The Environmentalist Thread Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Environmentalist Thread

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: neolib who wrote (18438)	1/7/2008 1:01:44 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (2) of 36921

2) There are typically many "holes" in complex scientific theories such as atmospheric science, or evolutionary biology. 3) Some individuals focus on the "holes" and claim this invalidates the overall theory. And you shouldn't toss out all of atmospheric science or evolutionary biology because of those holes, you should rather try to close them (either by fixing the specific ideas that are dominate in the field or by coming up with new ideas, or if the hole is just a lack of data by finding the data). Which doesn't mean you can close all of them, but you can have less and/or smaller holes (or have the same number of holes in the field but have the field cover more and explain more). But you should distrust predictions of the future based on science where there is more than the usual number of such wholes, or where the understanding isn't extensive enough if the first place. You don't say atmospheric science is useless, you don't say evolution doesn't happen, you don't say "the earth hasn't warmed" or "CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas", but considering that our knowledge of atmospheric science is BOTH limited and full of holes, you don't make major expensive changes based on its current predictions.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next