"Sound Science"

[indigo_rose99]

I thought 538's recent article on "The Easiest Way to Dismiss Good Science is to Demand Sound 'Science'"  to be very thought provoking. The idea that the core question is how much risk are we willing to accept gives me a much more sympathetic view of the climate change deniers. They are willing to accept a higher level of risk with the immediate financial benefit than I am. Ah. That is truly a personal decision. I think our society should accept a lower level of risk for ourselves and our children, even though this means a more immediate financial sacrifice.  

Risk averse. Where does that put me on the political spectrum?

Comments

[mackthemike.wordpress.com]

I’m not sure being risk averse puts you on any particular part of the political spectrum. It seems like what distinguishes different parts of the spectrum is *what* risks one worries about rather than one’s risk tolerance overall.

What I found interesting about the article was the author’s unwillingness to ascribe good faith to the methodological critiques of climate skeptics. She acknowledges that the crisis of reproducibility is real and that calls for transparency are made with good intentions — except when those calls come from climate skeptics, which she attributes to bias or worse.

I think her attitude is counterproductive even if the the underlying science is exactly right. Significant policy changes can only be made over the long term if a broad consensus develops. This will require bringing good-faith skeptics along.

The author may welll be right that increased openness to non-scientists and skeptics will increase the costs of research and delay publication, but if a consensus develops sooner, then from a policy perspective, it’s not a delay at all.