Saturday, October 9, 2010

"The Science is Settled"

Anthony Watts over at Watts Up With That writes about "Climatism". It's an excellent piece, but what really caught my attention was this by:

(Commenter) Mark says:

I’ve learned to hate the word science. “We were trying to perform science with this mission. The science we learned from the probe crashing into the planet, will advance science.”
Science (from the Latin scientia, meaning “knowledge”)”

During the Plague era, the science was settled. Before the invention of the microscope, the science was settled. Many people became sick because of bad air (“malaria”). The science was settled. Milk maids never became sick from small pox, because the science was settled.

Water was safe to drink, even though no one ever drank it, because the science was settled. Immunology never existed because the science was settled.

The science (knowledge) was never settled.
It was always questioned.

I hate science now, because it is never questioned. It is a fact. Just like the fact the the earth is the center of the universe. I hate science now because it has turned into “I am a scientist, and you’re not. Phhhtttt.” Unfortunately, I can imagine a world where Dr. Shinobu Ihsihara never discovered color vision deficiency. After all, the science was settled.

When everything is known, what is the reason to explore, to expand the boundaries of science? To doubt, and try to prove why you are right?

Science has never been about consensus. It has never been about performing the same experiment to the letter, as published in a journal. It is about results, and falsification.

Science proves nothing, but it disproves much.
Science. No pressure.

This might be the best articulation of how we skeptics feel about not only (alleged) AGW, but "Scientific Research" as well. Is anyone on the planet not aware of Breast Cancer with it in our face all the time? Does anyone else consider the possibility that research for cures to this disease, that disease or the other disease may be nothing more than a "jobs program"? Has science become politicized to the point where researchers will find what the provider of the grant wants?

Many will say that industry-funded research is tainted by definition. But I argue that government-funded research is almost certainly tainted by the political vision of whatever administration or bureaucracy is providing funding.

But that's just me.

No comments: