tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6745817778350624453.post4977147676200951604..comments2024-03-29T17:44:23.905+13:00Comments on The Flaxen Saxon Chronicles: Flaxen Saxon having a bit of a Ramble......Flaxen Saxonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03431645401478120921noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6745817778350624453.post-70570882066498698192021-12-13T02:11:57.699+13:002021-12-13T02:11:57.699+13:00My comments about Climate Change on another blog, ...My comments about Climate Change on another blog, although also reflecting upon scientific methods:<br /><br />"I suspect that Climate Change suffers from the same problems that Epidemiology first faced.<br /><br />Epidemiology - "the study of the distribution and determinants of health-related states or events in specified populations, and the application of this study to the control of health problems". Science is (broadly) the detection and explanation of observed regularities and generally follows a single cause -> single effect model. But epidemiology works to a different model of many causes -> many effects, and draws out commonalities at a population level.<br /><br />The commonalities are much harder to 'prove' than single cause and effect regularities. Look how long it took to show how tobacco smoking was generally bad for you, or how leaded petrol was generally bad for you. Had all smokers contracted lung cancer within 5 years of starting to smoke the 'simple' link between smoking and cancer would have been a slam dunk and interested parties couldn't have delayed things.<br /><br />Climate science is similar in that there are many causes and many effects, and many of the unconvinced or inconvenienced can find some wiggle room to argue. Similarly Climate Science has been pushed by activists, and that in itself fosters resistance.<br /><br />My best guess is that Climate Science will eventually be resolved by analysis of Big Data (just like epidemiological investigation of other complex subjects)."<br /><br />Single cause/single effect is straightforward. Multiple causes/multiple effects require statistical analysis.DiscoveredJoyshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05300239909689336895noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6745817778350624453.post-16124555451354646672021-12-12T08:48:34.806+13:002021-12-12T08:48:34.806+13:00That's true. Darwin was loathe to enter into d...That's true. Darwin was loathe to enter into debate with doubters and let Thomas Huxley (Darwin's bulldog) do the dirty work.Flaxen Saxonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03431645401478120921noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6745817778350624453.post-7917685217955435852021-12-12T02:46:32.849+13:002021-12-12T02:46:32.849+13:00I think it might be interesting to do a series on ...I think it might be interesting to do a series on moments of change in scientific thinking. Arguments were not always won simply through facts and logic, but sometimes through rhetorical skill as you know with Darwin: https://victorianweb.org/science/biology/oxforddebate.htmlSackersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17284329249862764601noreply@blogger.com