A really beautiful example of how "own researchers" are happy with simplistic explanations for allegedly debunking scientific research.
Same happens with covid, btw.
(4 votes)
Science vs. "own" research
A really beautiful example of how "own researchers" are happy with simplistic explanations for allegedly debunking scientific research.
Same happens with covid, btw.
Comments
(Old Spike)
yup. the trouble is global warming is just too large a scope to be within anyone's personal experience. the same thing happens with fishing - fishermen report no decline in fish stocks because they've caught just as many fish as always, but they of course haven't sampled the entire ocean.
your description takes it too far though. not all scientific research is anywhere near as thorough as that on global warming. say if the evidence for global warming was nothing more than a computer simulation that took into account only what was believed to be true and didn't include any actual measurements of a single coastline let alone a world-wide average, then that research could be sufficiently debunked by a couple of amateurs taking measurements over the course of a few years.
perhaps a good realistic example is the research on video games and violence. multiple studies all consistently show that kids are more aggressive after playing violent games. the trouble is it's not true, as proved by a single study that looked at a slightly longer time frame. it found that while kids are more aggressive right after playing, in the short time following the levels aggression drop to lower than before the game was started. a mountain of studies that don't go far enough don't show the truth of anything.
(Old Spike)
Just because science makes mistakes does not mean the process is flawed. You are actually proving the point with your example. As there is a social aspect involved in this there were quite a few agenda driven studies on the topic, I assume. Same goes for smoking back in the 60s and 70s, loads of meaningless "studies" designed only to prove a single point. Which is pretty much the case with the "deniers' bloggosphere" these days.
(Old Spike)
i didn't say the process was flawed, and i didn't say any mistakes were made either. it's possible to have made no mistakes yet still be incorrect due to a false equivalency (such as in-vitro and in-vivo), unwarranted expansion or conflation (making long-term conclusions when the study was short-term, for example), and the like. the deniers use this, but also the debunkers use it too. it goes both ways.