Use and Abuse of Science, Revisited

I have been rethinking my previous post “Use and Abuse of Science” in terms of my more recent post “We Are Losing the War of Words”. I find that I missed the main point in the ‘Abuse” post. Here’s how.

There are several different meanings of the word “science” in common use.

  1. Science consists of a set of statements – verbal, mathematical, aural, graphical etc. –  that describe natural phenomena observable by humans.  For the balance of this discussion I will call this “e- science,” for “experimental science.”
  2. These is another definition of science that includes not only e-science but also all of the societal  and bureaucratic apparatus that surrounds e-science: funding, research institutes, for-profit entities, universities, government organizations, and the peer review system for  vetting and disseminating the results of the scientific research which is the business of e- science. I will use the term “s-science” (for “support-science”) to denote these support activities.
  3. I’ll use the term “t-science” to include both e-science and s-science.

In my critique in the earlier post, I was talking about e-science, while the people I was criticizing were talking about t-science. The discrepancy between our points of view comes about because of my insistence that for any t-science to be valid it must have the support of both valid e-science and valid s-science, and their failure to recognize this requirement. In simpler terms, science  must have both something worthwhile to assert (valid e-science) as well as a mechanism to to support creation and dissemination of it (s-science.)

Sweeping the hyperbole away, the status of the science surrounding the study of global warming seems to be this: The most that e-science can responsibly assert at this time is that human activity has affected our climate, but the effects so far have been small. There is a potential problem here worth monitoring, but nothing that demands immediate drastic action. [The best recent summary of what we know about climate change is in Cato working  paper No. 35: Climate Models and Climate Reality: A Closer Look at a Lukewarming World By Patrick J. Michaels and Paul C. “Chip” Knappenberger
December 15, 2015.]

Some people are using s-science to mis-represent the state of the e-science of climate change. Don’t let them get away with it.

19 thoughts on “Use and Abuse of Science, Revisited

  1. I’m no longer sure the place you’re getting your information, however
    good topic. I needs to spend some time studying more or understanding more.
    Thank you for wonderful information I used to be on the lookout for this info for my mission.

  2. Hello there, just became aware of your blog through Google,
    and found that it’s truly informative. I am going to
    watch out for brussels. I will appreciate if you continue this in future.
    A lot of people will be benefited from your writing. Cheers!

  3. Howdy! Would you mind if I share your blog with my twitter group? Theres lots of people that I believe would really enjoy your content. Please let me know. Thanks

  4. Very good blog you have here but I was wondering if you knew of any forums that cover the same topics talked about here?
    I’d really love to be a part of group where I can get comments from other knowledgeable individuals that share the same interest.
    If you have any recommendations, please let me know.
    Kudos!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *