Once it is understood what science is in its simplest
definition, it is hard to understand why anyone would not embrace the premise
of science or the scientific method. On one
hand there is science, defined by Webster’s as knowledge about or study of the
natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observation. And on the other hand, what is there? I guess that might be best defined as a WAG
(wild ass guess). Unfortunately, I fear that science is an
afterthought to most people and it takes a back seat in our educational system
in the US.
There are several recent high profile examples in the news lately where science is being challenged, including challenges to evolution, vaccinations and climate change. So what of these recent challenges to “established” science? On one hand, they are good. Challenging established scientific “facts” is a critical part of the scientific method. The theory of evolution still has gaps. The more we study those gaps, the greater our body of knowledge becomes and the better the science becomes. When we stop challenging science, good science becomes bad science. On the other hand, challenges to established science become problematic when we start to think of alternative theories as facts. For example, there is no established scientific evidence that vaccinations cause autism. Further study of this subject is deserved. However, rejecting the current science related to vaccinations has real world consequences, namely the spread of infectious diseases. I have no problem with someone that challenges the science of evolution. No true scientist should fear challenges to well established scientific theories. However, teaching children Creationism as if it were science clouds their true understanding of science. There is not one shred of scientific evidence that suggests, as Creationism teaches, humans were created in a single day.
There are several recent high profile examples in the news lately where science is being challenged, including challenges to evolution, vaccinations and climate change. So what of these recent challenges to “established” science? On one hand, they are good. Challenging established scientific “facts” is a critical part of the scientific method. The theory of evolution still has gaps. The more we study those gaps, the greater our body of knowledge becomes and the better the science becomes. When we stop challenging science, good science becomes bad science. On the other hand, challenges to established science become problematic when we start to think of alternative theories as facts. For example, there is no established scientific evidence that vaccinations cause autism. Further study of this subject is deserved. However, rejecting the current science related to vaccinations has real world consequences, namely the spread of infectious diseases. I have no problem with someone that challenges the science of evolution. No true scientist should fear challenges to well established scientific theories. However, teaching children Creationism as if it were science clouds their true understanding of science. There is not one shred of scientific evidence that suggests, as Creationism teaches, humans were created in a single day.
Which brings me to climate change. A scientific topic that has become quite
politicized; a precarious position for any area of scientific study to be. Politics has surely led to the misunderstanding of science on both sides of the debate. On
the climate change “denier” side, there is a dismissal of volumes of scientific papers and
imperial evidence. Much of the science
related to climate change is well established.
Carbon dioxide and methane are greenhouse gasses. They absorb radiation that would escape the
earth and re-radiate it, in part, back to the earth. The percentage that those gasses that make up
of our atmosphere appears to be increasing.
Human activity is very likely to be the main reason for this increase (no,
volcanoes do not put more CO2 into the atmosphere than humans). Global temperatures have been trending upward
since the industrial revolution.
However, there is also a lack of understanding of science on
the other end of the debate. Often cited
on this side of the debate is the fact that 97 percent or more of actively publishing
climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are
very likely due to human activities.
This information is often used to label their opponents as science
“deniers.” It has been said that the
scientific debate is over and the time for action has begun. While 97% is certainly a large majority, it
is not unanimous. Science is rarely
unanimous and, as they say, there are lies, damn lies, and statistics.
We should ask, what is the really critical scientific “fact” to establish in this debate from a political perspective? Is it what has occurred in the past, what present conditions are, or what will occur in the future? Indeed, that vast majority of humanity has not yet been affected by climate change in their past or current lives. At least not affected nearly as much as they would be by large increases in transportation and electricity prices that would result from the elimination of use of fossil fuels.
So the political debate should really come down to assessing what future conditions will be. If we continue down our current path, will climate change cause ocean levels rise 30 feet in the next 100 years and cause widespread famine, or will things stay relatively the same as they are now? I am not a climate scientist and I certainly do not have the answer to this question. However, I’m sure that 97% of climate scientists do not have the answer to this very difficult question either. We should be promoting a sustainable energy future for a number of reasons. However, banning or severely restricting the use of fossil fuels could have disastrous economic consequences for millions of people. A balance needs to be found. In the meantime, we need to do a better job teaching science and the scientific method to our children to prevent pseudo-sciences that lead to WAGs and poor policy decisions.
Addendum: Here is a good article about the inability to reproduce scientific results in the "soft" sciences. Further evidence that scientific debate is never over on most subjects.
We should ask, what is the really critical scientific “fact” to establish in this debate from a political perspective? Is it what has occurred in the past, what present conditions are, or what will occur in the future? Indeed, that vast majority of humanity has not yet been affected by climate change in their past or current lives. At least not affected nearly as much as they would be by large increases in transportation and electricity prices that would result from the elimination of use of fossil fuels.
So the political debate should really come down to assessing what future conditions will be. If we continue down our current path, will climate change cause ocean levels rise 30 feet in the next 100 years and cause widespread famine, or will things stay relatively the same as they are now? I am not a climate scientist and I certainly do not have the answer to this question. However, I’m sure that 97% of climate scientists do not have the answer to this very difficult question either. We should be promoting a sustainable energy future for a number of reasons. However, banning or severely restricting the use of fossil fuels could have disastrous economic consequences for millions of people. A balance needs to be found. In the meantime, we need to do a better job teaching science and the scientific method to our children to prevent pseudo-sciences that lead to WAGs and poor policy decisions.
Addendum: Here is a good article about the inability to reproduce scientific results in the "soft" sciences. Further evidence that scientific debate is never over on most subjects.
