I am not sure whether science should ever 'pull its punches' to keep deniers onboard. This seems especially problematical when the topic is climate change and the deniers are people with vested political or commercial interests (https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/sep/23/scientists-changing-global-warming-report-please-polluters). Science stands or falls by making a testable hypothesis and making predictions on this basis that are experimentally examined (hopefully, in a way that is unbiased). When the predictions are not supported, the scientist has to change the hypothesis (either by tweaking it or coming up with something new).There are no such constraints on 'belief systems'. So you can't be a little bit scientific and the fact that scientists often differ in their views should not be seen as a weakness (especially when a contentious area is developing). I do think you have to tell it how it is!
This blog may help people explore some of the 'hidden' issues involved in certain media treatments of environmental and scientific issues. Using personal digital images, it's also intended to emphasise seasonal (and other) changes in natural history of the Swansea (South Wales) area. The material should help participants in field-based modules and people generally interested in the natural world. The views are wholly those of the author.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Food For Thought?
The link between global heating and food prices is clearly illustrated in a recent CarbonBrief ( https://www.carbonbrief.org/five-charts-ho...
-
Garden plants in France, The Netherlands, The UK and Sikkim (NE India).
-
Common toadflax ( Linaria vulgaris ) contains a moderately toxic glucoside.
-
The UK's Deputy Prime Minister has been advising Brits on how to 'better prepare for future pandemics, disasters and cyber attacks&...
No comments:
Post a Comment