Comments on: Six Degrees http://www.climate-resistance.org/2007/05/six-degrees.html Challenging Climate Orthodoxy Wed, 08 Feb 2012 23:47:31 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: CuriousOther http://www.climate-resistance.org/2007/05/six-degrees.html#comment-15 CuriousOther Fri, 25 May 2007 11:47:00 +0000 http://climateresistance.wordpress.com/2007/05/21/six-degrees/#comment-15 Well quotes such as "Science must draw its models from society, because after all scientists are human beings not machines; science is a model of nature reconstructed in our heads." and "It is strange, at a time when the social construction of science is an established idea" are suggesting that predicted negative outcomes from climate change are a product of the social context in which they were presented. This reeks of social constructionism which in its weak form, as Pinker has suggested, is a reasonable theory. However, most social constructionist arguments prefer the stronger form that everything, including scientific observation, is a social contruct. <br/>Appleton seems to think that "We need a new school of thought in the global warming debate, which is founded not on scientific facts but on political critique.". Changing political arguments will not affect scientific models on climate change. If Appleton wants to make her point by arguing that the models are wrong, or the conclusions overstated then by all means she should. Dismissing the models as a social construct does her argument no favour and casts doubt on her ability to understand the caveats and uncertainties inherent in global warming models.<br/>I'm not commenting directly on her conclusions, just on her arguments in reaching them. Well quotes such as “Science must draw its models from society, because after all scientists are human beings not machines; science is a model of nature reconstructed in our heads.” and “It is strange, at a time when the social construction of science is an established idea” are suggesting that predicted negative outcomes from climate change are a product of the social context in which they were presented. This reeks of social constructionism which in its weak form, as Pinker has suggested, is a reasonable theory. However, most social constructionist arguments prefer the stronger form that everything, including scientific observation, is a social contruct.
Appleton seems to think that “We need a new school of thought in the global warming debate, which is founded not on scientific facts but on political critique.”. Changing political arguments will not affect scientific models on climate change. If Appleton wants to make her point by arguing that the models are wrong, or the conclusions overstated then by all means she should. Dismissing the models as a social construct does her argument no favour and casts doubt on her ability to understand the caveats and uncertainties inherent in global warming models.
I’m not commenting directly on her conclusions, just on her arguments in reaching them.

]]> By: Anonymous http://www.climate-resistance.org/2007/05/six-degrees.html#comment-14 Anonymous Wed, 23 May 2007 12:22:00 +0000 http://climateresistance.wordpress.com/2007/05/21/six-degrees/#comment-14 I'm curious about curiousother's objection. In what sense does the article depend on Kuhn? And what does CO mean by 'unscientific'? <br/><br/>There may be some valid criticism of Kuhn to be heard, but the above is incomplete. I’m curious about curiousother’s objection. In what sense does the article depend on Kuhn? And what does CO mean by ‘unscientific’?

There may be some valid criticism of Kuhn to be heard, but the above is incomplete.

]]> By: curiousother http://www.climate-resistance.org/2007/05/six-degrees.html#comment-13 curiousother Wed, 23 May 2007 10:49:00 +0000 http://climateresistance.wordpress.com/2007/05/21/six-degrees/#comment-13 Appleton also invoked Thomas Kuhn's arguments about the social construction of science to support her article. These are just as, if not more so, unscientific as the anxieties of environmentalists. Appleton also invoked Thomas Kuhn’s arguments about the social construction of science to support her article. These are just as, if not more so, unscientific as the anxieties of environmentalists.

]]>