On 13 Nov 2013, at 17:43, meekerdb wrote:
On 11/13/2013 12:59 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 12 Nov 2013, at 22:10, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
As human beings they were reluctant to provide hard earned data to
those who had proved to mere critics - like you - with no interest
but to spread doubt.
Can ever have been a more clear confession of sectarianism ? Doubt
about what? about what yours affirm that is truth and must be
taken as face value? Is that the new conception of "science" and
the one that Popper et al teach to me is ourdated?
Global warning cannot be a question of science.
?? We only know it exists because of science.
Sorry, I was talking about the link between human's activity and
global warming. But even the "truth" of it can't be science, and you
should say "we *believe* it exists because that is the way we
interpret the data".
It is a question of mondial/global politics, and in this case I
believe that even few evidence for some something irreversible and
possibly fatal for a planet should be avoided when possible.
That's why science is of no direct use in politics. Science is
doubt, and politics is decision. I use that argument to defend an
ecological and economical precaution principle valid in global
planetary decision which might be irreversible and possibly lethal,
but also for positive decision like investing on asteroids and the
means to deviate them.
When science is directly used in politics, it becomes pseudo-
We *have to* take care of the planet, simply. It is not a question
of surviving, but of quality of life.
(That's why also "global warming" is way out of topics ...: it is a
matter of voting and politicians). As you said (I think) science
must be separated from politics (in the two senses).
But both global warming and asteroid strikes are something we know
about only through science. You seems to imply that science should
not inform political action? Then how else can political action be
I am not saying that political action should not be informed by
science, quite the contrary, but science can only offer beliefs and
degree of plausibility, and we know not much, and must act in absence
of any certainty in the matter. In this case, what I say, is that
politicians, by lying systematically for a long period on important
domains (health/drug, now terror, etc.) seems to misuse science, and
often use "pseudo-science" to develop fear selling technics, and
control what people can think, disallowing the natural competition
between possible products.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.