If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Bloomberg)   Why science and politics don't mix. Duh. One is a solution and the other is a precipitate, right?   (bloomberg.com) divider line 50
    More: Misc, new atheists, science books, New Republic, political question, neurochemistry, moral dilemma, moral imperative, individual liberty  
•       •       •

894 clicks; posted to Politics » on 21 Aug 2013 at 1:24 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



50 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-08-21 12:23:35 PM  
The most important limit to science arises from the distinction between facts and values

Values are cultural and arbitrary. If one feels they are universal, then they should be able to be measured in some way. But there is no universal physical principle that says, for instance, that one should not take another life. But we humans have defined most of our cultures as such.
 
2013-08-21 12:37:30 PM  
Well, one is definitely base
 
2013-08-21 01:28:10 PM  
so religion and politics is better right?
 
2013-08-21 01:31:40 PM  
Well, I've been told that their similar with regards to morality: science can't explain it, and politics can't legislate it.

/Of course, those that tell me that also tell me that morality comes from God.
//And they don't realize that science can explain how "morality" arises in evolution; and if one couldn't legislate it, there would be no laws against murder, stealing, and perjury (which, by the way, were "legislated" in those tablets "God gave" Moses).
 
2013-08-21 01:32:46 PM  
What a disgustingly perverse article.

FTFA: Science can't dictate values. That's what matters. And because it can't dictate values, it can't dictate courses of action.

Horsesh*t.
 
2013-08-21 01:35:10 PM  

Virulency: so religion and politics is better right?


That is pretty much what the pile of toxic waste in vaguely human form that wrote TFA is saying, yeah.
 
2013-08-21 01:35:39 PM  

SurfaceTension: But there is no universal physical principle that says, for instance, that one should not take another life.


There are other sciences besides physics, you know.

I am neither agreeing nor disagreeing with the sentiment of your post, merely pointing out that "science" != "physics" because the idea that all of the scientific disciplines should be held to the same standard as physics is just as peculiar as suggesting in any sense that physics should be held to the same standard as biology or anthropology or neuroscience or something.
 
2013-08-21 01:39:25 PM  

UrukHaiGuyz: What a disgustingly perverse article.

FTFA: Science can't dictate values. That's what matters. And because it can't dictate values, it can't dictate courses of action.

Horsesh*t.


I am pretty sure it can protect values.  Like 'life' that I keep hearing about from the derpers.  I guess protecting 'life' from the effects of global warming doesn't count.
 
2013-08-21 01:39:42 PM  
"It's no accident that the more aggressive kinds of scientism -- the so-calledNew Atheism springs to mind -- are bullying and intolerant. Intolerance isn't conducive to human flourishing................"

Stopped reading.
 
2013-08-21 01:41:41 PM  
Do floaters count as precipitate?

/ like a septic tank, the really big chunks float to the top.
 
2013-08-21 01:42:55 PM  

insano: "It's no accident that the more aggressive kinds of scientism -- the so-calledNew Atheism springs to mind -- are bullying and intolerant. Intolerance isn't conducive to human flourishing................"

Stopped reading.


Yeah, it's a load of shiat.

There's a big difference between being "tolerant" of another person's personal beliefs, and calling them out when they are flat out wrong about scientific things. You want to believe in God? Scientists couldn't care less what you do or don't believe in. You want to push your agenda about creationism, etc., into the scientific realm? You're going to get attacked, and hard.
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2013-08-21 01:46:03 PM  
Because, he says, science is intruding on the humanities, disciplines lacking in vitality or any real purpose of their own, and the intrusion is resented.

So he's a corporate idiot?

Only corporate idiots call the humanities "lacking in purpose."
 
2013-08-21 01:46:52 PM  
TFA thinks science is a thing. It's a process of testing hypotheses. When it finds a good answer, it publishes. Because there are some vocal minority who doesn't like things he likes, all of science is bad.
 
2013-08-21 01:49:01 PM  
Given your values, how can you best achieve the desired results? That's something science can help answer.
 
2013-08-21 01:49:31 PM  
Why does this new attempt to denigrate science feel a lot like the rebranding of creationism into "intelligent design"?
 
2013-08-21 01:50:09 PM  

kidgenius: insano: "It's no accident that the more aggressive kinds of scientism -- the so-calledNew Atheism springs to mind -- are bullying and intolerant. Intolerance isn't conducive to human flourishing................"

Stopped reading.

Yeah, it's a load of shiat.

There's a big difference between being "tolerant" of another person's personal beliefs, and calling them out when they are flat out wrong about scientific things. You want to believe in God? Scientists couldn't care less what you do or don't believe in. You want to push your agenda about creationism, etc., into the scientific realm? You're going to get attacked, and hard.


qft
 
2013-08-21 01:51:14 PM  

Kome: SurfaceTension: But there is no universal physical principle that says, for instance, that one should not take another life.

There are other sciences besides physics, you know.

I am neither agreeing nor disagreeing with the sentiment of your post, merely pointing out that "science" != "physics" because the idea that all of the scientific disciplines should be held to the same standard as physics is just as peculiar as suggesting in any sense that physics should be held to the same standard as biology or anthropology or neuroscience or something.


Any science should be held to the same standards of sufficient evidence and peer review.

But I'm not sure what any of that has to do with whether or not values are an objective "thing" that survives in the universe independent of humanity. It's my assertion that they do not.
 
2013-08-21 01:53:43 PM  
Bullying and intolerant. Doesn't recognize limits. Can't dictate values. Impatient with dissent. Closely aligned with a set of costly and controversial policy proposals. Should keep a cautious distance from politics.

Are these phrases used by the author to describe a) religion, b) science, c) conservatives. That's right - b), which means the author is a moron.
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2013-08-21 01:53:50 PM  
The problem with bringing up global warming science is an example is that there is *no* amount of proof that will satisfy the global warming denier.  It's a matter of the idea that if runs afoul of the pro-corporate political belief system.  Bringing it up just proves he a troll.
 
2013-08-21 01:53:52 PM  
Is this really just a long drawn out 'Bash Climate Science' article? That's what it seems like. Though truth be told, the guy hid it in their pretty nicely.
 
2013-08-21 01:55:32 PM  
Guy who doesn't understand science complains about science.   Thanks for being every republican I've ever met, guy.
 
2013-08-21 01:55:36 PM  

Kome: SurfaceTension: But there is no universal physical principle that says, for instance, that one should not take another life.

There are other sciences besides physics, you know.

I am neither agreeing nor disagreeing with the sentiment of your post, merely pointing out that "science" != "physics" because the idea that all of the scientific disciplines should be held to the same standard as physics is just as peculiar as suggesting in any sense that physics should be held to the same standard as biology or anthropology or neuroscience or something.


imgs.xkcd.com
 
2013-08-21 01:56:41 PM  
CSB: I once was on a grant that involved doctors, analysts, and ethicists. The ethicists were only helpful in one way: after a few years, whenever some whack job started complaining about what we were doing, we would invite them to participate in the ethics panel discussions. The ethics panel eventually grew to >100 people. The other working groups tended to have about10 people, which is a large group for decision-making, but workable.

We made ethical decisions all the time, informed by statistics, medicine, economics, etc. Limited resources were allocated to do the most good in terms of QALYs (quality-adjusted life-years), in terms of equity, in terms of urgency, etc. All of these were informed by measurable and testable scientific criteria. And yes, quality of life can be measured in a repeatable fashion.

No ethicist ever made a suggestion that actually helped in any way. They'd come up with largely-unresearched issues for us to account for that were either completely irrelevant to the question at hand or that we'd already thoroughly addressed based on actual data. The innovations that we came up with that helped people all came from science.
 
2013-08-21 01:57:00 PM  
Doesn't the act of precipitating imply a starting state of being mixed?
 
2013-08-21 01:59:49 PM  

coeyagi: UrukHaiGuyz: What a disgustingly perverse article.

FTFA: Science can't dictate values. That's what matters. And because it can't dictate values, it can't dictate courses of action.

Horsesh*t.

I am pretty sure it can protect values.  Like 'life' that I keep hearing about from the derpers.  I guess protecting 'life' from the effects of global warming doesn't count.


The fundamental strength of the scientific method is its ability to predict outcomes based on testable models. Politics, religion, and dogma of any type fail miserably by comparison, so if the preponderance of scientific evidence says "If you keep doing this, X will happen" then X is gonna f*cking happen.
 
2013-08-21 02:03:35 PM  
"Science isn't settled, but even if it were I'm a sovereign citizen who makes his own rules. Suck it freedom haters."
 
2013-08-21 02:06:23 PM  

SurfaceTension: Kome: SurfaceTension: But there is no universal physical principle that says, for instance, that one should not take another life.

There are other sciences besides physics, you know.

I am neither agreeing nor disagreeing with the sentiment of your post, merely pointing out that "science" != "physics" because the idea that all of the scientific disciplines should be held to the same standard as physics is just as peculiar as suggesting in any sense that physics should be held to the same standard as biology or anthropology or neuroscience or something.

Any science should be held to the same standards of sufficient evidence and peer review.

But I'm not sure what any of that has to do with whether or not values are an objective "thing" that survives in the universe independent of humanity. It's my assertion that they do not.


I bring it up because you said "physical principle", as though that were some final arbiter of anything relating to what is essentially social phenomena (and thus, more the purview of the cognitive, neuro, and social sciences than the physical or life sciences). As to your other point, different sciences are held up to different standards because of the methods and content of study. You cannot seriously expect the same evidentiary standards in medicine to be applied to physics, for example. You can't run a double-blind randomized clinical trial on electron activity.

I mean, sure in the abstract, sound methodology, adequate evidence in support of the given interpretation, and being scrutinized by professional peers is there, but in order to be applied to all sciences identically would mean we're only discussing those things in such abstract terms that it's almost meaningless for anything other than middle school science classes... which upon reflection may still be a little too advanced given the rates of scientific literacy in the general population. So perhaps I'm being too pedantic.
 
2013-08-21 02:11:17 PM  

UrukHaiGuyz: coeyagi: UrukHaiGuyz: What a disgustingly perverse article.

FTFA: Science can't dictate values. That's what matters. And because it can't dictate values, it can't dictate courses of action.

Horsesh*t.

I am pretty sure it can protect values.  Like 'life' that I keep hearing about from the derpers.  I guess protecting 'life' from the effects of global warming doesn't count.

The fundamental strength of the scientific method is its ability to predict outcomes based on testable models. Politics, religion, and dogma of any type fail miserably by comparison, so if the preponderance of scientific evidence says "If you keep doing this, X will happen" then X is gonna f*cking happen.


Yes, but there is also metadata of the result that isn't easily categorized. Is it moral? Is it ethical?  Does it align with the values?  I guess the problem is what do you value more: pragmatism vs. Judeo-Christian "values" (which, due to interpretation is often at odds with itself)?   I never thought the purpose of government was to suck "Republican Jesus's" dick.  I thought it was to protect the sovereignty and its people and ensure rights are maintained. Science can do that a lot better than sucking the phallus of Supply Side / Republican Jesus.
 
2013-08-21 02:20:17 PM  
Scientists usually try to evaluate evidence to come to a conclusion. Politicians* usually try to find the evidence they want** in order to "prove" whatever it is they're trying to sell.

*May substitute with religious folk or alt med folk.

**Sometimes they just make stuff up rather than finding evidence.

/DNRTFA
 
2013-08-21 02:25:42 PM  

UrukHaiGuyz: What a disgustingly perverse article.

FTFA: Science can't dictate values. That's what matters. And because it can't dictate values, it can't dictate courses of action.

Horsesh*t.


Science explains phenomena. It doesn't dictate anything.
 
2013-08-21 02:36:46 PM  
Science is almost just plain applied logic.  Determining which lever does what and testing it makes you a lever scientist.  My daughter could be called a candy scientist for the myriad of ways she's tried to get me to give her candy.

I understand actual Science is all about repeatable processes and peer review, but to puff it up like it some sort of gigantic worldview THING just rubs me the wrong way.  Its so simple, so fundamental to just logical thinking to make it out to be so big denies the reality that we use the basis of science in our day to day life.

Science's base is just a consequence of us having functioning logical brains.  All these "Sciencism can never give us values!" are missing the point and conflating that logic and values can't coexist.
 
2013-08-21 02:37:28 PM  

jigger: UrukHaiGuyz: What a disgustingly perverse article.

FTFA: Science can't dictate values. That's what matters. And because it can't dictate values, it can't dictate courses of action.

Horsesh*t.

Science explains phenomena. It doesn't dictate anything.


It can tell you via predictive models what will happen as a result of any course of action, which "values" does f*ck all to predict with any accuracy. If you can achieve consensus on a desired result (like the preservation of ecosystems and species) then yes, science can tell you how that can actually be achieved. This whole article is anti-intellectual drivel to the effect of "you can't tell us our catastrophically idiotic course of action is catastrophically idiotic because we don't feel like it is."
 
2013-08-21 02:39:38 PM  

jigger: UrukHaiGuyz: What a disgustingly perverse article.

FTFA: Science can't dictate values. That's what matters. And because it can't dictate values, it can't dictate courses of action.

Horsesh*t.

Science explains phenomena. It doesn't dictate anything.


The author is playing loosely with semantics. He says science can't 'dictate' values or courses of action which, of course, is true because science isn't meant to do such things. However, what he means, in his particularly slimy way, is that findings from science should not be used to guide and inform policy which is patently ridiculous. Another of his implications is that there is something that should in fact dictate policy (e.g. on climate change) instead of science. Though he doesn't state what that is, my sense is that it is either religion, $, or gut instinct.
 
2013-08-21 02:46:52 PM  

insano: jigger: UrukHaiGuyz: What a disgustingly perverse article.

FTFA: Science can't dictate values. That's what matters. And because it can't dictate values, it can't dictate courses of action.

Horsesh*t.

Science explains phenomena. It doesn't dictate anything.

The author is playing loosely with semantics. He says science can't 'dictate' values or courses of action which, of course, is true because science isn't meant to do such things. However, what he means, in his particularly slimy way, is that findings from science should not be used to guide and inform policy which is patently ridiculous. Another of his implications is that there is something that should in fact dictate policy (e.g. on climate change) instead of science. Though he doesn't state what that is, my sense is that it is either religion, $, or gut instinct.


You've stated it better than I could.  The goal is discredit factual based research in order to make more $ and placate/manipulate idiotic voters
 
2013-08-21 02:53:14 PM  

Esc7: insano: jigger: UrukHaiGuyz: What a disgustingly perverse article.

FTFA: Science can't dictate values. That's what matters. And because it can't dictate values, it can't dictate courses of action.

Horsesh*t.

Science explains phenomena. It doesn't dictate anything.

The author is playing loosely with semantics. He says science can't 'dictate' values or courses of action which, of course, is true because science isn't meant to do such things. However, what he means, in his particularly slimy way, is that findings from science should not be used to guide and inform policy which is patently ridiculous. Another of his implications is that there is something that should in fact dictate policy (e.g. on climate change) instead of science. Though he doesn't state what that is, my sense is that it is either religion, $, or gut instinct.

You've stated it better than I could.  The goal is discredit factual based research in order to make more $ and placate/manipulate idiotic voters


Yes, insano expressed it perfectly. I can deal with most aspects of the current lunacy that has enveloped the Republican party of late, but the willingness to gamble the welfare of the goddamn species of humanity for the sake of a little monetary gain and political control makes me see red.
 
2013-08-21 03:05:32 PM  
People shouldn't steal because a society which accepts stealing is objectively worse, on average.

When possession of things to use is not predictable, efficiency and productivity go down. Take transport: if your and your coworkers'car may not be there tomorrow, the business you work for becomes a chaotic mess.

There, that was easy. This isn't applicable to all values, but objectivity can be applied to quite a few laws. And no, saying something stupid like 'well the furtherance of the human race and prosperity is a subjective goal' is a pretty stupid copout to the discussion. Going down that road makes nuking every cubed inch of the earth and its atmosphere no better or worse than not destroying it.
 
2013-08-21 03:22:34 PM  

Kome: SurfaceTension: Kome: SurfaceTension: But there is no universal physical principle that says, for instance, that one should not take another life.

There are other sciences besides physics, you know.

I am neither agreeing nor disagreeing with the sentiment of your post, merely pointing out that "science" != "physics" because the idea that all of the scientific disciplines should be held to the same standard as physics is just as peculiar as suggesting in any sense that physics should be held to the same standard as biology or anthropology or neuroscience or something.

Any science should be held to the same standards of sufficient evidence and peer review.

But I'm not sure what any of that has to do with whether or not values are an objective "thing" that survives in the universe independent of humanity. It's my assertion that they do not.

I bring it up because you said "physical principle", as though that were some final arbiter of anything relating to what is essentially social phenomena (and thus, more the purview of the cognitive, neuro, and social sciences than the physical or life sciences). As to your other point, different sciences are held up to different standards because of the methods and content of study. You cannot seriously expect the same evidentiary standards in medicine to be applied to physics, for example. You can't run a double-blind randomized clinical trial on electron activity.

I mean, sure in the abstract, sound methodology, adequate evidence in support of the given interpretation, and being scrutinized by professional peers is there, but in order to be applied to all sciences identically would mean we're only discussing those things in such abstract terms that it's almost meaningless for anything other than middle school science classes... which upon reflection may still be a little too advanced given the rates of scientific literacy in the general population. So perhaps I'm being too pedantic.


Maybe. All I'm saying is that values don't exist in an objective way. That is, they don't exist independent of human existence. As a part of our culture and humanity (and perhaps neurology?) they definitely do exist. But that existence is dependent upon humanity existing and if the Vogons destroyed earth tomorrow to make way for a bypass, human values would be destroyed right along with it.
 
2013-08-21 03:55:14 PM  

SurfaceTension: Maybe. All I'm saying is that values don't exist in an objective way. That is, they don't exist independent of human existence. As a part of our culture and humanity (and perhaps neurology?) they definitely do exist. But that existence is dependent upon humanity existing and if the Vogons destroyed earth tomorrow to make way for a bypass, human values would be destroyed right along with it.


As I said, I was not disagreeing or agreeing with the sentiment of your position, merely noting something that I think is important in these discussions - physics is not "science", it is *a* science, and there are certainly scientific principles that could help in the examination of morals, values, ethics, etc. which we can use to inform the development and maintenance of moral, value, ethical, etc. systems and codes.

-The following is the result of some thinking I've been doing about this, and is not meant to be a direct argument towards or against you in any way, as I simply do not know the full breadth of your position on this topic, though based on what you've written so far I would certainly like to hear your response to it if you would be kind enough to indulge me-
I guess this is an interesting discussion in and of itself (and thankfully related to the thread topic so as not to be a total threadjack), but why should the fact that there are no objective values matter when we are all autonomous moral subjects? That is, no creature can have an objective perspective on anything; though we can have relatively more objective views on a subject, as a function of something like independent confirmation, of which scientific peer-review and experimental replication are but two examples. As such, not only could there never be an objective value, there's no reason to want one either since an objective value would necessarily invalidate some aspect of our unique subjective experience. That said, there's no reason to suggest that we cannot empirically examine value systems to find commonalities that are (near-)universal across cultures and time (e.g. "treat others as you wish to be treated" is common enough to be considered a moral universal). The methodologies in the social sciences, aided by tools and methods in the cognitive and neurosciences, are certainly valid ways to scientifically examine values and beliefs, which could then be interpreted as prescriptive as opposed to just descriptive, dependent on relative success of those value systems in various metrics, such as group cohesion, social mobility, economic fairness (however one wishes to define fairness), etc.
Certainly, my thoughts are not completely fleshed out on the matter. As I said above, it's just some thoughts I've been kicking around in my head on this subject for a while.
 
2013-08-21 04:09:36 PM  
By Clive Crook

LOL.

Intelligent critics of "scientism"

i.imgur.com
 
2013-08-21 04:16:06 PM  

Mikey1969: Is this really just a long drawn out 'Bash Climate Science' article? That's what it seems like. Though truth be told, the guy hid it in their pretty nicely.


Yeah. The author has a raging hard on for the multiple-independent-investigation-debunked conspiracy theory that hacked emails from some climate scientists showed they were up to no good.

He is a British version of George Will, feigning sophistication, intellect, and detachment while basically regurgitating Tea Party-level idiocy.
 
2013-08-21 04:26:21 PM  

Jon Snow: Intelligent critics of "scientism"


Eh, by itself that's not a point to stop reading. There really are intelligent criticisms of scientism. Massimo Pigliucci, for example, does a thorough job laying out intelligent criticisms of scientism. I'm not entirely swayed by them, but I do find his position on the subject much more intelligent and worthy of consideration than some ass-trumpet who has a hard-on for science denial or pseudoscience promotion.
 
2013-08-21 05:07:38 PM  

Kome: Eh, by itself that's not a point to stop reading.


In combination with the author, it sure was. At least for me, YMMV.

Kome: Massimo Pigliucci


He might have intelligent critiques of scientism. Dunno. I'll check them out.

But overall, meh. I enjoyed his arguments until I heard him try and fail to debunk Lomborg on climate, which is something a reasonably bright undergrad could do. He seems like he overextends himself and is very unaware of his own superficiality on a bunch of subjects he hasn't directly studied.
 
2013-08-21 06:09:02 PM  
Let's demonstrate an example that combines science, technology, ethics, and politics.
Let's say I have a tank truck full of 3000 gallons of toxic waste. Physics tells me that when I pull the dump lever on the truck, gravity will cause the toxic waste to be released. Biology tells me that the waste will kill anything it touches.

Ethically, where should I be before I pull that lever?

(Hint: before the EPA was founded in 1970, many people would have found it perfectly acceptable to answer, "In that ditch out back..")
 
2013-08-21 06:12:16 PM  

Ishidan: Let's demonstrate an example that combines science, technology, ethics, and politics.
Let's say I have a tank truck full of 3000 gallons of toxic waste. Physics tells me that when I pull the dump lever on the truck, gravity will cause the toxic waste to be released. Biology tells me that the waste will kill anything it touches.

Ethically, where should I be before I pull that lever?

(Hint: before the EPA was founded in 1970, many people would have found it perfectly acceptable to answer, "In that ditch out back..")


But if you're in the ditch you'll get toxic slimed! Get outta there, buddy, it's not safe!
 
2013-08-21 06:43:35 PM  
Well, technically one is a supernatant and the other is a mix of folks with more ambition than talent, with a sprinkling of sociopaths.
 
2013-08-21 06:55:34 PM  

Kome: SurfaceTension: But there is no universal physical principle that says, for instance, that one should not take another life.

There are other sciences besides physics, you know.

I am neither agreeing nor disagreeing with the sentiment of your post, merely pointing out that "science" != "physics" because the idea that all of the scientific disciplines should be held to the same standard as physics is just as peculiar as suggesting in any sense that physics should be held to the same standard as biology or anthropology or neuroscience or something.


Physics is the backbone of most science just as Math is the basis.
 
2013-08-21 07:00:36 PM  

Kome: Jon Snow: Intelligent critics of "scientism"

Eh, by itself that's not a point to stop reading. There really are intelligent criticisms of scientism. Massimo Pigliucci, for example, does a thorough job laying out intelligent criticisms of scientism. I'm not entirely swayed by them, but I do find his position on the subject much more intelligent and worthy of consideration than some ass-trumpet who has a hard-on for science denial or pseudoscience promotion.


Please define what you mean by 'scientism.' I have never heard of this phenomenon, but you and the author seem to understand it as some sort of movement apart from science itself. Is this some sort of attempt to characterize science as a religion, because if it is you can save yourself the trouble - I'm not interested.
 
2013-08-21 08:58:40 PM  

insano: Please define what you mean by 'scientism.' I have never heard of this phenomenon, but you and the author seem to understand it as some sort of movement apart from science itself. Is this some sort of attempt to characterize science as a religion, because if it is you can save yourself the trouble - I'm not interested.


It's more like an accusation of people taking science beyond its supposed "limitations" and making claims on its behalf that it cannot actually support itself.

It's the classic is/ought meme: science can tell what something is, but not what you ought to do about it. The people who cry about "scientism" tend to strawman the hell out of the pretty normal situating of a scientific "is" within assumed societal norms and say it's unfair to claim science has any jurisdiction. Like people saying climate science cannot tell us what we "ought" to do about unchecked greenhouse gas emissions.

The sleight of hand is that it ignores or removes the backdrop in which most science questions are being asked in the first place (which has already handled the "ought" part). In the climate example, the typical sleight of hand the anti-scientism idiots use is this:

Policymaker: What are the consequences of unchecked greenhouse gas emissions.
Climate Science (along with biologists, ecologists, medical science professionals, etc.): The consequences are probabilistically X, Y, Z for emissions trajectory A.
Policymaker: So if we want to minimize the harm being done to groups F, G, and H, what needs to happen?
Climate Science: We need to stabilize emissions so that we don't end up on trajectory A, incurring consequences X, Y, and Z.
Dickweeds Like Clive Crook: Oooh! Oooh! The naughty climate scientists made an "ought" claim! That's scientism! They can't do that! Waaah! Waaah!

You get the idea. The strawman of scientism is far more prevalent than any examples of actual scientism affecting decision-making in the real world.

Whether or not the fact that the dickweeds complaining about scientism happen to be those who are rendered obsolete by evidence-based inquiry into the world around us has anything to do with their whining is left to you to decide.
 
2013-08-21 09:18:58 PM  
But science isn't always done well, and its limits aren't always recognized. When it's done badly or pushes past its proper bounds yet still expects to command respect, that's scientism.

What is banking and finance called when it is done badly or pushes past it's proper bounds?  Because I think buttfarking the world economy back in 2008 to the point it is still traumatized and has to shower thrice daily qualifies.

What in science even remotely compares to that?

Farking idiot.
 
2013-08-22 05:38:16 PM  

UrukHaiGuyz: What a disgustingly perverse article.

FTFA: Science can't dictate values. That's what matters. And because it can't dictate values, it can't dictate courses of action.

Horsesh*t.


Yeh, uh I realize this is Fark, but either this article should not have been greenlit or should have a tag "warning reading this article even while waiting in a doctor's office is a waste of time".
 
Displayed 50 of 50 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report