No, I don't think it is. It's political propaganda tricked out in scientific regalia. But it's being sold as "science," which from my fuddy-duddy perspective is very problematic, even dangerous. That way lieth Lysenkoism.Is Hulme's "post-normal science" really science? Is it just a new label on a political or philosophical response to science, the likes of which date back for centuries at least?
The nature of truth
- solicitr
- Posts: 3728
- Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2007 7:37 pm
- Location: Engineering a monarchist coup d'etat
- Primula Baggins
- Living in hope
- Posts: 40005
- Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:43 am
- Location: Sailing the luminiferous aether
- Contact:
Whereas plenty of people would say precisely the same thing about deniers of anthropogenic warming.
But that's a topic for another forum.
But that's a topic for another forum.
“There, peeping among the cloud-wrack above a dark tor high up in the mountains, Sam saw a white star twinkle for a while. The beauty of it smote his heart, as he looked up out of the forsaken land, and hope returned to him. For like a shaft, clear and cold, the thought pierced him that in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty for ever beyond its reach.”
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King
At this point, AFAIC, the "truth" of AGW isn't the issue at all.Primula Baggins wrote:Whereas plenty of people would say precisely the same thing about deniers of anthropogenic warming.
But that's a topic for another forum.
Summers are hotter everywhere, oceans warmer and deeper - which means more violent storms - glaciers and ice sheets melting, desertification and/or salination destroying millions of acres of farmland, pine beetles devastating the western pine forests, river flows decreasing, continental interior great lakes shrinking, fish stocks vanishing, tundra sinking, permafrost melting (and releasing yet MORE CO2) - and we sit and argue about what's causing it.
Personally, I don't think it can be stopped or changed, I think we've gone beyond the tipping point, and we better get our s**t together and start planning for the inevitable. Otherwise, Hurricane Katrina is going to be but the first of many catastrophes.
And, of course, we should stop spewing uncountable tons of poison into the air, the water, and the earth.
Dig deeper.
- solicitr
- Posts: 3728
- Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2007 7:37 pm
- Location: Engineering a monarchist coup d'etat
As Jack Nicholson's Joker asked, "Who do you trust?"
This is I think a very interesting question. As Ax observed, only in the purely ideal realms like mathematics and formal logic is there Absolute Truth. But setting that aside, the only things we "know" are those things we observe personally, with our own senses. Everything else we "know" comes from something somebody else told us. Mostly, we believe them. This is essential to humanity; we are who and what we are precisely because thanks to the unique gift of language experience can be shared and knowledge concatenated.
But believing 'knowledge' that comes from others, often strangers, is really a matter of trust, only partially leavened by critical thinking. When we dismiss the Troofer claim that "fire can't melt steel," most of us, those who aren't ourselves blacksmiths or firemen, reject it as spurious because we are more disposed to trust blacksmiths and firemen (whom we assume know what they're talking about, and aren't lying), and the material properties which we derive from engineering and science.
Science, in particular, is that which we moderns are very conditioned to trust, or believe (which amounts to much the same thing). Lawyers and judges have observed the "CSI effect," where thanks to the TV show jurors are now more insistent on "scientific" evidence.... and more trusting of it, as well.
Now, we aren't in the same boat as our ancestors, who took what the Church said on faith, on no firmer ground than the Argument from Authority ("because we say so," or its rather more insidious version, "because we're the experts.") We don't take science on blind faith; science has spent 350 years earning the trust we place in it. Partly of course because it has produced the wonders of the technological age. But more to the point, because science has a method and a process, a series of protocols based around concepts like falsifiablity, verifiability, reproducibility, transparency- a "marketplace of ideas," if you will, where the ideas are not mere opinion but propositions which can be checked. Therefore we are disposed to accept that, sooner or later, what "science" tells us is true: we trust its vetting process.
But then there is Lysenko: "science" with the self-corrective process disabled. Lysenkoism didn't become a horror of needless deaths because it was a crappy theory, but because it was a crappy theory immunized from skepticism and critique, which are the driving forces of scientific truthseeking. No Soviet scientist dared speak a word, lest he fancied the Gulag or the Lubyanka. Science without its self-corrective dynamics becomes no more than religion.
This is I think a very interesting question. As Ax observed, only in the purely ideal realms like mathematics and formal logic is there Absolute Truth. But setting that aside, the only things we "know" are those things we observe personally, with our own senses. Everything else we "know" comes from something somebody else told us. Mostly, we believe them. This is essential to humanity; we are who and what we are precisely because thanks to the unique gift of language experience can be shared and knowledge concatenated.
But believing 'knowledge' that comes from others, often strangers, is really a matter of trust, only partially leavened by critical thinking. When we dismiss the Troofer claim that "fire can't melt steel," most of us, those who aren't ourselves blacksmiths or firemen, reject it as spurious because we are more disposed to trust blacksmiths and firemen (whom we assume know what they're talking about, and aren't lying), and the material properties which we derive from engineering and science.
Science, in particular, is that which we moderns are very conditioned to trust, or believe (which amounts to much the same thing). Lawyers and judges have observed the "CSI effect," where thanks to the TV show jurors are now more insistent on "scientific" evidence.... and more trusting of it, as well.
Now, we aren't in the same boat as our ancestors, who took what the Church said on faith, on no firmer ground than the Argument from Authority ("because we say so," or its rather more insidious version, "because we're the experts.") We don't take science on blind faith; science has spent 350 years earning the trust we place in it. Partly of course because it has produced the wonders of the technological age. But more to the point, because science has a method and a process, a series of protocols based around concepts like falsifiablity, verifiability, reproducibility, transparency- a "marketplace of ideas," if you will, where the ideas are not mere opinion but propositions which can be checked. Therefore we are disposed to accept that, sooner or later, what "science" tells us is true: we trust its vetting process.
But then there is Lysenko: "science" with the self-corrective process disabled. Lysenkoism didn't become a horror of needless deaths because it was a crappy theory, but because it was a crappy theory immunized from skepticism and critique, which are the driving forces of scientific truthseeking. No Soviet scientist dared speak a word, lest he fancied the Gulag or the Lubyanka. Science without its self-corrective dynamics becomes no more than religion.
I would need definitions of all of them. Then we can see whether they overlap, and how. How can we discuss constructs till we have defined them?axordil wrote:Indeed. Or truth with reality, or truth with rightness, or truth with certainty. The concepts all overlap, and not only semantically.yovargas wrote: But I've noticed in the past that people often confuse "knowledge" with "truth".
'You just said "your getting shorter": you've obviously been drinking too much ent-draught and not enough Prim's.' - Jude
Interesting. I don't know what you exactly mean by "pin down bits of truth", however.axordil wrote:That's the point. In defining them we shade the discussion. Definitions are an attempt to pin down bits of truth, aren't they?
(Neither did I understand the context of solicitr's mutliple posts in the last page, but well... )
'You just said "your getting shorter": you've obviously been drinking too much ent-draught and not enough Prim's.' - Jude
- Primula Baggins
- Living in hope
- Posts: 40005
- Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:43 am
- Location: Sailing the luminiferous aether
- Contact:
Is there any word in the English language for which that is true?
“There, peeping among the cloud-wrack above a dark tor high up in the mountains, Sam saw a white star twinkle for a while. The beauty of it smote his heart, as he looked up out of the forsaken land, and hope returned to him. For like a shaft, clear and cold, the thought pierced him that in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty for ever beyond its reach.”
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King
What we have here is a classic case of science people trying to talk to humanities people. The science people are going and the humanities people are going .Mahima wrote:Interesting. I don't know what you exactly mean by "pin down bits of truth", however.axordil wrote:That's the point. In defining them we shade the discussion. Definitions are an attempt to pin down bits of truth, aren't they?
(Neither did I understand the context of solicitr's mutliple posts in the last page, but well... )
Seriously though, how does one move forward without defining terms?
When you can do nothing what can you do?
Oh, please, answer in English. This is driving me insane.axordil wrote:Depends on how high you want to build on the foundation of meringue we normally accept as "given."Seriously though, how does one move forward without defining terms?
'You just said "your getting shorter": you've obviously been drinking too much ent-draught and not enough Prim's.' - Jude
- axordil
- Pleasantly Twisted
- Posts: 8999
- Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 7:35 pm
- Location: Black Creek Bottoms
- Contact:
Look at a dictionary, which is a collection of words and their definitions, which depend on words. There's no escape.
As it happens, since words usually get used in reference to objects and actions in the concrete, empirical world, the underpinnings are invisible and it's not that big a deal. But when you start trying to define logical/philosophical/semantic/epistemological terms, which don't have concrete referents as a rule, it gets sticky.
Mathematics has the same issue, as Kurt Godel pointed out.
As it happens, since words usually get used in reference to objects and actions in the concrete, empirical world, the underpinnings are invisible and it's not that big a deal. But when you start trying to define logical/philosophical/semantic/epistemological terms, which don't have concrete referents as a rule, it gets sticky.
Mathematics has the same issue, as Kurt Godel pointed out.
- Primula Baggins
- Living in hope
- Posts: 40005
- Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:43 am
- Location: Sailing the luminiferous aether
- Contact:
Sounds as if it's time to go make cookies.
“There, peeping among the cloud-wrack above a dark tor high up in the mountains, Sam saw a white star twinkle for a while. The beauty of it smote his heart, as he looked up out of the forsaken land, and hope returned to him. For like a shaft, clear and cold, the thought pierced him that in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty for ever beyond its reach.”
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King
River wrote:What we have here is a classic case of science people trying to talk to humanities people. The science people are going and the humanities people are going .
If there was anything that depressed him more than his own cynicism, it was that quite often it still wasn't as cynical as real life.
Terry Pratchett, Guards! Guards!
Terry Pratchett, Guards! Guards!