next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects
Index of Subjects --Apple-Mail-375-760996281 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Hi everyone: I do teach all of my first-year students how the scientific method works. It has been adequately explained by others. Unlike religion, politics, economics, astrology, etc. the scientific method is a self-correcting mechanism. It is not based on opinion, per se, as the "general" view can be changed when new data is found. There is also a big disconnect between what a scientist means by "theory" compared to what the average person means. To a layman, "theory" is the same as "best guess". In science, "theory" means a large body of consistent knowledge for which there no exceptions have been found. That is why the "theory" of relativity or evolution by natural selection, etc are held in such high regard. There is an old saying that a first-rate theory predicts, a second-rate theory forbids, and a third-rate explains after the fact. Every time that a new technology has been made to test relativity, or a new prediction has been developed, the experimental results are in perfect agreement with the theory. While climate is a bit messier to deal with (climate is what you expect, weather is what you get) I think that the theoretical models of what will change seem to be consistent with what is being observed. That being said, there are other mitigating circumstances. 1) When in comes to the long-term sustainability of the Earth's climate I tend to think it is best to err on the side of caution. Not that the Earth will really care one way or the other what we do. (If you don't mind some course language, I would recommend George Carlin's take on the environmental "problem" if you want to look at the "big picture" at http://www.jibjab.com/view/122257 ) But if you think there will be a bit of an "economic correction" from trying to solve the problem, my instinct says that the cost of not fixing the problem is far worse. For example, I don't think China will be really too worried about making all of the crap that fills our dollar stores when they have to move 10s of millions of people as the ocuan levels rise.... 2) Fossil fuels will start to run out and will become more expensive over time. Again, better to start adapting to that now, then to wait. 3) We have set up national parks, nature preserves etc, assuming that the climate would stay the same. Polar bears are already running into problems and they have the option of wandering around. Most animals inside parks are hemmed in by farmland, pasture, houses, etc. Well those are a few more things to think about. Pat ======================================================================== == Patrick Kelly Director of Computer Facilities ======================================================================== == Faculty of Architecture and Planning Dalhousie University ======================================================================== == PO Box 1000 Stn Central 5410 Spring Garden Road Halifax, Nova Scotia B3J 2X4 Halifax, Nova Scotia B3J 2X4 Canada Canada ======================================================================== == Phone:(902) 494-3294 FAX:(902) 423-6672 E-mail:patrick.kelly@dal.ca ======================================================================== == --Apple-Mail-375-760996281 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/enriched; charset=US-ASCII Hi everyone: I do teach all of my first-year students how the scientific method works. It has been adequately explained by others. Unlike religion, politics, economics, astrology, etc. the scientific method is a self-correcting mechanism. It is not based on opinion, per se, as the "general" view can be changed when new data is found. There is also a big disconnect between what a scientist means by "theory" compared to what the average person means. To a layman, "theory" is the same as "best guess". In science, "theory" means a large body of consistent knowledge for which there no exceptions have been found. That is why the "theory" of relativity or evolution by natural selection, etc are held in such high regard. There is an old saying that a first-rate theory predicts, a second-rate theory forbids, and a third-rate explains after the fact. Every time that a new technology has been made to test relativity, or a new prediction has been developed, the experimental results are in perfect agreement with the theory. While climate is a bit messier to deal with (climate is what you expect, weather is what you get) I think that the theoretical models of what will change seem to be consistent with what is being observed. That being said, there are other mitigating circumstances. 1) When in comes to the long-term sustainability of the Earth's climate I tend to think it is best to err on the side of caution. Not that the Earth will really care one way or the other what we do. (If you don't mind some course language, I would recommend George Carlin's take on the environmental "problem" if you want to look at the "big picture" at http://www.jibjab.com/view/122257 ) But if you think there will be a bit of an "economic correction" from trying to solve the problem, my instinct says that the cost of not fixing the problem is far worse. For example, I don't think China will be really too worried about making all of the crap that fills our dollar stores when they have to move 10s of millions of people as the ocuan levels rise.... 2) Fossil fuels will start to run out and will become more expensive over time. Again, better to start adapting to that now, then to wait. 3) We have set up national parks, nature preserves etc, assuming that the climate would stay the same. Polar bears are already running into problems and they have the option of wandering around. Most animals inside parks are hemmed in by farmland, pasture, houses, etc. Well those are a few more things to think about. Pat <fontfamily><param>Courier</param> ========================================================================== Patrick Kelly Director of Computer Facilities ========================================================================== Faculty of Architecture and Planning Dalhousie University ========================================================================== PO Box 1000 Stn Central 5410 Spring Garden Road Halifax, Nova Scotia B3J 2X4 Halifax, Nova Scotia B3J 2X4 Canada Canada ========================================================================== Phone:(902) 494-3294 FAX:(902) 423-6672 E-mail:patrick.kelly@dal.ca ========================================================================== </fontfamily> --Apple-Mail-375-760996281--
next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive<