science theory and climate skepticism climate change discussions often drive me to despair. Both the media and in my private environment I often encounter phrases like "I do not believe in climate change" or "That is not proven yet". The blatant ignorance
on science, which occurs in such sentences to light is shocking to me. So here is a short treatise on philosophy.
I want to show science theory in simple short sentences and no philosophical nonsense. Here are the basics of the science term in (my own) key points:
science is a guide to scientific knowledge!
To acquire knowledge, it is necessary comprehensible observations making and to document this.
developed from these verifiable observation (eg, testing) and his knowledge a scientist (or a group of researchers), a theory.
A (good) theory describes the observations and is also able to make predictions for more of the following observations and theory to provide new insights. The scientist then tries
to discover contradictions in their theory in which they as the predictions of theory attempts to refute with further observations.
If a scientist believes that their theory, they resist attempts to refute, to publish such Theory, so other scientists can do their best to refute the theory.
finds a contradiction to the theory is trying to figure out if this upsets the theory.
That must be so not necessarily. The better a theory has so far withstood the tests they lead to opposition to the more one will try to clarify this contradiction. From these experiments may arise much new insight.
Example: One theory states that all swans are white. A researcher travels to South Africa at some point where it meets black swans. This raises many questions. These birds are swans? Do I need my theory (eg European swans are white). Or do I just leave them all fall? example, the Newtonian mechanics describes the motion of bodies of our direct experience is completely correct. The swaying motion of the planets Mercury, however, can not be explained with Newtonian mechanics. therefore the theory is bad? No, it fails only for certain conditions such as high speed. Here the Newtonian mechanics is sufficient to describe not anymore. It is increased by relativity theory.
The Theory of Relativity is more accurate than the Newtonian mechanics, but the predictions of both theories are identical over moving objects when there is no relativistic Velocities (or masses) are present!
The Newtonian theory of mechanics is thus an excellent ALTHOUGH NOT ONLY BUT ALSO NOT DEMONSTRATED AGAIN ACTING IS. The prediction that a brick but comes back down when I throw it up, however, also true without proof is often a better go to him out of the way when you stand under it. The theory that best describes observations, makes good forecasts and refuted the least will be to understand the most accepted theory about the relationships described by it because you are promised the greatest gain in knowledge!
Note the following.
In science there is no faith, only one doubt.
In science, there is no evidence, at most a contradiction .
mean Now what the above sentences, "This is not yet proven!" or "I do not believe in climate change!" in a scientific sense?
The theory of anthropogenic climate change and describe this theory developed by numerous scientists modeling the current observations better than all other theories. Since this one's theory of the anthropogenic climate change is already trying to refute a while, you can now see that the information from the models predict the observed trends come closer than other theories (If they admit of predictions).
The theory of anthropogenic climate change is so THE BEST WE HAVE! One can of course fro now and say I do not believe in it. But if you do not own observations, the theory disprove this interests no one, and maybe you should better keep quiet.
The theory that rabies is fatal is considered fairly recognized when actually survive a small number of patients. (*)
Many a patient might take in the face of such terrible diagnosis a state of denial. In fact, the medicine (science) they do not die of evidence that he soon is. You can show him the virus, she can also call earlier cases. None of this is but a proof of his imminent death. There is definitely no evidence that he will die.
Even if he does not believe and even if he may have supplied no evidence, he will most likely go from the disease within a few days based. If suffer so.
however, it may also be vaccinated in advance. You have to also do not believe them and also because there is unfortunately no evidence. Nevertheless, almost all of which can survive on time vaccination.
What I mean is this: the philosophy of science is perhaps the greatest achievement of the human spirit. An attitude of rejection towards science does not protect us from the effects of the events of our environment, science tries to describe as good as possible.
Science has not made climate change. But we should take the predictions made by the science seriously. A better theory of knowledge we have not. Even if what I describe here, of course, is an ideal image of science, which unfortunately differs from reality sometimes.
Especially when as climate research, it was unfortunately influence of interest groups on the results of the research. This interference is probably occurred in both directions.
Above all, we this knowledge and truth with PR campaigns trying to fight and had great success. It has been argued that arguments have no meaning in science, but her artlessness appear convincing. Exactly such arguments as: "There is no evidence for anthropogenic climate change". These arguments prevent any fruitful discussion now (and make me to say the least, somewhat out of tune).
this one has done the same but something much worse. The best method we have people around us about our environment to acquire knowledge and to distinguish truth from falsehood was brought into disrepute. Distrust, cynicism, superstition and fanaticism determine the public Debate far more than the spirit of science.
This is just today, when we are faced with incredible challenges, most disturbing, and if we lift this development will not prevent these challenges to the decisions of mass persuasion and fanaticism determined. That sounds familiar. Only when we return to confront, we can prevent a relapse into barbarism, as well as shape whatever its new form.
(*) the various kinds of rabies is caused by viruses of the genus of the family Rhabdoviridae Lyssaviren. (So the observation). The mortality rate is beyond 99%!
So if by a rabid Animal bite could become infected (possibly) and (one of the known forms) of rabies (most likely) die.
To administer the vaccine reaches the suspicion. If the evidence of infection provided it is too late for vaccination.
Whether the vaccine is effective will depend on whether the pathogen is one of the known forms of the Rhabdoviridae.
Vaccination therefore arises following theories.
* Contact with a rabid animal is the Wahrscheinlcihkeit a transmission of the virus and thus infection.
* This virus comes with a high probability of a known virus population.
* Preventive vaccination with a high Wahrscheinlichket who would otherwise be prevented with a high Probability of fatal disease.
the theory. How, then, the following are assessed?
"I do not think I have rabies! Prove it to me!"
"I do not believe that vaccination helps! Prove me!"
"I do not think I'm going to die an'der rabies! Prove me!" Knowing
