It surprises me how often people who are not scientists seem
to view science as something apart, an area of human knowledge they are not
competent to judge. Yet we show much less restraint with the
humanities, being happy to wade in and spray our opinions around whatever our
level of expertise. At least I am.
Certainly there is an enormous
body of factual information and theory in science and that is certainly a barrier
to entry. However, we are not necessarily concerned with barriers to entry.
For example, it is often easy enough for anyone to judge scientific work
if consequences are part of the public domain. Solar eclipses and the health
consequences of smoking for example. Scientific veracity becomes a matter of public
record, part of our social history.
A scientific theory
not only rests on certain historical facts and is verified or disproved by
certain other historical facts; it is itself an historical fact, namely, the
fact that someone has propounded or accepted verified or disproved, that
theory.
R G Collingwood - The Idea of Nature (1945)
If you ever come across Collingwood’s slim volume in a
bookshop it is worth a browse. He takes the reader through an interesting tour of human ideas about the natural
world beginning with Greek cosmology.
To my mind Collingwood makes a good point about the historical nature of science. Once scientists
enter the public domain via their predictions, offering health advice,
supporting official policy and so on, then the general public may judge their claims on the historical
record. Whether the claims are right or wrong may be indeterminate, but that too
becomes part of the historical record.
So today, when the Royal Society claims certain climate events will occur by 2090, then from Collingwood’s perspective the claim is not
necessarily scientific. It depends on the history of similar predictions, on what the historical record says about their success or failure.
Has the Royal Society made similar long-term climate predictions which proved prescient? Obviously not, the RS has no track record whatever in this area. Neither has anyone else. So from Collingwood's perspective the Royal Society isn't being scientific, but something else.
Nobody needs a scientific background to see it.
5 comments:
Interesting that the prediction is about 2090, when most of us who are currently able to understand it will be long dead. Presumably, if a trend is discerned, then they would be able to make a falsifiable prediction for (say) 2024. This shouldn't be too difficult. Admittedly, the trends will not be as advanced; but on the other hand, there will be fewer unknown emergent variables to complicate matters.
"We reckon the following things will happen by 2014. If they don't, then you'll hear no more from us at the RS on this particular topic".
What have ANY predictions of the future to do with science?
Strictly, science can only examine and test the present not the past or the future.
The definition of ‘science’ has haunted philosophers of science in the 20th century. The approach of Bacon, who is considered the founder of the scientific method, was pretty straightforward:
observation → induction → hypothesis → test hypothesis by experiment → proof/disproof → knowledge.
Modern scientists seem more and to be in the prediction stakes, especially the 'warmists' pseudo scientists.
How do they know that "in future we must expect more extreme weather patterns.. hurricanes, floods" & etc.
Their crystal ball gazing is so no better than anyone else's - except that they have the arrogance to make their solemn predictions in the name of science.
Bah, humbug!
It also depends on agenda and that's political history.
According to stuff I recall from the late 1940's we were all supposed to be flitting about in our own flying devices and living and eating totally detached from nature and its inconveniences.
Sam - I don't think the RS is interested in falsifiable predictions. However there may be some interest in shifting the focus to weather where there is more scope for obfuscation.
Graham - bah humbug indeed. When predictions are located beyond retirement age then one is entitled to be suspicious. When located beyond the grave...
James - yes it's just an agenda. Those who pay the piper.
Demetrius - I think the RS is totally detached from nature already. It's a state of mind, but we were never told that.
Post a Comment