Comments on: Two Kinds of People Who Always Say “No!” http://waterwordsthatwork.com/2008/03/27/environmental-writing-background-information/ Make a splash with your communications! Sat, 19 May 2012 09:55:08 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: sarah http://waterwordsthatwork.com/2008/03/27/environmental-writing-background-information/comment-page-1/#comment-3559 sarah Thu, 27 Mar 2008 19:08:57 +0000 http://waterwordsthatwork.com/2008/03/27/two-kinds-of-people-who-always-say-no/#comment-3559 I should clarify: Scientific inquiry is not limited to well-defined problems. But definitive answers are. I should clarify:
Scientific inquiry is not limited to well-defined problems. But definitive answers are.

]]> By: sarah http://waterwordsthatwork.com/2008/03/27/environmental-writing-background-information/comment-page-1/#comment-3558 sarah Thu, 27 Mar 2008 18:58:27 +0000 http://waterwordsthatwork.com/2008/03/27/two-kinds-of-people-who-always-say-no/#comment-3558 And at what point is a scientific issue "settled"? I am a practitioner and advocate of the Precautionary Principle and believe we should undertake prudent, cost-effective approaches sooner rather than later BECAUSE science _so_ rarely gives definitive answers. I did desktop publishing for an environmental health science journal for three years and never ONCE did a journal article cross my desk that did not conclude with a call for more research so more definitive data could be developed. Science is an iterative process, and concerns itself with seeking answers to very narrow, well-defined problems. Climate change is not such a problem. For me, if the science backs up what I see, hear, feel, and observe from news sources I trust, then that's enough for me. If it runs counter to my experience, then I question it. This is probably why I am not a scientist, but then again neither is the vast majority of the public. And at what point is a scientific issue “settled”?

I am a practitioner and advocate of the Precautionary Principle and believe we should undertake prudent, cost-effective approaches sooner rather than later BECAUSE science _so_ rarely gives definitive answers.

I did desktop publishing for an environmental health science journal for three years and never ONCE did a journal article cross my desk that did not conclude with a call for more research so more definitive data could be developed. Science is an iterative process, and concerns itself with seeking answers to very narrow, well-defined problems. Climate change is not such a problem.

For me, if the science backs up what I see, hear, feel, and observe from news sources I trust, then that’s enough for me. If it runs counter to my experience, then I question it. This is probably why I am not a scientist, but then again neither is the vast majority of the public.

]]> By: Kelly http://waterwordsthatwork.com/2008/03/27/environmental-writing-background-information/comment-page-1/#comment-3557 Kelly Thu, 27 Mar 2008 13:13:10 +0000 http://waterwordsthatwork.com/2008/03/27/two-kinds-of-people-who-always-say-no/#comment-3557 Interesting; I would like to add that there are folks who are willing to believe anything and everything about climate change, including the infamous 'hockey stick' graph, and they refuse to listen to alternative points of view or to facts that challenge their fervent beliefs. To me, that is also a personality type, not a rationally thought-through position. They 'feel' that global warming is caused by humans, they want it to be true, and they won't look at anything that contradicts that belief system. To paraphrase Ben Franklin, when a position on one side of an issue becomes impassioned to the point of inflexible certitude, the other side must become as staunch, rigid and closed-minded. For instance, I keep reading that many aspects of climatology are still in their infancy, and we humans are only scratching the surface of understanding the interactions between clouds, the ocean, solar radiation and other types of space radiation, and how they all impact each other and our planet's atmosphere. I'm willing to listen and learn, to refrain from knee-jerk reactions. Once science is "settled," there is no room for advancement, no room for discovery or intellectual progress. That would be tragic. Interesting; I would like to add that there are folks who are willing to believe anything and everything about climate change, including the infamous ‘hockey stick’ graph, and they refuse to listen to alternative points of view or to facts that challenge their fervent beliefs. To me, that is also a personality type, not a rationally thought-through position. They ‘feel’ that global warming is caused by humans, they want it to be true, and they won’t look at anything that contradicts that belief system.

To paraphrase Ben Franklin, when a position on one side of an issue becomes impassioned to the point of inflexible certitude, the other side must become as staunch, rigid and closed-minded.

For instance, I keep reading that many aspects of climatology are still in their infancy, and we humans are only scratching the surface of understanding the interactions between clouds, the ocean, solar radiation and other types of space radiation, and how they all impact each other and our planet’s atmosphere. I’m willing to listen and learn, to refrain from knee-jerk reactions. Once science is “settled,” there is no room for advancement, no room for discovery or intellectual progress. That would be tragic.

]]>