As much as some people don’t believe it, science is a faith and belief system just as much as religion is.
I don’t agree in blind faith, but sometimes it’s all we have at least temporarily. Science, like religion, at times, is an exercise of blind faith but it differs. I can’t do the science, in the vast array of cases. There is also no scientist doing all of the science for themselves. They have their field that they work in and they have faith in other scientists doing the work in their respective fields. There is no escaping faith. (Or maybe you prefer a word different from “faith”? Maybe that reeks of religion? If so, I am not sure what other word to use at the moment.) This is in my mind a great example why, with science, there is supposed to be peer-review and replication. That’s one major difference from religion. All of my deepest most difficult theological questions over the years have been met with, “well there are things that we can never understand.” Whereas with science I can go to someone who can do the science and prove it if need be.
When I considered myself Christian for many years, the man I considered my pastor, constantly stated year after year, “do not leave your brain at the door.” I to this day still have great respect for him and agree with many of his conclusions (by the way). Also, for many years I have lived by a Galileo quote as well…
“I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.”
This is also why it’s crucial for academics, scientists, and professionals to engage in dissemination and simplification of their respective fields of study.
For instance if we let some scientists and academics tell it, McDonalds is a healthy option for food and Wal-Mart is a great benefit to all communities where they exist. Because we have so many scientists and academics and not all of them have a clear and overwhelming bias [YES BIAS JUST LIKE WE ALL HAVE] for the thing that they are studying, we can see a consensus form and determine for ourselves what we believe, although we can’t do the science ourselves. In instances like that our faith is a bit less blind.
Is there such a strong consensus in the scientific community on climate change simply because anyone proposing alternate explanations is black-balled and suppressed?
This is one of the most frequent questions I get here on Facebook.
It’s a lot easier for someone to claim they’ve been suppressed than to admit that maybe they can’t find the scientific evidence to support their political ideology that requires them to reject climate solutions and, to be consistent, 150 years of solid, peer-reviewed science, too.
But over the last 10 years, at least 38 papers were published in peer-reviewed journals, each claiming various reasons why climate wasn’t changing, or if it was, it wasn’t humans, or it wasn’t bad. They weren’t suppressed. They’re out there, where anyone can find them.
So we took those papers and – thanks to the superhuman efforts of my colleague Rasmus Benestad – recalculated all their analyses. From scratch.
And you know what we found?
Every single one of those analyses had an error – in their assumptions, methodology, or analysis – that, when corrected, brought their results into line with the scientific consensus.
It’s real, it’s us, it’s serious
Katherine Kayhoe then linked this article