Quote:
Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce
Facts like science is absolute and data is not subject to interpretation?
In another thread the 'same' people are supporting (or I guess slamming also) the new science minister for her opinion in support of a radical therapy in the treatment of MS.
Or in the other thread where some scientists are offering opinions on whether some 'structure looking thing' might be an alien signalling device.
Those differing opinions and the discussion of same in the pursuit of truth is exactly what science is.
You don't get to play it both ways.
|
But there are facts included in those things. The people discussing alien structures, do so because of the facts about that area.
Just like my earlier example with the ocean water. CO2 levels have increased x amount over y years. That is a fact. It is observable and measurable. The reasons for that is up to interpretation (although in this case our logic can fill that gap).
There are verified facts in science. The Earth takes just over 365 earth rotations to orbit the sun. Light from the sun takes 8 minutes to reach us. What our atmosphere is made of as well as other planets'. We know these things. And if any of them change somehow, we will have to accept that new information.
The bottom line of this is that
politicians are not, and should not, be the authority on what is fact, what is opinion, and how closely an opinion is correlated to the facts that we know. If we don't get the new information, no opinions can be formed around it. What do Harper or Trudeau know about CO2 levels in the ocean or what it means or what's causing it? Perhaps the people that spend their entire lives studying the stuff are the ones we should hear from.
If they want to set up a committee for the release of information from government funded studies, fine. But it sure as hell better be made up of scientists with experience and knowledge in the field. Not politicians who are anything from lawyers to school teachers.