I've thought about it ..... and philosophy is bollox (irony ) Seriously though, how can philsophers tell you how to order society when the average philosopher lives in a state of milldewed chaos.
What it boils down to is this....someone told me on a ship, if this sinks, who would you wanna be in the lifeboat with? ...a philosopher or someone who knew just where the f*****g lifeboat should be going?...it aint rocket science ....

I used to work for a pharmaceutical company, in the same office as several scientists (around 10 people with PHDs in biology/chemistry).

Some of them admitted to me that they wouldn't have got a PHD if they hadn't lied and falsified their experiment results. Simple as that. Lets face it, after years of study, would you be honest and not get the letters after your name, or tell a few 'white lies' and have a doctorate? Grant money cut off, out of work having 'failed' academically?

All the scientists I've met tend to work in isolation by the nature of their studies and are reliant on funding. Apart from the ones sponsored by big business who have vested interests in 'their' scientists promoting their chosen theories. Scientists are not altruistic planet saviours, they do what they do for money, status, and personal gain.

So whenever I hear an 'expert' on global warming talking about how we're doing the planet in, I can't help but wonder what agenda he or she has. And why they're given a mouthpiece.

Global warming is a scientific paradigm, which will take hundreds of years to prove or disprove. When I think of scientific paradigms from the past, I can name many which we now scoff at as not being a 'fact' - the sun revolves around the earth, creationism, masturbation makes you blind, etc.

It isn't that long since scientific 'fact' was used by some fascist folk in Europe to justify the execution of millions of people. When I see the media (BBC in particular) reporting on global warming, although the agenda is not as sinister, the sentiment of propoganda is the same.

As many have already pointed out, the climate has never been stable, and never will be. It's human nature to want to control things and keep things constant. We Brits are obsessed with the weather compared to other countries. And what about the old duffers cliche of 'the summers were hotter and longer when I was a kid'? Surely they were colder and shorter?

I think it is arrogance of the highest order to believe that we are responsible for percieved changes in weather patterns. Another case of humans beating themselves up and latching onto something to feel guilty about. But by changing our behaviour and paying extra taxes we can contribute towards something 'good' to make ourselves feel better.

Don't get me wrong, I don't drive a gas-guzzling 4x4, I recycle what I can, and I don't fly very often. I agree with the preservation of the environment and think we shouldn't go out of our way to pollute. But I am very cynical about stealth taxes dressed up as planet-saving measures.

'The end of the world is nigh!' - only this time we can do something about it eh? Don't believe the bullshit.

I was with you on the 'all knowledge is falible' line, but it made me think, 'why read on, as it's possible he's wrong'? Indeed, why engage with anything if our current knowledge could be shown to be false? Any suggestions?

Because you can if you want to.

On the other hand................

The world has been a shite tip since the Industrial Revolution. Twenty quid on a flight will not clean it up.

Well I work in the car industry, drive a 4 x 4 and have to fly a lot with work Maybe I should be taken outside and shot!!!!!!

However I think the real answer is ignorance and scaremongering. Someone said to me th other day that the rain was proof of climate change 10 minutes after I read that actually it is an 'El Nina' effect whereby our weather patterns mirror those in the South Pacific and they have tracked this back over 150 years and there is a correlation (nobody was flying anywhere or driving 4x4's then).

Facts are the climate does change, I also think the facts are no-one knows for sure the reasons but it certainly gives scientists plenty to argue about and governments something to use as an excuse for controls and taxation.

I like a double gin with half tonic/ half bitter lemon mixed together. Our lass gets her double gin, with the rest of the tonic and bitter lemon mixed together. Very nice.

But Karl, isn't the possibility of present 'knowledge' turning out to be false the very motive for engaging with something?

I agree with mr nottingham about suspect scientists...the whole field is a morass. I don't see why it has to be though. Surely in the PhD student case, an experiment finding something isn't the case is just as important in its way as one that gets a positive result? in that it eliminates a hypothesis from the enquiry on the way to finding the truth? If science were funded differently by a proper state allocation, the aspect of truth finding, as opposed to getting a result, could come to the fore.
As for Snowy....of course you don't listen to average philosophers, you listen to good ones!

I never like Gin & Tonic for years, but I love it now. Don't drink it very often but I do find it nice and refreshing.

It was a rhetorical question!

I read a great quote once that's pertinent here. To paraphrase (as I can't remember the quote directly) it uses surgery as a metaphor and our inability to completely remove infections and germs from the site of surgery. It goes something like, 'just because we can't make surgery completely aseptic, that doesn't mean that we should conduct surgery in a sewer.'

In other words, just because scientists are fallible (as we all are) we shouldn't all presume that what we've got to say on a subject is just as relevant! That's not to say, however, that we should just accept uncritically the voice of experts.

Well, yes. But I think that any view a thinker or researcher wants other people to accept, has to be backed up with evidence that is placed in the public domain. The evidence can be inductive(scientific) or deductive (maths/philosophy) as the case might be. Non-specialists then have the right to assess the evidence.
What your scientist seems to be saying is that her research has been vetted by peers and therefore has some sort of special status thereby. Have I got it right?

so who can we trust to put such things into layman's terms?

Me.

Climate change is an unproven scientific theory that gets more than its fair share of media coverage due to scientists wanting to prove how clever they are by coming up with what is currently proving to be the elusive piece of compelling evidence.

That pretty much covers it in a nutshell.

Well, that's the problem. (replying to parmo)
Not that Naomi Oreskes, in Karl's quote, does sound dodgy in the least. I was just commenting on that one specific point that she made. I think it's a red herring for her to highlight what journalists do, because there's a real issue independently of journalists

the Earth has existed for many millions of years. Climate and weather has changed for all of that time, such that life evolved as we know it, and mankind has been here but for a second of its existence. Therefore it's probably safe to assume, even from the time records of weather and climate started to be kept, and with clever meteorological instrumentation available to us today, that in reality no f-u-**er can actually prove full stop what is happening one way or the other.

If the nutcase scare mongerers are to be believed there is no such thing as "just weather" anymore.

Everything is sensationalised in a pathetic attempt in trying to prove their own poor theories.

THe funniest is when they go on about, for example, "the wettest June since records began". Seeing as though "records began" only about a hundred years or so ago then it's not really that conclusive is it.

see above !!!

So are the so-called scientists and intellectuals.

None of them really have the first clue what is going on.

They just think that they can convince the masses by using fancy words and giving themselves dandy impressive titles.

But the evidence is not limited to "records". We can learn a great deal about past climate and climatic events through an examination of physical phenomena, such as ice cores.

Given the context of this thread, I can't really disagree with that!

More or less, although I wouldn't say that it's thereby a "special status". Peer review is an important function of the academic community and is an attempt to ensure rigorous standards in academic publication. The process involves a number of other academics reading your work (it's anonymous) and judging whether it's acceptable for publication. This does not mean that they have to agree with the conclusions, rather, the question for a reviewer is whether the piece of research is rigorous, of publishable quality, employs recognised methods etc. If a paper hasn't been through a process of independent review, I'd be more skeptical.

The important point, is that there is a dearth of peer reviewed articles questioning climate change. This is really important for two reasons. First, if these views are not being accepted as part of the peer review process, then it raises suspicions as to quality (although I accept it also raises issues in relation to the question, 'what counts as valid knowledge?'). Second, I have heard it said on here, that we should not trust scientists because they are simply self-interested and are therefore partial. There is probably an "element" of truth here, but the peer review process probably keeps the worst excesses in check. If you're a denier, and are therefore not publishing in peer reviewed journals, then who's making sure that your self-interest is not at the forefront of your work?

Not quite.

Scientists will TELL you that they can glean such information, but it is just their theory and is not proven.

you're my kinda guy wish I lived near your pub.......

See above on the contested nature of knowledge. If you really believe this, what's the point in anything?

To go off on a tangent, that reminds me of a quality "filum" quote from the Big Lobowski:

'you can say what you want about the tenets of National Socialism, at least if was an ideology'!

It also reminds me of the Bill Hicks line:

'What you reading for?'

Back to the point, if it's only a theory, why should I listen to your theory? Why's your opinion worthy of comment?

Whats not proven, that cores from the ice caps can tell us what was happening millenia ago? This is a pretty accepted methodology isnt it? Its similar to tree rings - they are an indication of the trees age and how quickily it grew - and very provable.

I dont quite understand your mistrust of scientist here John. Is it just linked to the media furaore around Climate Change or their findings in general?

Personally, after taking all the stuff ive read / heard into account, there is climate change occuring. Its magnitude and rate are up for debate but its here and we could addrress it by slowing things down and trying to work alongside nature rather than raping it sensless for chealper trainers and better TVs.

But I would say that - as an ex-academic, kinda sciency background and a commie tree hugger to boot!

Still - Duffy is a tw*t for not signing and I am definately in the Bring Back Boyd campaign.

YOU, and you knew exactly what you were doing!

This thread reminds me a little of the theory of an American criminologist; David Matza. He put forward the idea of 'techniques of neutralisation'. In essence, delinquents justify their behaviour to themselves and others through these techniques. i.e., it's all about a denial of responsibility and this can be achieved through a number of techniques. For instance, claiming that the victim 'had it coming' or that they could 'afford the losses' or that 'everyone's at it'. These are all ways of denying responsibility for action.

Perhaps you're all trying to convince yourself that your actions are not contributing to a social problem, or if they are, everyone else is at it. That way, you don't have to face up to the reality of your actions? [ducks for cover...]

Exactly.

As far as I'm concerned the only way to prove if the cores from the ice caps can tell us what was happening millenia ago is if somebody finds the weather records from that time to confirm it, or alternatively if somebody who was around at the time can explain to me in the pub what the weather was doing when he was younger.

Anything else is just assumption.

I note with interest that you've ignored my direct question. Come on Mr Ripper, why are your theories so special?

Ah, you mean fluent in the art of bullshit?

My theories are no more or no less special than anybody elses.

The reason that you should listen to my theory is that to not do so would be discriminatory and would not enable you to make a fully informed decision taking into account all possibilities and viewpoints on the issue.

You quote things as being "proven scientific fact", I think that is rubbish. It is only "proven" in line with assumptions.

For example, scientists tell us that there is no life on Mars. The reason that they do this is that their scientific instruments that they've sent there do not detect any life forms. However, if life forms were present that had not been encountered on Earth then the scientific instruments would not recognise them and they would remain unnoticed while all of Earth's scientists went round telling themselves how clever they were for "knowing" something which was really complete bolox.

So prove to me that there is no life on Mars.

I would just love to read some evidence which could back up that statement in any way, shape or form

This is a bit like the "if a tree falls in the forest..." conundrum isn't it.

If there's life on Mars but it has absolutely no interaction with humans then perhaps it is reasonable to call Mars a dead planet.
If scientists have found no concrete evidence of life as we know it on Mars then it seems to me that "there is no life on Mars" is a damned good approximation to the truth and will do for now.

Not necessarily true though is it.

There could be some deadly life form up there happily going about its business undetected by and unworried by the scientific instruments sent to look for it but ready to inflict great pain and suffering on any human who may in the future land on Mars.

The truth is you just don't know.

And it's the same with global warming, climate change and all that other kind of stuff too.

I honestly don't see how what you said contradicts what I said.

You were accepting an approximation of the truth as being ok.

I was questioning the accuracy of an approximation based upon an assumption and trying to show how that could be a dangerous, and at the very least an unreliable, stance to take.

The truth is that nobody knows for sure. Unfortunately though some folk are trying to claim that they do.

Sorry, everyone seems to be attacking you now for different reasons!
Your point about peer reviewing : you say it could be the case that peers agree about the logic and methodology etc of a paper, but not accept the conclusion? I'm not sure what that means. If the evidence is there, and everything is in order, how can the conclusion not be agreed with?
But in any case, it seems that to be peer-reviewed doesn't imply consensus? A paper could be peer-reviewed but still generally accepted to be wrong? That seems to undermine the status peer reviewing has
I would say that the criterion for me to accept something is true is that enough evidence has been produced for me to accept it and nothing significant contradicts it.

I happen to agree with you in one regard, just not where that takes us.

It's not a philosophical fancy to say that, for all I know, everything in the world is simply a figment of my imagination, and the only 'fact' I can be sure of, is that I exist. However, this doesn't mean that I should therefore sit at home all day wanking (however attractive that may seem ). To not engage with the world on the basis that my assumptions may prove to be false would be folly. We have to go on the best evidence we have available. Anything else is fiddling while Rome burns. Taking this back to the current debate, while we may be sceptical of scientific proofs, our best guess is that we are effecting climate change. Additionally, the precautionary principle suggests that the effects of this are so catastrophic, that we should act to alleviate the problem. This is not to claim that I'm right, it's simply a call to act on the best evidence we have available. Nihilism may appear attractive (primarily because it divorces responsibility from the subject) but it's akin to intellectual masturbation.

In short, I'm calling Ripper a wanker!

Everybody has at some time or another.

Even Queen Lizzie, the pope and academics will have fiddled with their own bits at some point or another.

The main contention that I have with your last point though is that it is not always folly not to act upon stuff that you're not 100% sure about. Sometimes intervening when not sure about the facts can instead make things worse rather than better.

I can only talk as an empirical researcher in the social sciences, but it is possible to disagree with the conclusions of a paper yet approve it for publication. For instance, when I write an article from empirical research, one of the questions the reviewer asks, is how did I produce my data. This is an important question for the purposes of the validity of the project. i.e., it addresses the question, is the data valid and reliable. However, academics may disagree as to the best use to put that data, and this will often be a conflict based upon different theoretical starting points. The question(s) for the reviewer is, 'does the argument stand up on it's own terms, is it sufficiently related to the data produced, how does it relate to current theory etc.'.

For instance, I recently examined a PhD thesis that largely consisted of empirical data. Had I wrote that thesis, it would have been very different. I would have focused upon the class dimensions in the data and concluded accordingly. The author instead took a gendered viewpoint. Within the bounds of her field, it was an excellent thesis, well argued and it made an important contribution to knowledge. It was publishable and interesting, just not what I would have done. My duty as an examiner was to pass the thesis - an easy duty given the quality of the work. Just because I would have said something different, did not mean that it didn't have value as an academic paper.

Again, to a point, I agree. But we can't consistently use the argument, I'm not sure, we don't have all the facts etc. It's even more dubious to do this if you are naturally sceptical as you wouldn't do anything. It would surely lead to social paralysis. Indeed, both acting and failing to act may have consequences so positively deciding to do nothing will lead to something happening. At some point, we have to grasp the nettle. For me, climate change is one of those issues where the credible evidence is now clear and the stakes so high that something needs to be done. And that something is not a trivial 20 quid on a flight. Besides, there are other non environmental reasons for adopting some of the measures that combat climate change.

As the guy said, you get to the point when doing philosophy, of just wanting to emit an inarticulate cry .

I still feel that Oreskes' claim (about peer reviewing) boils down to the fact that more people agree with her than don't.(para 2 of the article). I accept that her views are probably right but her argumant is circular

And that qualifies me as a bnp activist for what reason exactly?

This place is getting like the staff room in a Polyversity...

I see all the 'workers' have all gone home now!!

Is it getting colder on here .................
It must be the F**KIN WEATHER

That's what I said!!

See?? I AM as clever as he is!!

Someone else said it's more 'fookin Rivals Part Two...............'

And even then I'd be 10x more positive about things than you Chip

The school that was once upon a time AJ Dawson's Grammar school. Also known as Wellfield Comp!

P.S. I'm back at work!

peer reviews, climate change, scientific theories, gin and tonics, and calling people derisory names all in one thread.

That primordial soup has a lot to answer for....