More basic than those tenets is the foundation of science which is a belief in causal relationships based on the four forces of the apocalypse = strong force, weak force, electromagnetic force and gravity. < the tried and true scientific method will do fine for me. Blind studies, randomization, careful statistical analysis and reproducible results are its keystones. Ignoring them is foolish.>
The most common mistake made, and it's almost universal, certainly among journalists reporting "scientific" results is the confusion of correlation with causation. But plenty of so called scientists get tangled up; especially in social "sciences" which seem mainly designed to show that poverty causes this that and the other and if only we had Helen Clark back, to make a bigger kleptocratic government with OPM, all would be well.
Sometimes there is no science along your lines [blind, double blind, randomized, statisticalized] which can be done to prove a theory. For example, that increasing CO2 will cause too much heating on Earth. It's a real-time, one way experiment, which can't be repeated or reproduced. Models can be developed to mimic what might happen but they are merely simplistic models.
Much science isn't as good as intelligent consideration of probable causal relationships. Yes, it's much better to run multi-year studies costing $billions, but sometimes, such as dying of cancer, there isn't time for goofing around like that. Intelligent understanding of causal relationships among scientific principles is required. What science does is differentiate between unintelligent and intelligent opinions on causal relationships, so it's obviously an essential ingredient of sorting the wheat from the chaff.
Mqurice |
