So that means you don’t trust any of the science from institutions ? How can you ever drive an automobile ?
He doesn’t refute science. There are 3400 university institutions that all agree on AGW. That’s not “ any particular institution”, that’s 3400. it’s funny, he’s reinforcing consensus. It’s hilarious. You jumped from the frying pan into the fire in quoting this person. You just need to know what he is saying instead of making it up. Too funny !
That is one way to put it. Another way would be that if something is viable and true many people in the same field would be drawn to the same conclusions. A format with a conclusion is published. Arguments are not.
Exactly.....and they are drawn to it by their own questioning of the conclusions. There is nothing that enhances the status of an institution more, then showing the evidence presented by others is unreliable. When thousands of institutions are dedicated to poking holes in your work, and they can’t, that’s real consensus. The best science welcomes scrutiny.
Your quote is entirely out of context and has problems when applied the way you want to. Myrdal's work was in economics, social and political sciences, not in hard sciences. He has significant works in fields like the impact of race on scoiety, poverty, war, etc. Today we have major institutions of higher education that have incompatible views in economics and other social sciences that survive for long perions of time - some permanent. In physics, this is just not the case. Unanimity can be reached by the experimental techniques with strong conrols available. And, that makes sense, because the soft sciences simply don't allow for the kinds of examination of the universe that are availabl to the hard sciences. Plus, social science prescriptions can have a near term positive effect even if the root thesis is exceptionally weak. In the hard sciences, strong experimental controls can be put in place, free of the moral and operational limitations that exist in the soft sciences. In the end, it is not even SLIGHTLY surprising that the hard sciences can reach unanimity throughout the world on significant questions without the kind of interference that Myrdal points to in the soft sciences. BUT, I think you KNEW that - LOL!
What I know is that your post is an excellent example of denial. There is no reason why Myrdal's research would not apply to the social structure of the hard sciences. Indeed, Myrdal's insight can be seen as a foreshadowing of that of Thomas Kuhn. Global Warming Zealotry: A case study in groupthink NEW STUDY: CLIMATE GROUPTHINK LEADS TO A DEAD END London, 21 February: A new report published by the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) shows that both the science and policy of the climate debate are shaped and driven by an almost flawless example of classical Groupthink. Written by one of Britain’s leading newspaper columnists Christopher Booker, the report is based on research by Professor Irving Janis, the American psychologist who is famous for his theory of “Groupthink”. But as Booker explains, Janis never looked at the application of his theory outside the policy areas he was interested in: “Janis’s focus was on decision-making in the foreign policy arena. However, as soon as you look, you see that his ideas apply elsewhere. The climate debate is a case in point – all of the characteristic ‘rules’ of groupthink are there: warmist ideas can’t be tested against reality, and so to ensure they are upheld as the truth, they have to be elevated into a ‘consensus’ and anyone who challenges them must be crushed. These are precisely the features that Janis used to define Groupthink.” So just as Groupthink led to the policy disasters of Pearl Harbour, the Bay of Pigs fiasco and Johnson’s escalation of the Vietnam war, attempts to suppress serious debate of climate science and the policies that are being promoted as solutions are leading to irrational behaviour, costly policy blunders and corruption on an unprecedented scale. This will only end when groupthink eventually bumps up against reality. As Booker puts it in his conclusions: “Every South Sea Bubble ends in a crash. Every form of Groupthink eventually has its day. This is invariably what happens when human beings get carried along by the crowd, simply because they have lost the urge or ability to think for themselves.” Christopher Booker: Global Warming – A Case Study in Groupthink (pdf)
The difference is that in the hard sciences we have proof of falsity. In the soft sciences, there isn't anything nearly as certain. Those with new or different ideas in the social scienes don't have the opportunity to give the same kind of rebuttal as those with new ideas in physics can. And, that plays out in reality as the weaker methods and other vaguries of social science allow the continuation of highly disparit ideas, while in the hard sciences new ideas can be tested and there exist methods for them to terminate even well established ideas that are mistaken. You can't go to Chicago and prove to the economists there that their economic theory is wrong. That's just not possible, as their ideas are hugely institutionalized. When there is no method of disproof, it's only natural for institutions to divide based on the views of those established in the institution. Suggessting that Myrdal was talking about the hard sciences is just plain nutty. He had nothing to do with the hard sciences.
As I said, denial. Can we stop the doom mongering? A letter to the editor which appeared in the Norman, OK Transcript on Tuesday, February 17th, reprinted here with permission of the author, Dr. David Deming: "I write in rebuttal to the Feb. 12 letter by Nancy Smart advising us to “listen” to climate scientists. According to Ms. Smart, climate science is “settled.” Instead of thinking for ourselves, she recommends we obsequiously follow the dictates of “our most respected and highest level scientific agencies.” Whenever someone asserts that a scientific question is “settled,” they tell me immediately that they don’t understand the first thing about science. Science is never settled. Science is not a dogmatic body of doctrine. It is an open system of knowledge that establishes probable truths that are subject to continual revision. The entire history of science is one of established theories being overthrown. Astronomers once believed the Sun revolved around the Earth. Naturalists maintained that species were immutable. Geologists thought continental drift was physically impossible. Physicians attempted to cure people by blood-letting. Are we to suppose that the process of history has stopped? . . . Scientific hypotheses are not proved; they are corroborated or falsified. But global warming is the hypothesis that can never be falsified. . . . "
And a friendly reminder, Myrdal was talking about “ particular”:institutions and individuals. It goes without saying, you can get bad ideas from any particular ( meaning one) institution or individual. Look at the oil industry. But science is consensus. When the plurality of institutions agree, you’ve got good science. So really, Myrdal is supporting consensus science agreement.
I hear you, but just to put things in perspective... I First by claiming that science is an evolving body of knowledge then by making the claim that science is dogmatic in their “ beliefs”. Well, which is it ? Really, many you named weren’t really true users of the scientific method. They were just observers. Based upon the evidence that they had, of course it “appeared” the sun revolved around the earth. Given the daily discourse we still talk about the sun setting and the sun rising. We don’t call people who aren’t scientifically accurate, liars. It’s still based upon ligit observation. If a naturalist doesn’t engage in the genetic manipulation and just plants whatever is available, of course he’s accurate. Newtonian physics is not discarded just because we have quantum theory. We still use it to navigate within the confines of its limitations. That’s what real science is. As the evidence becomes available , so does the understanding become more available. But, we seldom discard what we knew before.
U.S. surface temperatures drop to the lowest in over 30 years during February Anthony Watts If you thought he cold last month was “unprecedented” and ” worse than we thought” you’d be right. Last month’s polar outbreaks in the United States caused record subzero temperatures,…
That’s good to know. Climate change promotes an increase in the magnitude of extreme temperatures. Thank you for pointing that out. More evidence for AGW.
No Dagosa. We all know that climate change only means global warming. Any extreme cold is just proof that climate change isn't happening.
Wrong, extreme cold says no such thing*. It reinforces AGW. And....“We all don’t know” that at all. Just because it’s cold when you wake up in the freakin winter time doesn’t mean AGW isn’t real. AGW promotes more extremes in temps with the overall average increasing. I can explain the math in more detail if you’d like, but just googling NASA or the AAAS website which specializes in education would be better. They have charts and pictures and stuff......
Apologies Dagosa, I thought you'd have read my previous posts and seen I was being sarcastic and trite. Its and English thing, we do it a lot.
Actually, the terms “climate change” and “Global warming” mean more then just a February temperature being a record low. It also means have record highs in other months so the overall average goes up at a RATE faster then we can adjust. The earth is warming. Just. Omenting on the weather, and not the. Limate ooops...
Ancient leaves preserved under a mile of Greenland's ice – and lost in a freezer for years – hold lessons about climate change https://www.yahoo.com/news/ancient-leaves-preserved-under-mile-190707994.html Nothing New Here Move along
A quote from your post and more evidence of climate change. Amazing how consistently deniers pretend that any evidence they dig up, does not bury their made up ideas. “All of this happened before humans began warming the Earth’s climate. The atmosphere at that time contained far less carbon dioxide than it does today, and it wasn’t rising as quickly. The ice core and the soil below are something of a Rosetta Stone for understanding how durable the Greenland ice sheet has been during past warm periods – and how quickly it might melt again as the climate heats up.”
