Submitted by sector3011 t3_ylkflq in Futurology
YawnTractor_1756 t1_iuzg7wh wrote
>"We know today that these peatlands are very close to that tipping point [...] We don’t know exactly how close"
That's not a very useful science. It gives no perspective to the reader who wishes to be informed. "Very close" is not informative at all.
atridir t1_iuzil78 wrote
It’s the same thing with possible Gulf Stream collapse. The problem is that we have no metric to predict where the “tipping point” is or what it might look like in practical terms.
YawnTractor_1756 t1_iuzk9gd wrote
Whole purpose of science is to give answers to practical questions through observation and experiment, so that people could decide what to do. Science is a practical tool.
If science is not able to give an answer to a practical question for whatever reason, it means we will not be able to use it to decide what to do about it. We might still act on it, but it will not be a science-based act, with all the consequences of that.
atridir t1_iuzpjb0 wrote
I would say that I agree with your sentiment with the caveat that I think that science is about understanding the form, function, circumstance or modality of some aspect of reality, via observation and experimentation, for the express purpose of expanding our species’ knowledge of the nature of our existence. Simply: knowledge for the sake of knowledge; what we use that knowledge for is often to elucidate solutions to practical problems but that is a secondary function rather than the primary purpose.
mescalelf t1_iuzy9p9 wrote
100% agreed with you. For me at least, it’s just fascinating and intrinsically worthwhile.
YawnTractor_1756 t1_iv2shac wrote
>knowledge for the sake of knowledge
First of all 'knowledge for the sake of knowledge' is not science. Science if a specific set of specifically organized knowledge. I was discussing science, not knowledge in general.
Second, what you call 'knowledge for the sake of knowledge' is curiosity, and it is an evolutionary trait. Evolutionary is a crucial word here. It means that it has appeared and spread in the population, meaning it was practically useful for survival. The survival benefit of the trait stems from the practicality of knowing the threats as opposed to not knowing the threats. So even 'knowledge for the sake of knowledge' is a practical tool.
But majority of science is not knowledge for the sake of knowledge, but rather an investigation for practical reasons: grow food, cure disease, build house, etc.
atridir t1_iv2zt01 wrote
Point of clarification: you were discussing the “purpose” of science and I disagreed with you on the reason not the process.
YawnTractor_1756 t1_iv3myid wrote
And that's ok, but if we talk science specifically, it's a tool. A specific tool. And as every tool it was created for a purpose, and it was not 'knowledge for knowledge'. Technically speaking the very base of scientific method (empirical analysis and experimentation) was developed by Dominican monks to get closer to God through discovery of truth about the World, but I don't want to look like I'm preaching.
But the point still stands. We value science because of its results. Not because we like knowledge for knowledge. The latter existed since the beginning of time. Science did not exist since the beginning of time. It's an invention. A tool. For a purpose of getting 'truth' i.e. concrete, verifiable results.
Graekaris t1_iv0f7kl wrote
You're neglecting the fact that science is highly statistical. It's never certain about anything, and environmental collapse is no exception. The message is that there's a high probability of this ecosystem being destroyed in the near future due to human influence.
You can wear sunscreen to reduce the chance of getting skin cancer, but the probability will never be zero. That doesn't mean it's "not a science based act" to wear sunscreen.
DrHalibutMD t1_iv0l437 wrote
You’re absolutely right. The argument being put forward that this information isn’t useful is the same as climate change denial. We can’t do anything because the science hasn’t proven anything yet. Of course we won’t fully know until it does happen and we’re past the point of being able to do anything about it.
YawnTractor_1756 t1_iv2qx17 wrote
"Those who are not with us are against us" is a single telltale of a totalitarian sect.
YawnTractor_1756 t1_iv2qhdn wrote
>You're neglecting the fact that science is highly statistical.
Thanks Captain Obvious, you neglectinc the fact there is no statistics in the article, "very close" is not statistics. Of course you gonna say there are some statistics somewhere, and well, duh of course, but they are not here. Not in this article. the article is useless. It's not science at all.
Graekaris t1_iv30vmq wrote
No one said they did. But the rate of change is greatly effected, and that's what humanity will struggle with.
YawnTractor_1756 t1_iv3nkdg wrote
>the rate of change is greatly effected
You don't know that. It's not verifiable with the information in the article. You just want to believe what you already believe to be The Truth, even when scientific proof is nowhere to be found.
I'm not even asking much. Just give me some freaking numbers: what's the rate, what's the base, I don't even need proofs those numbers are real. But give me something. But there aren't anything. Yet "activists" still upvote "because science". Facepalm.
OriginalCompetitive t1_iuzjhdl wrote
Farther down, the article quotes the scientists as saying it’s “uncertain” and “slow” on the list of potential tipping points:
“The new study provides support for the Congo peatlands being vulnerable to climate drying,” said Prof Tim Lenton, at the University of Exeter and part of the team that undertook the September analysis. “For now, I would keep the Congo peatland and rainforest on the ‘uncertain’ and ‘slow’ list of potential tipping elements in the climate system.”
YawnTractor_1756 t1_iuzkjnl wrote
Wow... the article is even less scientifically useful than I initially thought.
OriginalCompetitive t1_iuzmoaz wrote
The purpose of the article is political. The COP27 meeting is about to start, and is located this year in Africa and devoted to the theme that developed countries should provide assistance to developing countries to assist with climate change, on the theory that they are primarily responsible for climate change. So an article about destruction of Congo peatlands appears now to fit that theme.
Mind you, I’m not begrudging them the example. This is how politics works and this arguably is an example of that theme. But in this case, it’s serving a political purpose, not a scientific purpose.
YawnTractor_1756 t1_iv2ue74 wrote
Politicians are actually smarter than an average redditor, and realize that solid politics should be based on science, because that is what science is for. Science is a proven framework to figure out solid knowledge about something that allows to make conclusions and decisions.
Political article that is not backed by science in favor of climate change is no better than political article that is not backed by science against climate change. For the sake of making solid decisions they are the same.
And I'm leaving alone the fact that even if the claim is right, even if what article claims is correct, then the article did not explain in the slightest how exactly the money are going to help.
A hollow piece of political propaganda, that can only be cheered by mindless activists who only care about amplifying their message with any means, no matter how questionable they are.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments