"scientific truth" - an oxymoron

A recent article made headline news when it reported the findings of scientists on climate change. The thrust of the article was that now there is "scientific truth" of man induced climate change, what will a Trump administration do about it?

Now let it be clear, this blog is not about climate change. If truth be known, I am a strong advocate that man should be a good steward of God's creation. The article interested me because it claimed "scientific truth." I would dare say a large percentage of those reading the article would never question that phrase. They would knock each other out debating the conclusions of the article and maybe its purpose, but rarely its assumption that science produces truth.

No reputable scientist would claim science produces truth. I have advanced degrees in both physical and social sciences, well published in academic journals. Science finds statistical evidence that A is likely to cause B given C. Science is limited in many ways. First, it is only probabilistic, or showing a statistical inference. Second, all scientific inquiry is bounded. That is, the findings are limited to certain conditions included in the study.

Third, going in assumptions and methods are always biased. I once heard, "the problem with science is the scientist." For example, in this article the conclusion by the scientists was climate change must be man made because they could find no evidence for any other explanation.


This is VERY FAULTY SCIENCE.

Therefore, I do several things with scientific studies. I take the findings with a grain of salt until I view the assumptions and methods. I do not take it as evidence of truth, but statistical probabilities that two things relate together in a certain way, possibly. Finally, I seek to understand the purpose of the study.

While many people wish to conduct themselves in ways that do not create problems for our environment, many of these same people do not want "climate change" to be used by government as a hammer to control and interfere in their lives. Constitutionalists would claim "inalienable rights". That is, they want to pursue their life outside of government intrusion. There is a concern that science, similar to that presented in this article, is simply a tool to grow government. That's where the disagreement generally is and that is where the public discourse should go. Those that are cynics of climate change science should not challenge science with science. That is ingenious and futile. But rather argue for the way in which society should incorporate the myriad of studies that suggest cause and effect of actions we take on the environment.

Its not that we should avoid or constrain public discourse on issues like climate change, it's that we should be more informed about the methods and tools we use to debate. Science does not determine truth. Let's at least quit bullying others with that claim.

If truth is not determined through observation, how then is it determined?

I'll leave that with you for now as something to ponder ......