This is topic Michael Crichton on SETI, smoking, and global warming in forum Books, Films, Food and Culture at Hatrack River Forum.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.hatrack.com/ubb/main/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=029754

---

Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
 
I thought this was an interesting read. My own opinion on what he says here has yet to be fully formulated, but here's what I think so far:

I think his criticism is valid, but that he overreaches. Consensus is important, it just isn't all-important. It is one of many factors to consider when you want to formulate policy about something that cannot be directly proven. His point about predicting the weather 12 hours from now is a total non-starter -- what would be the point of collecting seasonal temperature data, then? The bigger question is really: are the model predictions about global warming being borne out so far? But he doesn't address that, since it wouldn't fit in with the criticism he's trying to make. He also glosses over data on secondhand smoke with a lot of hand-waving.

The bit about the behaviour of the scientific community, however, is to me the most compelling part of the whole thing. The scientific community is supposed to be a place that fosters dissent, not a place of suppression and attack of dissenting opinions. That's what America is for.

Essentially, I think that before making such sweeping criticisms you ought to have precisely the sort of hard data on hand that you're complaining everyone else does not have. And he often doesn't have that.

[ December 07, 2004, 10:35 PM: Message edited by: twinky ]
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
The link doesn't work for me.
 

---

Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
 
Fixed. Thanks.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 

quote:

---

The bigger question is really: are the model predictions about global warming being borne out so far?

---

quote:

---

Although Richard Feynman was
characteristically blunt, saying, "I really don't think these guys know what
they're talking about," other prominent scientists were noticeably reticent.

This fascination with computer models is something I understand very well.
Richard Feynmann called it a disease.

---

Have I mentioned I love Feynman? As for the rest, I'm pretty sure I've made some of these arguments over in the global warming thread. And twink, you missed the point. Not only is concensus not important, it can be dangerous. Science is about agreement with reality, not agreement with the scientists.
 

---

Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
 
No, I got the point. I just think he's wrong.
 

---

Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
 
That was an excellent essay! Thanks for posting it. Crichton identified for me the growing skepticism I have recently developed of scientific claims. So often these days I hear claims from each side of an issue made by supposedly reputable scientists. When I can I dig into the details a bit to try to develop a sense for the material, but lets face it, I am not going to become a climatologist to understand global warming or an astronomer to understand cosmology.

I think that the idea of double blind science, especially for matters of public policy, is an excellent one.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
"I am not going to become a climatologist to understand global warming or an astronomer to understand cosmology."

Did you become a prophet to understand religion?
 

---

Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
 
If we followed Crichton's recipie, predictions about future events would be worthless. What's the point of trying to predict the future when we can only observe the present? I mean, tomorrow Newtonian mechanics might suddenly cease to work for predicting the behaviour of moving objects at non-reletavistic speeds. Quick, let's stop launching space shuttles.

My opinion is unchanged from my initial post. His point has validity, but he's going way too far with it, and that takes quite a lot away from his argument.
 

---

Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
 
twink, I think one of Crichton's major points is the fact that climate may be a chaotic system, and is definitely an incredibly unpredictable one. His point was that BECAUSE weather is so volatile that we cannot reliably predict trends twelve hours in advance, THEREFORE it is absurd to place such implicit trust in predictions that span thousands of such twelve-hour periods.

He then applies the same logic to predictions about human society. "If current trends continue" is a very difficult premise to assume when you are talking about human behavior. Humans do new things all the time which throw out all previous assumptions. In other words, we are as inherently unpredictable as the weather, and long-term predictions about our future are inherently shaky and suspect.

However, the laws of physics have no such inherent limitation. They can actually be reduced to simple, testable scenarios, and their behavior has been shown to be remarkably predictable. So your example is a little flawed.

[ December 08, 2004, 03:12 PM: Message edited by: Puppy ]
 

---

Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
 

quote:

---

His point was that BECAUSE weather is so volatile that we cannot reliably predict trends twelve hours in advance, THEREFORE it is absurd to place such implicit trust in predictions that span thousands of such twelve-hour periods.

---

quote:

---

So far scientists have not been able to pinpoint with certainty any changes in weather due to global warming over the last century.

---