Cancelling Dr. Seuss

[dismalist]

Let's put it another way. Do you want conservative teachers trying to influence their students' beliefs? Or would you rather they stuck to the program of teaching the subject matter? I don't care what their specific beliefs are; we don't need schools to be one more place where everyone has to make sure they don't say the "wrong" thing about something which has nothing to do with school.

I'm not sure what this means. The vast majority of research around science, sociology, economics, history, you-name-it tends to be "liberal."

Which is why "conservatives" hate the idea of evolution as an accepted phenomenon; equality as being best for a productive society; appropriate government macroeconomic involvement to ensure smoothly moving free markets; that ugly things have happened...

Rather than regaling us with an enlightening and revealing disquisition on the history and philosophy of science, let me say that the sociology of science is far more interesting than the philosophy of science!

Take an outstanding example, the science of climate change. It is a very challenging subject. Nevertheless,

Q: What do you call a situation in which a small group of researchers make bold predictions but won't share their data, try to get contradictory articles blackballed from journals, lash out at critics with lawsuits, and see most of their predictions fall by the way side?

A: Settled science.

That's a network of people living off the fat of the land of government money, research grants!

There's no such thing as settled science. There are only settled scientists.

[waterboy]

When 98% of climate scientists state there's human caused climate change, that's a close to "settled" as you'll ever get.

[Wahoo Redux]

"Teachers should avoid slogans"

The problem here is that statements reflecting good professional practice of teachers like "everyone is welcome here" or "science is real" are viewed by some people (they tend to regularly view a news channel named after a caniform carnivore) as a politicized slogan.

And dismalist posts:

Q: What do you call a situation in which a small group of researchers make bold predictions but won't share their data, try to get contradictory articles blackballed from journals, lash out at critics with lawsuits, and see most of their predictions fall by the way side?

A: Settled science.

That's a network of people living off the fat of the land of government money, research grants!

There's no such thing as settled science. There are only settled scientists.

Big-D, you just did the thing.  Without an ounce of irony.

Hilarious.

[dismalist]

When 98% of climate scientists state there's human caused climate change, that's a close to "settled" as you'll ever get.

It is not at all clear what those 98% agreed to, and what they are 98% of. Just repeating that number is uncritical.

But this is just another example of the fact that the sociology of science is more interesting than the philosophy of science.

Reminds me of Einstein's reaction to multitudinous physicists opposing his views. A letter against him was signed by many, the previously successful physicists. Einstein said words to the effect that one signature would have been enough, implying one correct person would have done the trick!

Science is not a democracy.

[ciao_yall]

Let's put it another way. Do you want conservative teachers trying to influence their students' beliefs? Or would you rather they stuck to the program of teaching the subject matter? I don't care what their specific beliefs are; we don't need schools to be one more place where everyone has to make sure they don't say the "wrong" thing about something which has nothing to do with school.

I'm not sure what this means. The vast majority of research around science, sociology, economics, history, you-name-it tends to be "liberal."

Which is why "conservatives" hate the idea of evolution as an accepted phenomenon; equality as being best for a productive society; appropriate government macroeconomic involvement to ensure smoothly moving free markets; that ugly things have happened...

Rather than regaling us with an enlightening and revealing disquisition on the history and philosophy of science, let me say that the sociology of science is far more interesting than the philosophy of science!

Take an outstanding example, the science of climate change. It is a very challenging subject. Nevertheless,

Q: What do you call a situation in which a small group of researchers make bold predictions but won't share their data, try to get contradictory articles blackballed from journals, lash out at critics with lawsuits, and see most of their predictions fall by the way side?

A: Settled science.

That's a network of people living off the fat of the land of government money, research grants!

There's no such thing as settled science. There are only settled scientists.

Climate science has published lots of data and research demonstrating the impact of greenhouse gases. Even oil companies were aware of the issue and decided not to do anything.

Who and what has been "blackballed" if it was otherwise good science?

Not sure what you mean by "bold predictions" that have "fallen by the wayside" because most are out into the future, still, current activity seems to be pointing to these trends.

If you can share specifics from reasonable sources I'd be happy to get more information. Or even unreasonable sources - why not?

[Wahoo Redux]

Climate denialists are not going to be rational.  There is no point in debating.

[dismalist]

Let's put it another way. Do you want conservative teachers trying to influence their students' beliefs? Or would you rather they stuck to the program of teaching the subject matter? I don't care what their specific beliefs are; we don't need schools to be one more place where everyone has to make sure they don't say the "wrong" thing about something which has nothing to do with school.

I'm not sure what this means. The vast majority of research around science, sociology, economics, history, you-name-it tends to be "liberal."

Which is why "conservatives" hate the idea of evolution as an accepted phenomenon; equality as being best for a productive society; appropriate government macroeconomic involvement to ensure smoothly moving free markets; that ugly things have happened...

Rather than regaling us with an enlightening and revealing disquisition on the history and philosophy of science, let me say that the sociology of science is far more interesting than the philosophy of science!

Take an outstanding example, the science of climate change. It is a very challenging subject. Nevertheless,

Q: What do you call a situation in which a small group of researchers make bold predictions but won't share their data, try to get contradictory articles blackballed from journals, lash out at critics with lawsuits, and see most of their predictions fall by the way side?

A: Settled science.

That's a network of people living off the fat of the land of government money, research grants!

There's no such thing as settled science. There are only settled scientists.

Climate science has published lots of data and research demonstrating the impact of greenhouse gases. Even oil companies were aware of the issue and decided not to do anything.

Who and what has been "blackballed" if it was otherwise good science?

Not sure what you mean by "bold predictions" that have "fallen by the wayside" because most are out into the future, still, current activity seems to be pointing to these trends.

If you can share specifics from reasonable sources I'd be happy to get more information. Or even unreasonable sources - why not?

I am certainly not trying to convince anyone that the mean temperature is not rising! It fell from ca. 1944 to ca. 1980, and has risen since, ca. one degree C per century. That's the mean prediction of the ICCP, too. [That's the average prediction of current climate science.]  What the consequences are for us, climate scientists are the last to know. I have no skin in this game because I think warming has trivial consequences. Everybody do his own research. I do hope that climate science is on the straight and narrow. 

What I do wish to emphasize is that 98% accordance is meaningless, and that the effect of interest in climate has been religious rather than scientific. Not different from apocalyptic fears repeated in human history.

This gets us into the nature of science after all.

What is missing [to differing degrees] in the social sciences and in a field like climate science is sharp and temporarily convincing tests. Law of gravity can be tested quite convincingly by jumping off my 25th story balcony. [Yes, I know these are all joint hypotheses.] There is a joke in psychology that your results apply only to the group you have studied! Economics -- well -- the micro part, the part everybody hates, is 98% correct. The macro part -- the part everybody loves --  is 50% correct. We just don't know which 50%. So, climate science is just like these.

Sociologically, follow the money. Epistemologically, humility is in order.

[Wahoo Redux]

I am certainly not trying to convince anyone that the mean temperature is not rising! It fell from ca. 1944 to ca. 1980, and has risen since, ca. one degree C per century. That's the mean prediction of the ICCP, too.

Earth's temperature has risen by an average of 0.14° Fahrenheit (0.08° Celsius) per decade since 1880, or about 2° F in total.

The rate of warming since 1981 is more than twice as fast: 0.32° F (0.18° C) per decade.

2022 was the sixth-warmest year on record based on NOAA's temperature data.

The 2022 surface temperature was 1.55 °F (0.86 °Celsius) warmer than the 20th-century average of 57.0 °F (13.9 °C) and 1.90 ˚F (1.06 ˚C) warmer than the pre-industrial period (1880-1900).

The 10 warmest years in the historical record have all occurred since 2010.

U.S. Gov: Climate Change: Global Temperature

I cannot think of any other sphere of science in which scientists are challenged by politically motivated nonscientists.  Like some other posters, what you say comes right out of the wingnut playbook, Big-D. 

I'll go with what the actual scientist are saying.

[marshwiggle]

Let's put it another way. Do you want conservative teachers trying to influence their students' beliefs? Or would you rather they stuck to the program of teaching the subject matter? I don't care what their specific beliefs are; we don't need schools to be one more place where everyone has to make sure they don't say the "wrong" thing about something which has nothing to do with school.

I'm not sure what this means. The vast majority of research around science, sociology, economics, history, you-name-it tends to be "liberal."

Which is why "conservatives" hate the idea of evolution as an accepted phenomenon; equality as being best for a productive society; appropriate government macroeconomic involvement to ensure smoothly moving free markets; that ugly things have happened...

That biological sex is real?

[Kron3007]

I am certainly not trying to convince anyone that the mean temperature is not rising! It fell from ca. 1944 to ca. 1980, and has risen since, ca. one degree C per century. That's the mean prediction of the ICCP, too.

Earth's temperature has risen by an average of 0.14° Fahrenheit (0.08° Celsius) per decade since 1880, or about 2° F in total.

The rate of warming since 1981 is more than twice as fast: 0.32° F (0.18° C) per decade.

2022 was the sixth-warmest year on record based on NOAA's temperature data.

The 2022 surface temperature was 1.55 °F (0.86 °Celsius) warmer than the 20th-century average of 57.0 °F (13.9 °C) and 1.90 ˚F (1.06 ˚C) warmer than the pre-industrial period (1880-1900).

The 10 warmest years in the historical record have all occurred since 2010.

U.S. Gov: Climate Change: Global Temperature

I cannot think of any other sphere of science in which scientists are challenged by politically motivated nonscientists.  Like some other posters, what you say comes right out of the wingnut playbook, Big-D. 

I'll go with what the actual scientist are saying.

This sounds so much like the antivax rhetoric of late. 

Dismaliat does have a point that the sociology of science is I retesting, but I think it is the denialists that make it so.  I know so many people who may not have even completed high school that know better than the epidemiologists and climate scientists that is is not funny. 

His whole post echos the main talking points, including the whole not having a horse in the race and just being curious etc.  Other people are also curious, have spent their careers evaluating the evidence, and largely agree, but go ahead and stay curious.

[dismalist]

This sounds so much like the antivax rhetoric of late. 

Dismaliat does have a point that the sociology of science is I retesting, but I think it is the denialists that make it so.  I know so many people who may not have even completed high school that know better than the epidemiologists and climate scientists that is is not funny. 

His whole post echos the main talking points, including the whole not having a horse in the race and just being curious etc.  Other people are also curious, have spent their careers evaluating the evidence, and largely agree, but go ahead and stay curious.

There is indeed a telling parallel between climate change and epidemiology.

From what I can tell, warming is real and Covid is real. :-) That is one hell of a distance from being able to promulgate proper policy!

The temperature of the earth has varied widely. We are actually in a cool period. I am happy to let climate scientists sort out the causes. The average of IPCC 6 [2022] prediction of about 1° C per century increase looks like a good thing! More CO₂ in the air means better plant growth and higher agricultural yields. Less water needed for plants. Deserts can be pushed back. The North becomes more productive and habitable. The warmer regions are not expected to rise in temperature as much as the colder regions. As there is a higher death rate from the cold than from heat, humans will flourish. Onward to Canada!

Similarly with epidemics. I am happy to let biologists sort out the source of Covid and why it kills. I think epidemiology in response to Covid was seriously misguided, and has been captured by bureaucrats pursuing their own agenda, and this almost world wide, Sweden being a notable exception. [Sociology again, + money]. The public health issue here is lockdowns. [The anti-vaxxers are a private problem, not a public problem.]

Before the advent of vaccines, three epidemiologists published the Great Barrington Declaration https://gbdeclaration.org/  which argued for protecting the vulnerable [the old and infirm] and letting everybody else do what they wanted. All based on theretofore standard epidemiology founded on costs and benefits. Now, one may disagree with the declaration, but the point is sociology -- the authors were smeared by the powers that be, specifically including government bureaucrats, not argued against, but smeared and deprived of funding. In my opinion, at least after vaccines were available, there was no need for lockdowns as the probability of serious illness and death among the non-elederly was trivial.

Thus, there are all   kinds of opinions that are viable on these two subjects. Not engaging with alternate views in these two cases is politics, not science.

[jimbogumbo]

Similarly with epidemics. I am happy to let biologists sort out the source of Covid and why it kills. I think epidemiology in response to Covid was seriously misguided, and has been captured by bureaucrats pursuing their own agenda, and this almost world wide, Sweden being a notable exception.

Yet again, Sweden. Sweden's death rate per capita was far worse than the surrounding countries of Finland, Denmark and Norway who all locked down. If Sweden's response was so appropriate, why is that?

Deaths per million from COVID:

USA- 3,381
Sweden- 2,275
Finland- 1,555
Denmark- 1,392
Norway- 928
World- 867
Iceland- 553

[dismalist]

Similarly with epidemics. I am happy to let biologists sort out the source of Covid and why it kills. I think epidemiology in response to Covid was seriously misguided, and has been captured by bureaucrats pursuing their own agenda, and this almost world wide, Sweden being a notable exception.

Yet again, Sweden. Sweden's death rate per capita was far worse than the surrounding countries of Finland, Denmark and Norway who all locked down. If Sweden's response was so appropriate, why is that?

An example of testing hypotheses that is hard. Sweden had a particularly low death rate the year before Covid, it has been said. So, catch-up deaths. Excess mortality in Sweden  is sometimes higher, sometimes lower than in Denmark or Norway.

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/excess-mortality-p-scores-projected-baseline?country=SWE~USA~DNK~NOR

There are other hypotheses. I'm not doing the work of listing them or testing them here.

The point is less who did it correctly, though I think Sweden [and Florida] did it better, but rather these are all things that should be talked about, not assumed one way or the other.

I know what interests bureaucrats have, but the politicians may have just been following the fear and terror of the voting population. But Swedes are smart!

[jimbogumbo]

Similarly with epidemics. I am happy to let biologists sort out the source of Covid and why it kills. I think epidemiology in response to Covid was seriously misguided, and has been captured by bureaucrats pursuing their own agenda, and this almost world wide, Sweden being a notable exception.

Yet again, Sweden. Sweden's death rate per capita was far worse than the surrounding countries of Finland, Denmark and Norway who all locked down. If Sweden's response was so appropriate, why is that?

An example of testing hypotheses that is hard. Sweden had a particularly low death rate the year before Covid, it has been said. So, catch-up deaths. Excess mortality in Sweden  is sometimes higher, sometimes lower than in Denmark or Norway.

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/excess-mortality-p-scores-projected-baseline?country=SWE~USA~DNK~NOR

There are other hypotheses. I'm not doing the work of listing them or testing them here.

The point is less who did it correctly, though I think Sweden [and Florida] did it better, but rather these are all things that should be talked about, not assumed one way or the other.

I know what interests bureaucrats have, but the politicians may have just been following the fear and terror of the voting population. But Swedes are smart!

I chose the surrounding countries for several reasons. Similar weather, similar population density, similar cultures. That seems sorta like science. Way more than than "I think Florida and Sweden did it better".

Sweden has been discussed constantly, not just an assumption about the response, so I'm not sure about your point.  Sweden provides a case study, and I provided some data that are really reasonable when discussing its response.

[dismalist]

Similarly with epidemics. I am happy to let biologists sort out the source of Covid and why it kills. I think epidemiology in response to Covid was seriously misguided, and has been captured by bureaucrats pursuing their own agenda, and this almost world wide, Sweden being a notable exception.

Yet again, Sweden. Sweden's death rate per capita was far worse than the surrounding countries of Finland, Denmark and Norway who all locked down. If Sweden's response was so appropriate, why is that?

An example of testing hypotheses that is hard. Sweden had a particularly low death rate the year before Covid, it has been said. So, catch-up deaths. Excess mortality in Sweden  is sometimes higher, sometimes lower than in Denmark or Norway.

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/excess-mortality-p-scores-projected-baseline?country=SWE~USA~DNK~NOR

There are other hypotheses. I'm not doing the work of listing them or testing them here.

The point is less who did it correctly, though I think Sweden [and Florida] did it better, but rather these are all things that should be talked about, not assumed one way or the other.

I know what interests bureaucrats have, but the politicians may have just been following the fear and terror of the voting population. But Swedes are smart!

I chose the surrounding countries for several reasons. Similar weather, similar population density, similar cultures. That seems sorta like science. Way more than than "I think Florida and Sweden did it better".

Sweden has been discussed constantly, not just an assumption about the response, so I'm not sure about your point.  Sweden provides a case study, and I provided some data that are really reasonable when discussing its response.

The actual testing of the various hypotheses has been done poorly, not to say not at all, I think. But I am  not inclined to do this work. Again, my main point is that there is no reason to stop discussing rather than politically ending discussion.