sábado, 17 de maio de 2014

Voto Não decide a Verdade seja em Ciência ou em Política

É muito comum ambientalistas, muitas vezes sem nenhuma formação científica, dizer que a "ciência está determinada, o homem é o grande causador da mudança climática".

Um texto de William Briggs coloca as coisa nos eixos. 1) A ciência não está determinada, nem nunca estará; 2) Há inúmeras evidências que o ser humano não é o grande causador da mudança climática; e 3) Nem a ciência, nem mesmo a política é decidida no voto.

Vou colocar aqui parte do texto de Briggs.  Leiam o resto clicando no link.

The Consensus Fallacy

Here is the word-for-word opening in the Vox “explanatory journalism” tidbit “John Oliver shows how to debate climate deniers“:
That climate change is occurring, and that humans are the primary cause, is beyond dispute at this point. Surveys have found that 97-98 percent of climate researchers and 97 percent of climate papers expressing a position on the subject agree with the consensus view that human-generated greenhouse gas emissions are causing climate change.
If one wants to claim the proposition “That humans are the primary cause of global warming is beyond dispute” is true, one immediately defeats oneself by saying only 97% of climate researchers agree. If 3%, or 2%, or 1%, or even just one solitary climate researcher, disagrees that humans are the primary cause of global warming, the proposition is not “beyond dispute”. It is, in stark opposition,actively disputed.
I am one of the climate researchers who disputes the proposition. Again, therefore, the proposition is not “beyond” dispute. Dispute is not only a live option, it is a respectable scientific position to take. It is not, of course, a politically correct position; no small point.
Because why? Because there is good evidence that the Vox tidbit writer meant his argument to be taken politically and not scientifically. For one, the writer has absolutely no scientific credentials and appears to believe that voting in science, like in politics, decides truth. For two, he badly summarizes the science: not one word on the more than two decades of failed forecasts, ample evidence that the theory which drove these predictions is probably false.
Voting does not decide truth, not in science nor in politics. Nor anywhere.
Now even if no climate researcher disagreed with the proposition above, it would still not be beyond dispute, because all experience shows empirically derived, which is to say scientific, theories are subject to updates, corrections, and even complete refutations. A theory as complex as global warming will almost surely be modified as time passes, not the least because it needs to fix its blush-inducing forecasts.
Votes are useful in deciding actions or settling conflicts in the face of uncertainty and differing priorities, but only where there is shared foundation underlying the disputes. Votes are useless, and even dangerous, to fix foundational truths. Desire is only coincident to truth, not its definition.
A failing society, by the way, is one which has lost its grasp of shared truth and begins to resettle questions which cannot be resettled by voting…by voting. 

Nenhum comentário:

Postar um comentário