« Electoral Shenanigans at the Blog Awards | Main | Springfield's Voters »

December 04, 2004

Opinions <> Science

We had fun discussing scientific illiteracy a few weeks ago regarding creationism and evolution. Today's example comes courtesy Kevin Drum, who points to Congressman Don Young (R-AK) discussing global warming: "I don't believe it is our fault. That's an opinion," Young said. "It's as sound as any scientist's." Actually, Young's first statement is a fact: he clearly doesn't believe that global warming is anthropogenic. That doesn't mean that his belief is necessarily as sound as any scientist's, however. Once again, we have someone who simply fails to understand how science works. Regular readers probably know that I'm skeptical regarding claims of anthropogenic global warming (as I understand it, there is clear scientific consensus that global warming is happening; the dispute is whether or not it is caused by human activities), although I'm not familiar enough with the science to come to a definitive conclusion. What I do know is this: regardless of what I believe, it is either happening or it's not. (Profound, eh?) My point being that what I believe doesn't affect what is actually happening: global warming's causes have to be determined on the merits. That having been said, the idea that we can simply wish away bad news if it turns out to be true is asinine. Young is arguing that scientists' are simply putting forth an opinion when they claim human activity is affecting global warming, and that his opinion should therefore carry equal weight with theirs. Now I'm sure that there are scientists who are willing to put forth their opinion as scientific fact because scientists are human beings and are therefore as likely as the rest of us to put partisanship first. But even if this is the case (and I find it extremely difficult to believe that every scientist who puts forth a study showing a link between CO2 emissions and global warming is fudging his data), the way to refute a hypothesis or theory is to demonstrate that it is incorrect, not to mislabel it as an opinion. An opinion is something that cannot be verified. I think chocolate ice cream is better than vanilla. That's an opinion. You may disagree, and there are no objective standards we can turn to that will resolve our disagreement. This rule does not pertain to global warming. Scientists have put forth a hypothesis that the Earth's temperature is getting higher over time, and that the change is caused by human carbon emissions. In support of this hypothesis, they have attempted to show that there is a correlation between increasing carbon emissions and global temperatures and that carbon in the atmosphere does cause increases in temperatures. (Note that the first issue alone is insufficient, as correlation does not prove causation.) If this hypothesis is valid, it should have predictive power that will allow people to use it to show how things will happen in the future. If those predictions are borne out, the hypothesis is strengthened (and may rise to the elevated level of a theory). If they are not, the hypothesis may need to be revised or even discarded. The bottom line is simple, however: the hypothesis will rise or fall based on the facts, not opinions. Perhaps Congressman Young is correct, and his opinion correlates to the facts. Perhaps not. But he does his constituents a disservice by failing to understand the underlying theory of knowledge required to validate or deny claims. His opinion may be as valid as anyone else's, but science isn't about opinions. Foolish statements like his will only damage his own cause and further blur the general understanding of how we are coming to understand the universe.

Posted at December 4, 2004 11:45 PM

Andrew Olmsted

Comment policy

I apologize for only allowing authenticated commenters, but comment spam overwhelms the site if I don't use those measures to prevent it. I reserve the right to delete any comment, although generally comments will only be deleted due to use of profanity or personal attacks on people. I have no objection to vigorous argument, but when name-calling begins, I'm putting a stop to it. In the immortal words of Eugene Levy, "People, people, let's stop this before somebody says something untrue!" If you want to call people names, I recommend you get your own blog.

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://andrewolmsted.com/mt/pings.cgi/901

Comments

I've often wondered if the right or the left are more prone to these kinds of errors. It seems to me the right is, but I know that I have a prejudice here. Congressman Young should know better. In fact any middle school student would know better that a hypothesis is more than opinion. It's back by data, knowledge and common agreement about the world.

Posted by: Lamont at December 6, 2004 07:38 AM

From my time as both a chemical engineering and chemistry major, I don't think we could ever prove anything. We did a lot of trying to prove something wasn't true to get to our solutions.

From that same time, I believe that global warming is being contributed to by man. I think that the earth undergoes periods in it's history where the warming is natural, but that our contributions have made it more rapid and longer lasting. Can I prove it, no. Can I show research we did where we could prove it was possible, yes.

Problem is, even scientists end up with different conclusions. We did our final research project on second hand smoke and determined that the concentration of chemicals was high enough to endanger nonsmokers. Another group did the same things and determined that it was too diluted to do any damage to them. We did this and had no pressure on us to go one way or the other. Imagine what the pressure is like for people working on one side or the other of any issue. I am sure data gets skewed by opinion and research can be slanted to prove anything if you do it right.

Posted by: Scott at December 6, 2004 10:34 AM

You might want to check out a site called: junkscience.com. They just released their list of the JunkScience.com’s Top Ten “low-lights” for 2004.

Posted by: Toni at December 6, 2004 01:16 PM

Post a comment

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)


Remember me?