Article about Americans disagreements with scientists findings

[AdamK47]

I loves me some science.

I'm not the type of person who pretends to know more than the people who study the stuff day to day for years and years know. I'm also not the type who reads into every study on the basis of it being represented for some ulterior motive. For those of you on here that do, thanks for the laughs.

 

[Paratus]

I

Additional CO2 does help flora so that seems to me to be an effect on environment. I am unsure where you think I said anywhere there are no negative effects. Every change has positive and negative effects.

I could get peer reviewed papers but am not sure you are actually interested in such. Rather, just the hyperbole and your narrow point of view.

I won't waste anymore time doing research for you. I never say anything I cannot back up with data. Try it some day.

One example below. I am sure there are more as well as others that may disagree on some points presented. It is called science.

http://www.nature.com/scitable/know...atmospheric-concentrations-of-carbon-13254108

After you decided not to provide a link I went and looked it up for myself. I picked the article you finally did link.

So what the article points out is that certain plants show accelerated growth from higher CO2 levels, agreeing with what you said.

What wasn't originally in your post was that the plants that do have accelerated growth also use less water. Another potential bonus.

The lack of water also has some down sides. The plants no longer provide as many nutrients and the amount of protein significantly reduces. The article says this will increase the amount of plant matter an animal will require

Drainage will significantly change due to more run off since the plants will be holding less water.

Other plants that use a different photosynthesis pathway do not show a significant increase in growth from more CO2. Also some plants that show better growth in a high CO2 don't in the precences of other plants, possibly due to increased competition.


So saying that another 50% or 100% in CO2 increase will improve agriculture is not fundamentally supported by your link. It's at best a mixed bag. And due to the environmental changes due high CO2 not worth it for a marginal improvement in some plant growth. Especially when our crops grow just fine where we are at now.

 

[sandorski]

Too many people hold to ancient dogmatism, denying the evidence in front of their face. Also, too many people simply don't understand that Science is not about Majority Support, they think it's more Politics than the preponderance of Evidence.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I



After you decided not to provide a link I went and looked it up for myself. I picked the article you finally did link.

So what the article points out is that certain plants show accelerated growth from higher CO2 levels, agreeing with what you said.

What wasn't originally in your post was that the plants that do have accelerated growth also use less water. Another potential bonus.

The lack of water also has some down sides. The plants no longer provide as many nutrients and the amount of protein significantly reduces. The article says this will increase the amount of plant matter an animal will require

Drainage will significantly change due to more run off since the plants will be holding less water.

Other plants that use a different photosynthesis pathway do not show a significant increase in growth from more CO2. Also some plants that show better growth in a high CO2 don't in the precences of other plants, possibly due to increased competition.


So saying that another 50% or 100% in CO2 increase will improve agriculture is not fundamentally supported by your link. It's at best a mixed bag. And due to the environmental changes due high CO2 not worth it for a marginal improvement in some plant growth. Especially when our crops grow just fine where we are at now.

Ecosystem, ecosystem, ecosystem and thermodynamics.

Plants which most effectively use energy and resources will outpopulate others. They win. Crops are not the most efficient plants compared to "weeds" and so when given more resources I'd find it hard to argue that the relative advantage of unwanted species would be taken advantage of. What was gained would now be offset by the increase of work needed for a given crop. Then we have an unknown increase in degradation of soil planetwide and probably an increased rate of plant disease. Playing with planetary ecology is like trying to prop up a house of cards with a firehose.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Too many people hold to ancient dogmatism, denying the evidence in front of their face. Also, too many people simply don't understand that Science is not about Majority Support, they think it's more Politics than the preponderance of Evidence.

Sometimes science is about the preponderance of the opinions of scientists and that becomes "science". Modern dogmatism making false claims about real truths. Don't look behind the curtain too closely.

 

[lxskllr]

So saying that another 50% or 100% in CO2 increase will improve agriculture is not fundamentally supported by your link. It's at best a mixed bag. And due to the environmental changes due high CO2 not worth it for a marginal improvement in some plant growth. Especially when our crops grow just fine where we are at now.

Poison ivy apparently loves CO2, and I bet other vines do also. The past few years I've been marveling over the vine growth in the area, and heard kind of recently poison ivy does well with higher CO2. It all clicked.

Fuck poison ivy, and fuck vines in general. They're a huge pain in my ass, and make my life significantly worse.

 

[Paratus]

Poison ivy apparently loves CO2, and I bet other vines do also. The past few years I've been marveling over the vine growth in the area, and heard kind of recently poison ivy does well with higher CO2. It all clicked.

Fuck poison ivy, and fuck vines in general. They're a huge pain in my ass, and make my life significantly worse.

Hmm I didn't know poison ivy really likes CO2.

We found some growing our backyard last year. I had to fight it for 4 months to finally kill it all, (hopefully).

Fuck poison ivy.

 

[marvdmartian]

Link

I'm less surprised by the low percentages of the general population that agree with some of the statements, but rather the low percentage of scientist that disagree. For scientists, how did 2% of them not agree that humans evolved over time?

What about the "4 out of 5 dentists agree" thing? What's up with that 5th dentist, and why are they holding out, when the other 4 are agreeing? :hmm:

You do realize it's called a THEORY for a reason, right? As in, the theory of evolution, the theory of relativity, etc?? Even though Einstein's theories regarding relativity are pretty well accepted by everyone, the truth of the matter is that scientists agree with the theory, only because they have yet to be able to disprove it.

But even though they're all going along with Einstein's work, there are still, decades later, scientists who labor to discover whether his theory of relativity can be disproved. WHY ON EARTH WOULD THEY DO THIS?? Aren't they in agreement??

Bunch of damn radicals!

Same with any scientific theory. You're going to have some who will question parts of it, and decide that they don't add up. Doesn't make them wrong, doesn't make the other guys wrong. But how foolish would it be, if every time some scientist(s) came up with a new theory that seemed pretty bullet proof, all the rest of them just shrugged, and said, "Well, I guess that's settled! On to the next big thing!", and never questioned the work?

Just because the majority agree with the work, doesn't make it FACT.

 

[sandorski]

What about the "4 out of 5 dentists agree" thing? What's up with that 5th dentist, and why are they holding out, when the other 4 are agreeing? :hmm:

You do realize it's called a THEORY for a reason, right? As in, the theory of evolution, the theory of relativity, etc?? Even though Einstein's theories regarding relativity are pretty well accepted by everyone, the truth of the matter is that scientists agree with the theory, only because they have yet to be able to disprove it.

But even though they're all going along with Einstein's work, there are still, decades later, scientists who labor to discover whether his theory of relativity can be disproved. WHY ON EARTH WOULD THEY DO THIS?? Aren't they in agreement??

Bunch of damn radicals!

Same with any scientific theory. You're going to have some who will question parts of it, and decide that they don't add up. Doesn't make them wrong, doesn't make the other guys wrong. But how foolish would it be, if every time some scientist(s) came up with a new theory that seemed pretty bullet proof, all the rest of them just shrugged, and said, "Well, I guess that's settled! On to the next big thing!", and never questioned the work?

Just because the majority agree with the work, doesn't make it FACT.

If a theory has not been disproven, it is as close to Fact as there is. IOW, it is a Fact for all intents and purposes until proven to be incorrect.

 

[Ruptga]

If a theory has not been disproven after several years (or decades, depending) of trying to disprove it, it is as close to Fact as there is. IOW, it is a Fact for all intents and purposes until proven to be incorrect.

ftfy

And I'm not entirely sure I understand what Marv was saying, but I think I agree. 2% of scientists may say they disagree for any number of reasons. They may not like the wording of the statement, they may think the whole argument is stupid, they may not have looked into the subject enough that they feel confident in taking a position, or they may be working on a theory that modifies this or that part of the current theory. Whatever the reason, unanimity isn't required for consensus, and isn't necessary for progress. Absolute unanimity can also hinder progress, since it may stifle creativity. Granted, some things (like the speed of light or some facts of biology) don't leave much or any room for creativity, but that's more the exception than the rule.

 

[WelshBloke]

Sometimes science is about the preponderance of the opinions of scientists and that becomes "science". Modern dogmatism making false claims about real truths. Don't look behind the curtain too closely.

No. That would be politics.

Science is science. It really doesn't give a shit if you're an idiot or not.

 

[sandorski]

ftfy

And I'm not entirely sure I understand what Marv was saying, but I think I agree. 2% of scientists may say they disagree for any number of reasons. They may not like the wording of the statement, they may think the whole argument is stupid, they may not have looked into the subject enough that they feel confident in taking a position, or they may be working on a theory that modifies this or that part of the current theory. Whatever the reason, unanimity isn't required for consensus, and isn't necessary for progress. Absolute unanimity can also hinder progress, since it may stifle creativity. Granted, some things (like the speed of light or some facts of biology) don't leave much or any room for creativity, but that's more the exception than the rule.

Agreed. However, it is rather rare that the minority is correct, even when an accepted theory gets disproven, in whole or in part, much of the original dissent may be incorrect as well.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Just because the majority agree with the work, doesn't make it FACT.

Scientific theories don't "graduate" to become facts once they are "proven." The theories of relativity, quantum mechanics, evolution, the kinetic theory of gases, the germ theory of disease... all of these will always be theories. That's because in real science "theory" doesn't mean "guess," they way a layperson like yourself imagines it to mean. Rather, it means "explanatory framework."

"Theory" is a term that aggregates a collection of interrelated facts. If you were a musician, you might understand the term "music theory." Nobody thinks that music is "unproven" and might eventually become "music fact" after enough "proof." In the same way, scientific theories aggregate the interrelated facts about the phenomena they model.

Evolution is a fact. It happens. The theory of evolution describes how it happens, and the interesting meta-phenomena that emerge from its process like genetic drift, and the nested hierarchy.

Please, I entreat you to educate yourself on this distinction and cease to misuse the term "theory" as it relates to science.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

No. That would be politics.

Science is science. It really doesn't give a shit if you're an idiot or not.

Science is nothing. Science is a way to examine that which can be known, but if a scientist says something then unless you know better you are not qualified to make judgements on some things. If the findings are incorrect or misrepresented then others will say "Americans disagree with science" because they only know what they are told. Whether it's "pure" does not matter but perception is important.

 

[WelshBloke]

Science is nothing.

Um...

Yeah...

I'm probably missing something here but there's no way I'm going further into that post without an explanation of that.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Um...

Yeah...

I'm probably missing something here but there's no way I'm going further into that post without an explanation of that.

What matters is understanding and perception. Science is a hammer. It is a screwdriver. It has no more inherent meaning. It is a human construct which is subject to misunderstanding. The reverence shown to it is absurd, like attributing a meaning to evolution. It's useful, but the human mind does not have direct access to reality. It does not understand data all the time and what it means.

"Science" said that eggs were bad for you. It said the continents were fixed. Well it didn't, but that's what people believed it did. Now you might argue that this doesn't touch the sacred cow, but that's completely wrong, because science allows an interpretation, but people are not always right. When that happens like with dietary cholesterol there can be real harm. There was no disinformation campaign. There was no politics. It was a case of believing something which was not true, and if someone says something against it the community you can be ostracised and ruined. So science is still pure? So what? Here's some science for you. There is a substance which is composed of potassium, carbon and nitrogen. Three elements. Science! So take some. Why not? Because potassium cyanide will kill you. The effects, the understanding of what things mean is what is important. How things are understood is important. How to use a hammer and a screwdriver is important. By themselves with no purpose they are nothing.

 

[WelshBloke]

...

Yeah.

I think that you're ascribing something to science that science isn't.

Science is a means not an ends.

 

[Paratus]

What matters is understanding and perception. Science is a hammer. It is a screwdriver. It has no more inherent meaning. It is a human construct which is subject to misunderstanding. The reverence shown to it is absurd, like attributing a meaning to evolution. It's useful, but the human mind does not have direct access to reality. It does not understand data all the time and what it means.

"Science" said that eggs were bad for you. It said the continents were fixed. Well it didn't, but that's what people believed it did. Now you might argue that this doesn't touch the sacred cow, but that's completely wrong, because science allows an interpretation, but people are not always right. When that happens like with dietary cholesterol there can be real harm. There was no disinformation campaign. There was no politics. It was a case of believing something which was not true, and if someone says something against it the community you can be ostracised and ruined. So science is still pure? So what? Here's some science for you. There is a substance which is composed of potassium, carbon and nitrogen. Three elements. Science! So take some. Why not? Because potassium cyanide will kill you. The effects, the understanding of what things mean is what is important. How things are understood is important. How to use a hammer and a screwdriver is important. By themselves with no purpose they are nothing.

Science also said the continents move and that dietary cholesterol can be fine.
It is the best process we have found for not bullshitting ourselves about the world around us, when performed correctly.

When it's not perfomed correctly or even when it is, it can still provide incorrect answers. But by following the process it ends up self improving and self correcting and most importantly, useful.

As for the OP, if you disagree with well founded and supported mainstream scientific theories, there's only 3 reasons:

• You are ignorant of the science either through your own lack of knowledge or outside manipulation (think media)
• You have an ulterior motive to disagree with the science, (Dr paid by cigarette companies)
• You are doing novel research

For people in this thread its 1 or 2.

 

[Ruptga]

It seems like we could sidestep some pedantic arguments if we simply referred to "scientific consensus" instead of just "science". I just saved someone about five paragraphs. You're welcome.

 

[Paratus]

It seems like we could sidestep some pedantic arguments if we simply referred to "scientific consensus" instead of just "science". I just saved someone about five paragraphs. You're welcome.

I like the cut of your jib. :biggrin:

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Science also said the continents move and that dietary cholesterol can be fine.
It is the best process we have found for not bullshitting ourselves about the world around us, when performed correctly.

This is true, however Ruptga has it pretty well nailed down. What people ought to be reasonably skeptical of is scientific consensus, but what the method of science provides is not what the American public is being derided for. It's their acceptance of consensus. The utility of science it that it can be used to correct misunderstandings as well as a method of discovery. What I often see if that the human element is disregarded in the equation. Look up quasicrystals. They are "impossible" and it was only through determination in the face of alienation which led to a Nobel being given out for their discovery. "Science" said they were impossible. Determination changed that view, not some concept of purity of scientific essence. That's is what some are suspect of, and it is occasionally justified. Global warming is a tricky thing. There is pressure for acceptance within the scientific community, and it may be correct in it's assumptions, however what I am uncomfortable with is the "conform or be cast out" mentality of people at large who have an opinion one way or the other. If I were to say I'm skeptical of global warming I'd hear all about the "science" which of course said "quasicrystals are impossible". That's the root of my prior statement that perception is what is important. The hammer is useless when the holder tries to saw a board in two. The proper interpretation of correct data is more important than raw data itself. Defending science is useless if that isn't done.

 

[Jaskalas]

Science also said the continents move and that dietary cholesterol can be fine.
It is the best process we have found for not bullshitting ourselves about the world around us, when performed correctly.

When it's not perfomed correctly or even when it is, it can still provide incorrect answers. But by following the process it ends up self improving and self correcting and most importantly, useful.

Unless we let political activists declare the science settled.

 

[Paratus]

This is true, however Ruptga has it pretty well nailed down. What people ought to be reasonably skeptical of is scientific consensus, but what the method of science provides is not what the American public is being derided for. It's their acceptance of consensus. The utility of science it that it can be used to correct misunderstandings as well as a method of discovery. What I often see if that the human element is disregarded in the equation. Look up quasicrystals. They are "impossible" and it was only through determination in the face of alienation which led to a Nobel being given out for their discovery. "Science" said they were impossible. Determination changed that view, not some concept of purity of scientific essence. That's is what some are suspect of, and it is occasionally justified. Global warming is a tricky thing. There is pressure for acceptance within the scientific community, and it may be correct in it's assumptions, however what I am uncomfortable with is the "conform or be cast out" mentality of people at large who have an opinion one way or the other. If I were to say I'm skeptical of global warming I'd hear all about the "science" which of course said "quasicrystals are impossible". That's the root of my prior statement that perception is what is important. The hammer is useless when the holder tries to saw a board in two. The proper interpretation of correct data is more important than raw data itself. Defending science is useless if that isn't done.

So as I said one reason for disagreeing with scientific consensus is because of performing novel research. Quasicrystals are an example of such. The process also worked, because when presented with facts, theories and experimental evidence these quasicrystal were then accepted by the community. The scientific community conformed to the newly supported theory.

You present it as a failure, but in reality it's more proof of the scientific process's self-correcting nature. It provides the framework for acceptance of new information by the bulk of the community. People are human, scientists included. Some may still cling to outdated theories even in the face of evidence, but the bulk of the community will always accept new theories once properly supported.

The scientific method minimizes the effects of human behavior in accepting new information on the scientific community as a whole.

As for global warming. I am skeptical of those who claim to be skeptical of the scientific consensus. There is no one on this board doing novel research so no way for anyone to present enough evidence to overturn the consensus. Fringe scientists going on Fox News, or dropping Op-Eds in the Wall Street Journal does not rise to the level of evidence either. Especially when the fundamental theory behind man-made global warming lies in, thermodynamics, heat-mass transfer, and chemistry.

Anyone who wants to overthrow the consensus on global warming would have to overthrow one of those theories we use everyday. But you know what, if they followed scientific method and had the extraordinary evidence, I'd accept it.

 

[Paratus]

Unless we let political activists declare the science settled.

Be specific. Which part of the consensus do you feel isn't settled?

 

[Jaskalas]

Be specific. Which part of the consensus do you feel isn't settled?

We've addressed this before, and I will again in P&N.

But maybe you should remember it was you who correctly generalized:

When it's not perfomed correctly or even when it is, it can still provide incorrect answers. But by following the process it ends up self improving and self correcting and most importantly, useful.

Science is made by skeptics who challenge the status quo.