The day I have waited for 10 years.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by MattyC

The Prime Minister, whether its Harper, Trudeau, or Wayne effing Gretzky are not the authorities on validity and accuracy of science.

These are not opinions, these are verified scientific facts that were being withheld from the public because they were perceived to be detrimental to certain industries. Not because they were up for debate.



Opinions can be drawn from scientific conclusions, but scientific conclusions are not up for opinion.

EX: The ppm of CO2 in the ocean has increased by x amount over the last y years. That is a fact (without numbers because I don't know them)

From that, there can be opinions on what's causing it and what the implications could be. But even then, if more research shows what is causing it, it changes from opinion to fact. And the people who were of the different opinion before either have to accept the new information as facts, or be behind the rest humanity.

Fact and proof exist only in closed theoretical systems, like mathematics. In real world science there is no fact or proof.

Here's a pretty good article on it:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...ientific-proof

Here's a good blog post:

http://brainatthedoor.blogspot.ca/20...ific-fact.html

Basically, the point is that science is never final. We can only come up with the best explanation on what we observe. The more complex and the more factors that become part of our explanation, the more room there is for opinion.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by blankall

I disagree strongly.

Science, by definition, is a competing set of theories and hypotheses. The majority view on which view is correct often changes as new information becomes available.

I somewhat agree. Doesn't mean that a lot of it isn't ironic, or results aren't falsified, or data are too complex.

The absolute uncritical trust that most people place in scientists blows my mind; as if they weren't susceptible to the same cognitive errors as the rest of the population.

Certainly science as a discovery method is the most powerful type of epistemology in human history, but in regards to its absolute "TRUTH" value, we have to be selective. What if most major scientific discoveries have already been made, and what is left is subject to increasingly diminishing returns?

Climate science is one such avenue where we have to carefully distinguish between fact and opinion.

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/...rsus-opinions/

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by blankall

Fact and proof exist only in closed theoretical systems, like mathematics.

My admittedly limited understanding is that the jury's still out to some extent about whether even math is a closed system, or whether there's any distinction between mathematics and what we observe as reality. To wit: http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/the...st-max-tegmark

[blankall]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

My admittedly limited understanding is that the jury's still out to some extent about whether even math is a closed system, or whether there's any distinction between mathematics and what we observe as reality.

In reference to mathematics being close, I'm talking about closed binary systems in the mind, where we've limited the outcome via own imposed rules.

For example:

2 + 2 = 4

In order to replicate that in the real world, we need to install some arbitrary human construct and assumptions in order to close the potentially infinite systems that exist in reality.

[Fire]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Public servants are employed by us.

So has long as you work for the government you believe anything goes regarding employees discussing their work with the press?

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

^I don't necessarily agree with the guy, but I know he certainly didn't say that. Straw men unnecessary.

[combustiblefuel]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

Looks like the environmental savior of Canada is off to a great start.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/montrea...sday-1.2651319

Article indeed forgets this was planned under Harpers government as well is legal because of the restrictions that were removed under Harpers government.

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Science isn't a matter of opinion.

That's funny. What do you think a theory is?
Science is entirely a matter of opinion/interpretation.
Science is a process, and by no means absolute.
Scientific 'facts' used to include the sun revolving around the earth, etc. So unless you think that every question possible has already been definitively answered, science is and always will be 'opinion' based on best observable data.

EDIT: oops, I see I'm late to the party.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Public servants are employed by us.

Agreed, there is a big difference between the government telling you to keep quiet and a private business.

Having said that, even in the private sector, the fundamental principle for all professionals is to act in the best interest of the public. Any private organization that muzzles its employees in a way that is harmful to the public, should face sanctions if it is ever revealed.

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by combustiblefuel

Article indeed forgets this was planned under Harpers government as well is legal because of the restrictions that were removed under Harpers government.

Foiled again! Every environmental problem in Canada is solely due to Harper's Reign of Terror. I should've known.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

That's funny. What do you think a theory is?

The word "theory" when used in a scientific context does not have the same meaning as it does in colloquial use. It most definitely does not equate to being an "opinion".

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

A scientific theory is a series of statements about the causal elements for observed phenomena. A critical component of a scientific theory is that it provides explanations and predictions that can be tested.

Usually, theories (in the scientific sense) are large bodies of work that are a composite of the products of many contributors over time and are substantiated by vast bodies of converging evidence. They unify and synchronize the scientific community's view and approach to a particular scientific field. For example, biology has the theory of evolution and cell theory, geology has plate tectonic theory and cosmology has the Big Bang. The development of theories is a key element of the scientific method as they are used to make predictions about the world; if these predictions fail, the theory is revised. Theories are the main goal in science and no explanation can achieve a higher "rank" (contrary to the belief that "theories" become "laws" over time).

"Theory" is a Jekyll-and-Hyde term that means different things depending on the context and who is using it. While in everyday speech anything that attempts to provide an explanation for a cause can be dubbed a "theory", a scientific theory has a much more specific meaning. Scientific theory is far more than just a casual conjecture or some Joe's guesswork. A theory in this context is a well-substantiated explanation for a series of facts and observations that is testable and can be used to predict future observations.

[Flash Walken]

Keep fighting the good fight, March.

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Keep fighting the good fight, March.

Yeah - don't let truth stand in the way of your opinion, right?

[Thor]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

Foiled again! Every environmental problem in Canada is solely due to Harper's Reign of Terror. I should've known.

The PCs have a pretty bad record when it comes to environment and science, on the of the best compilations of articles on this rather sad history is here:

http://scienceblogs.com/confessions/...al-indictment/

This is a brief chronology of the current Conservative Canadian government’s long campaign to undermine evidence-based scientific, environmental and technical decision-making. It is a government that is beholden to big business, particularly big oil, and that makes every attempt to shape public policy to that end. It is a government that fundamentally doesn’t believe in science. It is a government that is more interested in keeping its corporate masters happy than in protecting the environment.

As is occasionally my habit, I have pulled together a chronology of sorts. It is a chronology of all the various cuts, insults, muzzlings and cancellations that I’ve been able to dig up. Each of them represents a single shot in the Canadian Conservative war on science. It should be noted that not every item in this chronology, if taken in isolation, is necessarily the end of the world. It’s the accumulated evidence that is so damning.

Most of the items come from various links I’ve saved over the years as well as various other media articles I’ve dug up over the last week or so. This series at The Huffington Post has been particularly useful as has this article at the Wastershed Sentinal.

A long list of various environmental programs that the Harper government has discontinued or slashed funding to is here. I haven’t found individual media stories about all of them, so they aren’t in the list below. If you can help me find stories about some of those programs, etc, please let me know. As well, some stories are treated multiple times, with perhaps an initial story telling the big picture or introducing a large series of cuts and later stories fleshing out details.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

Foiled again! Every environmental problem in Canada is solely due to Harper's Reign of Terror. I should've known.

No, but to blame the current regime is pretty disingenuous

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

No, but to blame the current regime is pretty disingenuous

I was just being silly with that comment because as I noted in this thread (or the other, can't remember), I see a lot of Justin Can Do no Wrong sentiment going around.

So whereas if Harper was still PM and this was happening, I would expect hell to break loose on the internet. But since it's happening with the environmental darling Justin; well it's not a big environmental problem.

[savemedrzaius]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

Yeah - don't let truth stand in the way of your opinion, right?

Are you for real? I think you are confusing truth with truthiness. People on here are stating facts and you act like they are opinions.

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by savemedrzaius

Are you for real? I think you are confusing truth with truthiness. People on here are stating facts and you act like they are opinions.

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.

[Coach]

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.