A Thought for the Week  

Offered by David Apollo

Science.

ConserveLiberty tends to stay rather abstract in its postings. That is because, for the most part, its concepts are rather timeless. We don't want to confuse the importance of the abstract principles discussed with "issues of the moment."

On the other hand, by sticking to the abstract, legitimate criticism can be voiced whether or not ConserveLiberty has anything to say of practical importance. Or, is this simply some sort of effort meant for those who get their amusement considering philosophical topics?

Everything ConserveLiberty offers for you to consider has 100% practical importance. Every time.

So, how do we come up with a practical Thought for the Week for Science? Easy! Ask yourself, "What is the one thing (if it was a sentient person rather than a Method or Discipline) that Science would abhor the most?"

Let me answer that for you.

Bullshit.

Obvious, of course. Science, among other things, is most often concerned with identifying bullshit, whether intentional or not, and clarifying (using actual facts and a more robust rational understanding) what a previous "teaching" was endeavoring to explain.

Skip to the video

[A later revision to this posting will include a discussion   →   here   ←   of what Science really is. Actually. Factually.]

Jargon terms such as "science" have earned a positive reputation by those who have successfully advanced technology, medicine, agriculture, transportation, etc., as a result of efforts as based on scientific methodologies, which among other things rely on facts, rational logic, and proof as best as can be determined. And, among other things, Proof of Truth relies on skepticism.

Since the term "science" has acquired a positive brand, that term has also become used by those who want to convince others that what they are saying is true, but wish to avoid the extensive effort necessary to prove that what they are saying is actually true.

"Terminology hijacking" is a marketing shortcut that is taken quite often, and works well with the term "science" when the target audience is not one trained as scientists. They are an "easy mark". In fact, non-scientists will often believe nearly anything one says is true if it can be associated in some way with the jargon term "science", and if it is packaged conceptually within a narrative many would support.

Many are easy to Bullshit.

How can one tell when the assertion of "scientific credibility" is bullshit? Well, that often is quite simple. If you are an actual scientist, it is really simple. If you are not, and realize you are not, but would like an easy tell, try the following ... Does the person using the term "science":

• assert that if it has to do with numbers, or the analysis of something factual, then it is certainly science?
• assert that if most believe a thing is true, especially if many of those people are considered relevant experts, then it must be true?
• refer to skepticism negatively, equating it with pessimism, lack of creative thinking, unease with change?
• focus more on the bias or perceived intention of a narrative as important rather than the factual content of the narrative?

True scientists, who understand and embrace scientific methodology, never assert or embrace the positions above. Rather, they embrace intersubjective verifiability.

Any examples currently at the time of this writing? Definitely, but we will pick just one example today ...

Anthropogenic Climate Change

You might insist, "Look, I don't have time to investigate all sorts of assertions by all sorts of people in order to figure out which ones are truthful or not. And, I support doing what we can do to improve and insure a healthy environment. Is there any way that I could more easily discern whether or not something like this is Bullshit?"

Well, in this case, yes there is. If you have a healthy Bullshit Detector, you won't need these suggestions. If you need a "brushup", consider the following:

• Firstly, the assertion of "Man-made (anthropogenic) climate change" was labeled as "man-made global warming."
• Then, "man-made global warming" was simply referred to as "global warming."
• Then, "global warming" was referred to as "climate change." If you were noticing, the term was changed to "climate change" after several years of global warming not occurring despite confidently asserted predictions.
• Initially, the assertion of global warming (and then climate change) was blamed primarily on rising global CO₂ levels in the atmosphere. Specifically, rising CO₂ produced from human activities. Later, additional products, all resulting from human activities, were cited for significant blame. If you were noticing, the additional blame was added after rising CO₂ levels were not seen to correlate predictably with the rise of global temperatures (or the lack thereof).
• There were also significant restrictions both on data sharing between interested groups and the sharing of the specific assumptions used to produce the algorithms said to predict the climate changes.
• Then there were the leaks of emails from the prominent groups advancing the "global warming" predictions that both clearly advocated the exclusion of those who did not agree with them from access to their data, as well as clearly detailing the extensive "fudging" of data that was being used to generate the graphs being shown to the public.
• For the sake of brevity, we will stop here. There has been extensive additional evidence of dishonesty, bullshit, and the intention to confiscate various resources (otherwise known as theft, but never discussed as such by those advocating the confiscations (e.g. taxes, grants, property seizure, etc.)) Easy to find for those seriously wanting to find it.

Basically, the take home message is that there is no tolerance within the realm of scientific methodology for "fudging" data to "support desired conclusions", or to prevent the ability of interested parties from duplicating and confirming results. Science avoids non-definitive language, and instead promotes specific language. For example, the term "climate change" is not informative, and actually can be inferred to mean essentially anything. Similarly, a term such as "man-made global warming" is not specifically informative either. What portion of global warming is NOT "man made"? How does one know that?

"OK, fine," you might say. "Then give me some easy to understand info, not too long or too much, that can make the case for what's going on. Based on facts, but I don't want to get down into the gory and obscure details. And, not only regarding the bullshit, but why we are seeing all this warming and cooling in the first place."

Glad to help.

The wonderful and factual video nearby illustrates what is actually known about the history of Climate and how the effort to engage in legitimate research-driven Climate Science has been usurped by those engaged in convincing us that Climate is changing mainly due to man-made activities.

Are we able to predict today the specific amount of global temperature change that occurs when CO₂ changes occur by a specific amount?

Spoiler alert. The answer is "No." Yes, predictions can be made. After all, who can't make a prediction? Yet, more than a hundred algorithms exist. None are accurate. Not even significantly close. Which is equivalent to saying, "not even significantly True."

---

There are additional vids that you may wish to check out if you are interested in a bit more data, and in presentations which are not so much bias oriented but are much more data and fact oriented. If so, here they are:

Nearby, a debate. Simply listen for the facts. Can you discern which statements are statements of fact? Including the title of the video?

Click here for the commentary, "The Fanatical Prophet of Climate-Change Doom".

And finally, nearby, a scientific meeting. Nobel Laureate Smashes the Global Warming Hoax. More fact after fact after fact.

Why has ConserveLiberty offered this Thought for the Week? Are we trying to convince you of something? Not at all actually. Readers of the material on this site know by now that CL has no agenda other than to advocate for the conservation of the liberty to be what you are. Whether you are a subatomic particle, a black hole, a living organism on a rather insignificant planet found in a very large galaxy, or anything else that is Real. Rather, our role is simply to put facts in front of you, perhaps with a creative perspective. It is up to you to decide what you will believe. Or, not.

Check it out. Think.

And remember, ConserveLiberty

Thus endeth the Thought for the Week!!!

---

---

  Check out other Weekly Thought posts  

---