I was just reading my friend 
There are a couple of things I've realized about people.
They generally have little to no knowledge about an appeal to authority fallacy.
They will respond to posts like
Well that really depends. You see a Climatologist is a label. It means someone allegedly went to some school that has some accreditation indicating that if the person completes their program of study they can be considered a climatologist.
So taking a quick glance at the Scientific Method, you know that thing that all of science is based upon I don't see anything about it only working if you have a title and someone taught you.
The scientific method is a beautiful tool. A scientist is in actuality someone who follows the scientific method. How much schooling they had, what labels they have, etc does not change that.
All that label indicates is that there is a higher probability of the person being accurate in what they say without you having to double check and verify their findings. That does not mean they might not be wrong.
It also doesn't mean some janitor, or patent clerk might not actually have a better answer than them.
As long as they both follow the scientific method then asking questions and challenging everything is part of that. Such challenges should be met with science.
If there is a flaw in a premise and some data is found not to fit then that is something someone truly interested in science should welcome. This is true even if it is poking a hole in something they put a lot of time into coming up with.
Sadly history has shown that so-called scientists are not above becoming more interested in protecting their personal legacy and fame than they are the actual science. This has happened to many people. Albert Einstein bumped against this for decades in Europe. The recent television series Genius which covered the life of Albert Einstein illustrated many such cases.
In history there have been some people burned at the stake for speaking heresy when they were challenging an accepted norm that had CONSENSUS.
These actions are not part of the scientific method. They in fact are two things. First they are backed by appeals to authority which indicate that something should not be considered if someone else that has a reputation in the field challenges it. That person that challenges doesn't even have to take it seriously, and generally they don't. They just dismiss it and then a crowd of people use that dismissal as though it has value. The dismissal was not science. The people then using that are practicing an appeal to authority fallacy.
This is when people claiming to be "scientists" transition into being priests. They now are preaching dogma and you better not challenge all their beliefs. They have forsaken the scientific method. They in a sense are akin to fallen angels.
I've trained myself to see these two things and I'm getting better at it.
- Appeals to Authority.
- Dogma and unwillingness to be wrong
Neither of those things have any value in science. So I will state what I've stated before. A person who does not follow the scientific method is NO SCIENTIST regardless of any label or degree they have.
Furthermore, a person who follows the scientific method can be a scientist without any of those labels or degrees.
Those labels and degrees did not exist forever and they are artificial, cultural, and not a true measure of anything. This is especially true today. The degrees often today are like extremely expensive toilet paper.
Now that doesn't mean we should dismiss a person's degree. That degree may indeed make their familiarity with a subject more probable. Though it may also be a representation of them being indoctrinated and agreeing to a narrative foisted on them by whichever institution and instructor(s) gave them their degree.
That's okay. If you follow the scientific method none of that matters, including the labels and degrees.
Follow that and you can talk with anyone about anything. It doesn't mean you have to agree. It also doesn't mean you should immediately disagree.
Also another thing about the scientific method. It is great on proving things based upon what we can observe, measure, and replicate. It is useless in proving or disproving things we have not found out how to observe, measure, or replicate. Though often people claiming to be scientists will say something does not exist simply due to not knowing how to measure it.
Again there are many things we have only recently learned to measure, observe, etc. Did they not exist until we could do so?
Thus, those that say something does not exist that we have not disproven by measurement are foisting their opinion off as fact. This is not science.
Once we can measure something we can disprove a lot of things.
This does not mean we should believe everything we are told. We still need to live in the world and mostly deal with the things we can understand, observe, etc. It only means we should not immediately dismiss the things we cannot or have not found out how to measure.
Now as to climate change. I despise that term. When it was global warming that was very specific and was something we could measure. Those measurements were not always working out so they chose to instead politicize the term climate change.
This makes me angry. Why? If you understand sets. Climate Change is a superset. It literally contains ALL forms of climate. This means Global Warming fits inside of it, so do ice ages, and ALL other changes.
When they switched to that they could say "see climate change" and it would always be true. It was stupid. It is stupid that we use the term. It is like playing a game with someone who has loaded dice.
The climate has always changed before man, and will continue after man. The issue that started this divide and hijacking of the Earth/Green movement (which I was a strong proponent for) began with the idea of Anthropogenic Global Warming. This was specific. This could be observed, challenged, etc.
Climate Change is a different story. First we must realize Climate Change will happen. It always has. It never stopped changing. The key issue is how much of it is caused by man?
So resisting the natural climate change wouldn't that essentially be man messing with climate and thus be anthropogenic climate change?
How many climatologists actually pay attention to the sun activity?
Oh and you can take the word "consensus" and throw it right in the trash.
Now I know there were some text books written that define the scientific method as valuing consensus. Those are fairly recent and the scientific method predates them.
Rewriting history and changing the tool so it fits your narrative is not very scientific either.
Just follow the scientific method, and welcome questions and challenges. You don't have to agree with them, but you should not be immediately dismissive. You should welcome challenge. If you are dismissive then you are practicing religion more than you are practicing science.
NOTE: If you made it this far. I did not attack any narrative or theory. I attacked people who claim to be interested in science who are not practicing science, regardless of their label.
I didn't state my opinions for/against climate change or global warming other than why I dislike the term climate change.
False Dichotomies rule the stage during this day... we should learn to recognize them... [logical fallacy] - 10 months ago
Scientific Consensus: This phrase should make you cringe. At least if you understand science. - 4 months ago
Word Hijacking 3.0: Anarchy, Climate Change, Occult, Conspiracy Theory - last year
Science, Three Body Problem, Climate Change, Global Warming, Nikola Tesla, Thorium, OH MY! - last year
The benefits of an Ice Age: Hypothetical ramblings to you straight from the curvy passages of my mind. - 5 months ago
 |
 |
 |