability that the warming is responsible for the CO2 emissions from human activity .
Q uestions to my esteemed editor, therefore I am - and the theory of unifying the four fundamental forces in the universe we know, which merged so far only two of them are likely at 50%? How to succeed in the next turn it will be at 75%? The standard model of elementary particles - as far as the editor calculates the probability that true? At 95%? Maybe 87%? And the measure of the sets? In the event of experimental detection of the Higgs boson, the theory this will be confirmed 100%? Or maybe 99%? And if the 100% (which is probably the author himself had doubts) is like the evaluation is to declarations that they never have the certainty we will not?
Does science thesis puts the correctness of which an estimated percentage probability distribution? Maybe the author of any, indicate?
C y editor does not see the logic in his reasoning biscuit - since the percent probability, it must establish the scientific criterion for its evaluation, and those due to the structure of science (I never have the certainty we will not) be contrary to percent estimation, because those based on a finite and known number of cases under which the estimate. So the elements that you do not have the science available. We can determine the probability theory that throwing the dice, we will fall 5 and 6 Because we know their distribution. We know how many sides has a cube (we assume that 6) - do we know how many sides has a cube climate? How many throws made and whether they are representative? Do we even throw the dice, and if we throw it how many? We do not know. And the author is aware of this.
About other Stat we can assume that this poetic comparison, a metaphor that the IPCC uses to illustrate the scale of the threat. But keep in mind that this panel is not a scientific body - the researchers just sit there, and reports of this work (often rotten) compromise.
szacunkowość And if reports are not scientific, and the result is a metaphor - it's kiego esteemed editor, writing about science posiłkuje trust the methodology of science that has nothing in common? His argument that trust in science is based on unscientific argument. Too bad.
Scientists leave in peace. Let them do their .
A Exactly. Let us leave in peace. :)
0 comments:
Post a Comment