Is recognizing that we don't know everything the same thing as calling scientists stupid?

Question

6-gun you're assuming a "we" - it's not a "we" -it's some people living their lives and others trying to restrict their lifestyles, which in a free society they shouldn't be able to without proof that those lifestyles cause the harms alleged.

And if we were to apply your logic to global warming, we would have to apply it universally.

If Pat Robertson is right, we'll all burn in h**l - that's a lot worse than sea levels rising 1/3 of a millimeter faster than they otherwise would.

So should "we err on the side of caution" with respect to the changes Pat Robertson wants us to make in our lifestyles?

Should the government force us to make those changes - which is what you refer to when you use the word "we?"

And no, it's not different - it's not different just because it's your ideals that are imposed.

Answer 1

Recognising that we don't know everything is actually the foundation of science: First someone realises that a thing is not known and then that someone tries to understand it - basic science.

The day when we know everything is the day that all scientists will be out of work. That day is a long, long, long way in the future.

There are, however, many responses in this forum that seriously underestimate scientists and researchers to the point of implying stupidity. These responses include items such as:

Pointing out some fact of basic science as if scientists hadn't already considered, evaluated, weighed and included it in theories;

Misstating or misunderstanding the theories put forward and then showing how these false theories are themselves false - it is tantamount to calling scientists stupid by saying that the scientists believe these false theories.

Answer 2

Randall we are going to have to quit arguing their details and instead on fighting the inward looking theology and articles of faith that is built upon. It does no overall good to shoot at a constantly shifting target that once an argument is countered they switch to another variation of it. What all of us that see through the smoke screen of irrelevant propaganda need to do is directly countering the basic article of faith their religion is based upon.

I am going to make for all the clear point that there are organizations that have in the past and will again in the future attempt to rewrite history and the data supporting history to reach a religious or political advantage. Everything we are dealing with here is based on one religious/political doctrine and because they really believe in this doctrine they will lie, cheat and alter anything to reach the objectives of that doctrine. This is the same kind of mentality that brought us the French, Spanish and English Inquisitions. This is the same thinking that brought us Stalin, Hitler and Sadaam.

This doctrine is expressed in a book called “Limits to Growth” and promulgates the view that we know where all of the resources of the earth are located and are currently exploiting them and we will never in the future of humanity have any more than these. This is their basic problem in that they have very poor imaginations and little mental creativity. They look at the earth and so that is all they can see because they are afraid to look up and see the great unknown above because it is bigger and greater than they are.

But on the other hand skeptics are the descendents of the explorers and pioneers and are challenged to look up and dream of what they might discover out there in the universe. So look up beyond the atmosphere and realize where the writers of limits to growth looked at the ground beneath their feet and saw only limits, those like myself that have vision look up and see unlimited plenty, all we need is the courage and resolve of pioneers to go out there and get it. But instead the faithful believers in limits will quiver in cowardliness in their caves in fear of those flickering lights while those such as I are challenged to go out there and use their resources to improve the lives of all!

So we who are willing to face the future with open arms and hearts need to find a way to cure those whose vision is more limited than ours of their unrealistic fears of the new frontier.

Answer 3

the problem is, what do you mean by "we"?

recognizing that you or i don't know something is sanity.

inferring that because we don't, then nobody else does either is delusional.

Edit:  <<there have been multi-century periods, some warmer, some almost as warm, as today, when CO2 levels were lower than they are today,>>

clearly true.  it has, in the past, been both warmer and cooler than it is today.  i honestly don't understand why anyone would make this an issue.  it's not.

<< the causes of which are not fully understood, by anyone, at this time.>>

well, now we're getting on more shaky ground.  there are many "natural"  (ie not related to activities of people) causes that precipitate warming and cooling.

-- the sun's output does vary.  but that's not happening to any significant degree today.

-- the orbit of the earth varies from more circular to more elliptical.  but that's a slow process, and is not a factor today.

-- some volcanic eruptions are sufficiently disruptive that they change the climate of the planet.  nothing of anywhere near that magnitude has happened lately.

<<Is this actually a statement that you would disagree with?>>

since it was really 2 statements, one of which was true, and the other for the most part false, it would generally be classified as a half truth.

<<Did I just call climate scientists stupid?  Or did I acknowledge the limits of man's scientific knowledge at this point in time?>>

the problem is that neither you, nor i, are qualified to judge whether they are correct.

the same thing happened a few hundred years ago, when Copernicus called Ptolemy's earth centered universe wrong.

lots of relatively uneducated folks, unable to understand the math that supported the idea, called it wrong.

there is a difference this time.

it's not a single individual pointing the way.

to a degree, James Hansen did that 20 some years ago.

today, with relatively few exceptions, the science community is in agreement on the causes, the expected effects, and the actions that need to be taken.

the issue has, of course, become political.

because of money.

money that will be needed to change course.

money that will be lost by energy corporations wanting to burn the coal and oil that they own, or have rights to.

it is surprising, that there is such a debate.

it's reminiscent of the debate over evolution.

"teach the controversy" is such a lie.

there isn't one.

there is a push to teach religion.

evolution is, however, settled science.

at this point, climate is much more nearly settled than quite a lot of folks seem to think.

Answer 4

Scientists are not in the business of proving. They are in the business of disproving.

Scientists continually try to formulate hypotheses that can be disproven. If they can't be, despite repeated tries, then they are accepted for the time being, until they can be disproven.

Given enough time, experimentation, and data gathering, the hypotheses can change. If experimental results of hypotheses remain relatively consistent despite continual testing, they can be accepted as a theories.

BTW, what is the missing link of which you speak?

And regarding CO2 levels, show us your data. If we err on the side of caution, no one gets hurt. If we err on the side of risk, we could all get hurt.

So what is the wisest thing to do for ourselves and our children?

Answer 5

When does it become that arrogance toward scientists?

If I assert that I do not know, that is entirely truthful and is not an insult to me. When I assert that no person knows, this becomes a stretch, because I am not able to say what other people, individually or collectively know. It does become an insult to everyone.

The fact that I can not tell you who exactly knows is partly inhibited by the fact that someone else will claim that this person is wrong, even when they are right...What one ' knows' is always a subset of what others acknowledge to be so. Yet those who really know will always know far more than what others acknowledge.

When someone says nobody knows x, there is a truth in that at least the person saying it does not acknowledge x to be so.

But reasonable humility would require one to say 'I do not know who knows this to be so'.

It is still important to have discussions that allow us to  come to a consensus.  A consensus does not preclude error.  A consensus tells us what current doctrine has been promulgated.  We need to know what that is, and what evidence has been presented for it so that we can advance beyond that point. But we  should avoid any claim that nobody knows X... If it happened to be true when stated it may be false by the time it is read. The way things really go, it is likely not entirely true when written. Some people will know what most do not.

By the way, your allusion to a missing link presumes facts not in evidence. If our transition from species to species takes place via recombinant DNA, we can expect non-continuous transitions that have no missing link. This is not to say that all species transitions occur that way. But the absence of missing links is non-conclusive evidence that the species transition occurred as recombinant DNA.

The fact that something has not been found of course is non conclusive evidence that it never existed. Insistence on finding it might prove stupidity if there were other evidence that pointed to it never having existed.

Answer 6

No it's not the same thing at all. Any good scientist will tell you they don't know everything. If they did know everything they'd be out of a job since the entire basis of what they do is try to find out what is unknown.

But we should also recognize that scientists know more about their given field than the average citizen, just as we know more about our fields than they do.  In order for them to learn more they do have a good foundation of facts and understanding of elements, properties, and phenomenon.

Answer 7

It's probably getting hotter.  It's probably because of CO2.  It's probably going to kill a lot of different species.  It's probably not going change.  Guess what?  The Earth doesn't care.  It's been completely covered in snow twice.  It's been a lot hotter with more and less CO2 in the past.  I don't think global warming is anything to worry about, but then again, I really don't think that 6 billion people should be living on the Earth either.

Answer 8

You are absolutely right in saying that we do not know everything. Scientists form their theories linking known phenomenal occurrences to statistical data gathered over a time period. You are right in saying that earth had undergone similar changes in weather during its life period.To study all those foregone ages today we require lot of data which is difficult to obtain.

Where as to study the current phenomena scientists have access to weather data over a period of time and they all have the required analytical ability.While their results are not the end, these are the stepping stones for further discoveries and actions.