Feed on

Indulge the simple thought exercise. There are a goodly number of people (mostly on “the right”) who argue (correctly?) that the science of climate change is extremely uncertain, vastly underidentified, requires measurement that we are not up to yet, etc. …

… so, they argue that the science is not settled and as such we should take alarmism with a grain of salt.

What do you think the reaction would be if a series of papers came out in reputable outlets that, using the same scientific methods, seemed to indicate that climate change was reversing, or caused by aliens or some such thing?

What does this have to do with *G*od? At the risk of getting myself socially ostracized, if you think about the argument made by some that science is irrelevant in matters of religion (such as in whether it can be used to examine the existence of God), what if biologists and geneticists and archaelogists managed to locate the body of Jesus, or some biological remnant that he left behind, and were able to test the DNA? And what if in that DNA test we were able to conclude both that he lived and died as we learned, but also that he actually did not have any biological fathers – that he indeed only had a mother’s DNA.

Would the community who thinks science is not relevant for discussing and examining the existence of God use this news in any way, shape or form? And if so, how?

OK, back into my hovel.

2 Responses to “*G*od and Climate Change”

  1. Seattle Steve says:

    And stay there! (not really)

  2. Trapper John says:

    I see this on the minimum wage as well. I have poo-poo’d empirical studies (Card and Krueger) that disagree with me, focusing on the classic micro arguments (“Demand curves slope down!!!”). That was until an empirical study comes out that I agree with (Seattle study), now I’m an empiricist!

    The hours of study required to even approach the bottom of most any of these issues is a huge barrier to entry. Thus, we are left with blindly trusting experts or ideology or some mixture of those and reading, but to what end? Polite dinner party acceptable: “Card and Krueger did a study–minimum wage doesn’t have a negative impact on employment.” My polite dinner party blank-stare provoking reply: “I read Card and Krueger, and here’s why I think it’s a flawed study.” Nobody cares. As far as they know, I’m not an expert (and I’m not).

    What’s the Wintercow solution for those of us who can only go so far in self-education? How does one evaluate argument, knowing that empirics can be wrong (frogs don’t come from mud, flies don’t come from manure)? Where does ideology fit in a desire for intellectual honesty?

Leave a Reply