Dr Shiva describes the history of the Climate Change “science” – what is the difference between science and pseudo-science?
Science requires observations (evidence) in order to prepare a hypothesis, and from that hypothesis we may prepare a number of predictions.
The resulting predictions are then compared with new observations of reality, and if all of the predictions are observed to be true then that hypothesis becomes a theory … until new observations come along that do not fit the predictions.
To confirm the theory and guard against errors, the same process must be repeated by independent scientists, working independently, in the process known as peer review. Note that a peer is another person of equal status – there is no hierarchy in this process. If all peer reviewers confirm the results, then the theory becomes the “accepted science”. Even then, a single properly discredited prediction is sufficient to discredit the “science”.
Conclusion? “The science” is never a fixed truth. We might say that it is treated as truth … until it’s found wanting.
Consensus as such is not relevant to the formal process of establishing “the science” (even though the peer review process may establish a level of consensus). It merely requires consensus among all the independent scientists who independently and diligently conduct the peer reviews.
On the other hand, for any new “science” to become generally accepted, consensus among academics and other leading scientific institutions is key. The point is that such consensus in the absence of the formal process ought to be invalid as a means to establish any new science.
Topical question – where do scientific models fit in?
Scientific models are an algorithmic expression of the hypothesis. They may be used to create predictions for the purpose of testing the hypothesis against reality.
In the scientific method, models do not necessarily provide evidence about reality.
All models are founded upon a set of assumptions that must be documented. They create predictions which must be validated against reality before the model can be considered valid, and even then, they can only be regarded as valid in respect of the specific inputs and outputs that have been tested and documented, and provided that the assumptions upon which the model is based hold true in the situation being investigated.
Once the predictions of a model have been tested against real observations in the situation where all the assumptions hold true, and have been through the independent peer review process, and have been found to be correct, then the hypothesis that they implement may be accepted as “the science” for that set of inputs outputs and assumptions … until a prediction no longer fits the observations of reality.
So when our elites tell us that they are “following the science”, are they following the predictions of a fully tested and peer-reviewed theory (maybe expressed by a model), or just the latest untested hypothesis or algorithmic model that may lack proper peer review? Are the “independent scientists” truly independent (ie: not sponsored by the same financial interests) and do they also work independently? Have they validated that the modelling assumptions held true in their review?
These are severe criteria because the consequences of getting it wrong may range from severe to catastrophic.
The fact that one or a thousand “scientists” support a hypothesis does not of itself make it “science”. Scientists are all human and humans are well known for their capacity to accept delusions that they find plausible, especially if they also find them attractive, and if they had no particular need to do a fully detailed review of the evidence.
Dr Shiva explains how the world really works . . . through public perceptions carefully crafted by politicians, “experts”, the media, academics and their funding philanthropists and others including “authoritative” bodies such as the IPCC, WHO etc (the fallacy of appeal to authority), amongst which prestidigitators we must diligently search out and distinguish the real science from the reported opinion.
Well worth your time, if only as an apposite refresher in how the global political system really works.
Some might wish to consider how the above applies to the Covid-19 pandemic . . . but I’ll leave that as an exercise for the reader.
Visit Dr Shiva’s web-site for his self-education pages – recommended!
Dr V.A. Shiva – “Scientist, engineer, inventor, educator“, iconoclast (I added that bit ) & “warrior for truth freedom and health“.