Jun 22, 2018 06:57 AM
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/hot...e-science/
EXCERPT: . . . as a general rule, I refuse to debate basic science in public. There are two reasons for this: first, I’m a terrible debater and would almost certainly lose. The skills necessary to be a good scientist [...] aren’t necessarily the same skills that will convince an audience in a debate format. It is very fortunate that things like the atomic model of matter do not rest on my ability to be charming or persuasive. But second, and maybe more importantly: once you put facts about the world up for debate, you’ve already lost. Science isn’t a popularity contest [...]
Here’s the thing: there is a debate among climate scientists. It’s just—and I say this with love—very boring. [...] how fast dirt dries out in the sun [...] passionate fights over satellite viewing angles, eigenvalues, and the correct way to parametrize marine stratocumulus cloud formation. [...] arguing about them advances science. But [...it's...] not [...] entertaining television.
[...] Climate denial is like bad science fiction: there’s no internal logic, the characters aren’t compelling, and you can see the scary things coming from miles away. So, if we’re being asked to debate things that are essentially fictional, we should respond in kind. Not by misrepresenting the science—that’s too important to mess with. But I’m happy to debate fiction [...] I happen to believe very strongly that it was a stupid idea to send Frodo into Mordor with the ring. I also feel that Killmonger had a point, Holden Caulfield is insufferable, and Jane could have done much, much better than Mr. Rochester.
In all seriousness, it makes me sad when objective reality is treated as something up for debate....
MORE: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/hot...e-science/
EXCERPT: . . . as a general rule, I refuse to debate basic science in public. There are two reasons for this: first, I’m a terrible debater and would almost certainly lose. The skills necessary to be a good scientist [...] aren’t necessarily the same skills that will convince an audience in a debate format. It is very fortunate that things like the atomic model of matter do not rest on my ability to be charming or persuasive. But second, and maybe more importantly: once you put facts about the world up for debate, you’ve already lost. Science isn’t a popularity contest [...]
Here’s the thing: there is a debate among climate scientists. It’s just—and I say this with love—very boring. [...] how fast dirt dries out in the sun [...] passionate fights over satellite viewing angles, eigenvalues, and the correct way to parametrize marine stratocumulus cloud formation. [...] arguing about them advances science. But [...it's...] not [...] entertaining television.
[...] Climate denial is like bad science fiction: there’s no internal logic, the characters aren’t compelling, and you can see the scary things coming from miles away. So, if we’re being asked to debate things that are essentially fictional, we should respond in kind. Not by misrepresenting the science—that’s too important to mess with. But I’m happy to debate fiction [...] I happen to believe very strongly that it was a stupid idea to send Frodo into Mordor with the ring. I also feel that Killmonger had a point, Holden Caulfield is insufferable, and Jane could have done much, much better than Mr. Rochester.
In all seriousness, it makes me sad when objective reality is treated as something up for debate....
MORE: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/hot...e-science/
