Should scientists prove factual assertions or leap to policy recommendations too?

Question

The policy recommendation that "we know enough to act now" requires a view as to what level of proof is needed before the State can go in and sharply limit individual lifestyles.

Isn't that question a matter outside the realm of science?

Answer 1

I agree.

It is the responsibility of the scientific community to understand the science and then facilitate the spread of that understanding - and the ramifications - to the wider public but especially to policy makers.

It is also the responsibility of the wider scientific, engineering and political community to investigate potential responses and to make forecasts on the pros and cons, the time frame, the costs, the feasibility, etc, etc of both implementing and not implementing those responses.

Policy advisors fall into this category and it is always wise to have policy advisors who are well versed in the topics that they advise upon.

Hence, in this case, the policy advisors should be scientists and thus SOME scientists should be making policy recommendations - it is their job and their obligation to do so.

Answer 2

Depends on how you view science. Roger Pielke Jr. had an interesting blog on this very subject:

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/promet...

Answer 3

No, that's precisely a matter of science.  The scientists know how dangerous the threat is a whole lot better than politicians.  You would seriously prefer that politicians decide when to act?  People like Al Gore?  That's just slightly ironic.

Answer 4

Most scientist have no ideal what the word 'prove' means anymore.   Apparently the 'scientific method' of reproducible evidence, was thrown out years ago.

Answer 5

IN a democracy the elected representatives have to decide what level of evidence is needed for every decision they make.

They also have to decide whether evidence need be presented.

For example we would like, intellectually, to know whether burning fossil fuels is causing global warming. Yet we also have an objective to conserve our fossil fuels that does not require the global warming question to be  resolved  to decide to take action to conserve fossil fuels.

Resolution of the connection of fossil fuels to global warming would be useful, as would be resolution of the question of cost of future shortages of fossil fuel. But those issues need not be resolved to make a decision on conserving fossil fuels.

A question of taxation to reduce  consumption also does not depend on any level of proof if the objective is to keep supplies of fuel for future use.

But, when legislators set out to make decisions, they are likely to bow to science. To do otherwise would call for a proof that science has it wrong.

Science should go beyond proving propositions. Rather, it would be pointless to have science restricted to proving idle issues instead of offering propositions that relate to fixing a problem. Only when science can set forth some corrective action will it be of any value to know what the problems are.

It is probably mor important to have science evaluate any proposed corrective action, in terms of likely benefits likely unintended consequences. If they never get to discuss those issues, what could their contribution be worth?

Answer 6

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.