Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

"SETI is a religion" - Michael Crichton

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

This is an old lecture, but well worth a read. Though the title speaks to Global Warming, the content is much broader. Crichton speaks to the nature of science, the nature of evidence and the mix of politics and research. In doing so, he skewers SETI, Carl Sagan, Paul Erlich, "Scientific American", and fears of "second-hand smoking".

 

Here's his warning.

 

In recent years, much has been said about the post-modernist claims about science to the effect that science is just another form of raw power, tricked out in special claims for truth-seeking and objectivity that really have no basis in fact. Science, we are told, is no better than any other undertaking. These ideas anger many scientists, and they anger me. But recent events have made me wonder if they are correct.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I know almost nothing about this subject, I'm curious: what is the "objectivist" consensus on GW?

There's definitely no consensus. I know Objectivists who think AGW is mostly politics clouding scientific judgement, and I know other Objectivists who think the former type of Objectivist is letting politics cloud scientific judgement!

My guess is that more Objectivists would be in the former group, but obviously even if its a majority, it says nothing about the the truth of the topic.

Anyway, there is no way that Objectivism as such is going to say anything about a topic like this.

BTW, despite the title, the article above is not really about AGW as such. It is far broader.

Edited by softwareNerd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I won't pretend to speak for all Objectivist, but as someone who has followed the issue closely for around 5 years now, I can say with absolute confidence that is a colossal scam.

 

As someone educated in basic chemistry and who has followed the same issue for quite some time, I can say with absolute confidence that you're wrong.

 

But I'm not gonna back that up or anything.

 

 

In all seriousness though, I believe there's good reason to be concerned about global warming.

 

I'm assuming that no one debates the basic facts - that CO2 exists, that it, and other atmospheric gases, retain heat in the atmosphere, and that there are massively increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere as compared to all of human history, and many thousands of years of history preceding it, and, finally, that humans produce CO2 on a level unmatched by nature, which has had a definitive effect on CO2 levels. There's enough evidence for each of those assertions that I really can't see a person claiming to be objective and still disagreeing with any of that.

 

If not anywhere in there, where does your disagreement with the scientific establishment lie? Do you believe, perhaps, that the increase in CO2 does not cause a notable increase in global heat retention? Do you believe that the climate is not affected by increased CO2 and heat retention? There's plentiful evidence across dozens, if not hundreds, of objective studies for both of these things. So, where do you disagree?

 

 

I do know that some Objectivists believe in global warming, and simply think that there's no reason to worry, or that we should do nothing about it and instead adapt to it. There are some arguments, though I wouldn't tend to believe them myself, that global warming would have a net positive effect, at least for humanity. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wish Crichton had chosen a different title for his lecture. For instance, one appropriate alternative that describes his subject-matter just as well would be "SETI is a religion". I've changed the thread title, to be less distracting.

Here is a quote from the lecture:

 

As a result, the Drake equation can have any value from “billions and billions” to zero. An expression that can mean anything means nothing. Speaking precisely, the Drake equation is literally meaningless, and has nothing to do with science. I take the hard view that science involves the creation of testable hypotheses. The Drake equation cannot be tested and therefore SETI is not science. SETI is unquestionably a religion.

Faith is defined as the firm belief in something for which there is no proof. The belief that the Koran is the word of God is a matter of faith. The belief that God created the universe in seven days is a matter of faith. The belief that there are other life forms in the universe is a matter of faith. There is not a single shred of evidence for any other life forms, and in forty years of searching, none has been discovered.There is absolutely no evidentiary reason to maintain this belief. SETI is a religion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm assuming that no one debates the basic facts - that CO2 exists, that it, and other atmospheric gases, retain heat in the atmosphere, and that there are massively increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere as compared to all of human history, and many thousands of years of history preceding it, and, finally, that humans produce CO2 on a level unmatched by nature, which has had a definitive effect on CO2 levels. There's enough evidence for each of those assertions that I really can't see a person claiming to be objective and still disagreeing with any of that.

 

If not anywhere in there, where does your disagreement with the scientific establishment lie? Do you believe, perhaps, that the increase in CO2 does not cause a notable increase in global heat retention? Do you believe that the climate is not affected by increased CO2 and heat retention? There's plentiful evidence across dozens, if not hundreds, of objective studies for both of these things. So, where do you disagree?

Here's a hypothetical: 

 

You walk into a doctor's office, and one of the doctors says: You have terminal cancer, you're gonna die in six months. The other doctor says: Don't listen to him, he's wrong. Naturally, you ask a third doctor to settle the issue. The third doctor says: I see, this second doctor disagrees that you're gonna die. Well, that's just stupid. We're all gonna die. 

 

That is the equivalent of your description of AGW theory: there is some extra CO2, which is gonna retain some heat, which is gonna cause some warming. No one disputes that: yes, we're all gonna die at some point, and yes, extra CO2 is gonna cause some warming.

 

Now can you please take a position on how much CO2, how much warming, and what the effects will be (the way the politically motivated, government backed, pseudo-scientific institutions and their political allies, driving the GW propaganda machine, all do), so that we have something of substance to agree or disagree with?

Edited by Nicky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's definitely no consensus. I know Objectivists who think AGW is mostly politics clouding scientific judgement, and I know other Objectivists who think the former type of Objectivist is letting politics cloud scientific judgement!

My guess is that more Objectivists would be in the former group, but obviously even if its a majority, it says nothing about the the truth of the topic.

Anyway, there is no way that Objectivism as such is going to say anything about a topic like this.

BTW, despite the title, the article above is not really about AGW as such. It is far broader.

 

I definitely got the broader theme, and it's a good one. Certainly everybody should be skeptical of "scientific consensus" where practical. Certainly such "consensus" is going to be colored by political forces.

 

As for the stance, that's actually pretty good. Per the above, saying I know "nothing" about the subject isn't quite accurate: I know some, but not nearly enough to make a conclusion one way or another. I can certainly see two opposing political forces (both bad) polluting the discussion.

 

My two statements here point to a deeper point as well: we're at the mercy of science. If a doctor gives you a drug for an illness, is it the right one? In many cases it would take you years to make a fully-informed decision. I suppose I could go figure out the details of AGW, but it's an intensely complicated subject.

 

It gets down to who to trust. For AGW, do I trust the industry lobby or do I trust environmental religionist? The answer is, of course, neither.

 

More than taking one side or another, the article laments a breakdown in society:

 

"But what are scientists doing attacking a press? Is this the new McCarthyism-coming from scientists? Worst of all was the behavior of the Scientific American, which seemed intent on proving the post-modernist point that it was all about power, not facts."

 

If our major publications become corrupt and the defenders of truth become cowardly, we're screwed...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's a hypothetical: 

 

You walk into a doctor's office, and one of the doctors says: You have terminal cancer, you're gonna die in six months. The other doctor says: Don't listen to him, he's wrong. Naturally, you ask a third doctor to settle the issue. The third doctor says: I see, this second doctor disagrees that you're gonna die. Well, that's just stupid. We're all gonna die. 

 

That is the equivalent of your description of AGW theory: there is some extra CO2, which is gonna retain some heat, which is gonna cause some warming. No one disputes that: yes, we're all gonna die at some point, and yes, extra CO2 is gonna cause some warming.

 

Now can you please take a position on how much CO2, how much warming, and what the effects will be (the way the politically motivated, government backed, pseudo-scientific institutions and their political allies, driving the GW propaganda machine, all do), so that we have something of substance to agree or disagree with?

 

I can no longer edit my post. If I could, I would change the phrase "CO2 is gonna retain some heat" to "the greenhouse effect will strengthen to some extent". I have also neglected to mention the global cooling effects of industrial activity: that must also be a part of any objective view of climate change.

 

And there are many other potential factors that will influence Earth's climate in the future (solar activity, volcanic activity, human advances in controlling climate). 

 

AGW theories which include predictions of the future must be judged in light of all that uncertainty, and dismissed if they fail to account for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To add to my post.

 

  1. The modern temperature record of (the past 100 or so years) is of very poor quality, and the supposed global temperature anomaly is actually less than the margin of error inherent in instruments.  If your instrument is plus or minus 1 degree in accuracy, any claim of tenths of a degree are a result of averaging.  The act of averaging (especially anomolized against an arbitrarily selected base line) cannot help but be biased.  I  could just as easily chose a 20th century base line and show that the globe is "cooling".
  2. Any claim of "global" temperature is from griding of temperature i.e. manufacturing data.  We do not have anywhere near enough stations to calculate a global surface temperature average.
  3. The UHA Temperature record (satellite temps since the late 1970's) does not agree with the land based data (NCDC, GISS, Hadley CRU) all of which claim "warming".
  4. Temperature (data) is routinely homogenized, normalized, grided, adjusted, etc.  The one ABSOLUTE cardinal rule of science is don't fuck with the data - ever.
  5. CO2 absorption of OLWR tappers off very quickly.  A run-away forcing to water vapor will not happen.  Even the IPCC declined to include a numerical value for CO2 sensitivity in the last AR5.  This was done in a foot note, lol.
  6. Atmospheric CO2 levels probably trail warming.  As the planet climbed out of the LIA, the oceans warmed slightly and CO2 was released.
  7. The Minoan, Roman and Medieval warm periods cannot be explained by industrialization. 
  8. The multidecadal oscillation in the oceans (roughly 65 years) better explains the warming from roughly 1975 to the year 2000.  We are probably entering a 30 year cooling period similar to the 1940 to 1975 period.

I can go on and on.  

 

And while the following is in no way proof that global warming is an artifact of statistics and data manipulation, it is non the less interesting.

 

CCX

Edited by New Buddha
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...