Naomi Oreskes: Why we should trust scientists
Vložit
- čas přidán 6. 09. 2024
- Many of the world's biggest problems require asking questions of scientists - but why should we believe what they say? Historian of science Naomi Oreskes thinks deeply about our relationship to belief and draws out three problems with common attitudes toward scientific inquiry - and gives her own reasoning for why we ought to trust science.
TEDTalks is a daily video podcast of the best talks and performances from the TED Conference, where the world's leading thinkers and doers give the talk of their lives in 18 minutes (or less). Look for talks on Technology, Entertainment and Design -- plus science, business, global issues, the arts and much more.
Find closed captions and translated subtitles in many languages at www.ted.com/tra...
Follow TED news on Twitter: / tednews
Like TED on Facebook: / ted
Subscribe to our channel: / tedtalksdirector
"Our trust in science, like science itself, should be based on evidence. That means that scientists have to become better communicators. They have to explain to us not just what they know, but how they know it. And it means that we have to become better listeners."
Which scientists? There is no consensus and hopefully will never be ,
by the way it has nothing to do with science.
Science is progressing by open debate, One can be right agains hundreds.
Trust the science from Dr Fauci
Naomi is a commie traitor pushing the global warming scam.
@@dontdex8221 Evil Pinky & the Brain "SCIENCE" at Wuhan! Then there's beagle puppy torture for no medical benefit to humans.
SCIENCE IS NOT VIRTUOUS when politicians and propogandist dishonest scientists do bogus experiments developing deadly and harmful pathogens.
Idiot shows the debunked Hockey Stick!!!
Chopped down a ton of ancient growth forests just to count tree rings for Al Gore's scam.
BINGO! (AKA Amen Ra. Same roots, same fruits)
who else is watching this because your teacher told u to?
I had to write a single spaced report on it just now RIP
Yes
Your teachers are brainwashing children as they are paying d to push the narrative.
😂😂😂😂😂
Yup😂
“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.”
― Neil deGrasse Tyson
Unless it's false...like the scientists who believed in the Geo-centric model.
Maybe... bu you must believe in it so it can be useful for you.
Joseph Ang no...it will be useful to you (your brain/biological body, the air you breathe, water, food) whether you believe in it or not. You can choose not to use your brain or body to its best and highest use, but that's a choice, not science.
pennyhutchinson not really. Scuence us not synonymous to universe or natural word. Science is a system to study it.
However, of course it is true even if you don't believe in it, but you most believe in it to use medicine or do something useful with it.
SangoProductions21 Funny fact: Gallileo BELIEVED that the earth moves around the sun because of sea's waves. Yes, he was right about the earth, but he was wrong about his evidence (waves), which was NOT scientific.
We shouldn't trust scientists, we should trust SCIENCE. Big difference. Appeal to authority is pointless, individual scientists are as flawed as everybody else.
Trust in newton's law VS trust in big bang and dark energy are obviously different.
GigaBoost. Well, this is where we evaluate isn't it? Do we trust big oil, along with other fossil fuel interests, which plows money into climate denial to help stave off any future threat to it's profits, or do we trust the scientists? I mean, come on.
@@joe3600 So we shouldn't have progressed from Newton's laws then? Is that what you're saying?
@@danzel1157 The problem is that "The Scientists" are bought and paid for by big government. The amount of money from big oil is TINY compared to how much the government shovels into pushing the CO2 climate change lie.
Even though scientific outcome can be wrong from time to time as mentioned in the speech, scepticism and constant curiosity are driving forces behind science. Science is learning from its mistakes and evolving, it's not something static.
And if you can survive the jury of geeks which is the scientific community, I think your theory is worthy :)
Naomi is a commie pushing the global warming scam.
@@ricktd6891 Come on. Cut it out.
@@XenonDiosmitide Prove me wrong or piss off.
I have faith, and I love science.
I also have faith in friends: it's trust.
I have faith in the future: it's hope.
I have faith in people: I believe in democracy, for example.
You may choose to trust without experience, but you are just as likely to be betrayed as anyone else, and more so then those that trust them that have proven themselves trustworthy.
You may choose to have blind trust in the future. but your just as likely as anyone to be disappointed, more so unless your hope is based on reliable reasons.
You may choose to follow in people into democracy, but your just a likely as anyone to be victimized unless your willing to stay vigilant and fight for your rights.
So if you have the choice to trust, hope, and beleive, and i choose to be vigilent in my proven, reliable, life choices...
Which of us does history show will be happier?
democracy has a bit of a cycle with it most of the time
1: Become democracy, become powerful symbol for hope for oppressed peoples
2: become extremely unstable and grow to big, slowly decaying in to a mess full of internal conflict fueled by those who just want to further their own goals than that of the general public, but the public can sometimes be wrong.
3: become usurped by military insurgency or other military power and become very autocratic and dictatorial, oppress people, and cause mass misery
4: Spawn a whole bunch of rebellions and insurgents wanting better things for life, be overthrown by large riots and insurgents, spawn new democracies from what's left.
5: repeat.
NOPE
NUH UH
GET OUT OF HERE WITH THAT FAITH SHIT
WE KNOW WHAT YOU'RE UP TO
LEAVE
Faith and revelation over data and reason. Yeah buddy, you go Joseph, I agree with you 100%.
NyxSilver8 I appreciate your false dichtomy fallacy flavored with a coward's sarcasm.
Watching this during Corona lockdown.
We should tentatively trust scientists because they have the evidence and they base their conclusions on evidence. I suppose stating this fact wouldn't make a good (yet brief) TED presentation, though.
Why should I trust people like Jim Hansen and the now deceased Stephen Schneider who both openly admit they lie (have lied) to get their point across?
"Why should I trust people like Jim Hansen and the now deceased Stephen Schneider who both openly admit they lie (have lied) to get their point across?"
No.
I have a great deal on a bridge investment in Manhattan; you should invest.
That’s a sweeping generalisation. Not all scientists base their conclusions on evidence. Have you never heard of industry-funded studies? Or industry-funded scientists and scientific institutions? You sound very naive/uninformed about how the world (and economy) works.
Trust No one & Challenge everything! Anyone who tells you otherwise cannot be trusted and should be challenged!
Her case was why we should put trust in Scientific consensus despite the possibility that a Scientist or group of Scientists could be wrong.
Consensus is merely a group of 'opinions' not a conglomeration of facts.
No, what she is saying is that the publication of that science offers a groundstate against which to check OTHER hyotheses
@@voxac30withstrat Not really. The scientific consensus is based on facts suported by evidence.
And, her insinuation that there is a 'consensus' is a lie. There are 3 studies that found NO consensus.
We have to become better communicators: We have to explain to the public not just what we know but how we know. Indeed, one of the best ted talks I've ever seen.
Lies from a commie traitor.
You’re being brainwashed you fool wake up.
Tell me the method that you used to determine that men is responsible for more than 50.001% of climate change. And simulations does not count, nor is correlation causation. And the greenhouse effect is only for a controlled environment, not the multitude of variables in the planet.
And some people in the comment section are literally bad listeners
it all falls apart when they actually have to show evidence for their crackpot theories tho so they will never do that
Consensus is a great danger in science. Tony Heller has a great YT piece on this. One quote is: consensus is what we agree to believe as a group what no individual actually believes. Skepticism is the key. If/when we agree we have found an ultimate answer we have accepted that no further progress is possible. I don't believe that.
I think it is also fair to say that the general population has to become more scientifically literate. People have such a strong distrust and disbelief in science because they cannot even begin to understand what is going on or what processes and safeguards are being taken. If every member of society had a greater basic understanding of scientific concepts and how scientific claims come to be it would be a lot easier to explain how all the evidence points to any given fact, claim, or theory. As likely anyone who has been to a scientific colloquium, or lecture in which experts in the field are present has seen, there is an immense amount of scrutiny of work, and a wide spread scientific consensus is not any easy thing to come by, so when it does occur, you can be damn well sure that it is not unfounded.
It's all lies, that's why we don't trust them or their global warming scam.
I trust science if their is evidence back them up and not science by consensus.
The whole CO2 warming cult is built on smoke and mirrors. They have no science. Just manipulation of data, biased media, and bad actors like Naomi Oreskes.
The speaker takes a very narrow definition of belief. I define belief as "whatever you think is the case." By my definition every claim about what you think to be the case is a belief. However not all beliefs are equal. Some are better justified than others.
Also the speaker makes the mistake of not understanding that not all appeals to authority are fallacious. There are appeals to justified authority. If you can convince a bunch of skeptical scientists that you are most likely right by the weight of your arguments and your evidence, then a layperson like me is justified in accepting the consensus opinion on the basis of process that the scientists used to come to that conclusion. It's the process I have trust in. I have trust a scientific consensus is foolish to ignore as long as the conclusion was reached on the basis of sound process. Science is that sound process. Of course this doesn't guarantee that it's true, but it's more likely to be true.
What is the Covid-related mortality for non-elderly persons with no comorbidities???
I would like to know what other people think about this: I don't think we should be falling in love with science. All too often I see people tie science into their emotions. They use science to bring themselves comfort, use conformation bias and try to use science to their benefit. Science is properly the best method of explaining why the way the things are and, I think, we shouldn't fall in love with it. I think we should just see the evidence as the evidence.
Science is beautiful, it's ok to fall in love with it.
The more politicians and the media tell us to trust the science the more I question it .
Definitely!!
“Trust the science”. This from the people who brought you ‘non-binary’ and ‘pregnant people’.
They also brought you racially segregated dorms, graduation ceremonies and speech codes on university campuses…
This is cultural Marxism. They are militant ideologues attempting to coerce ideological conformity.
Lenin, recall, parroted Marx in arguing that Marxism was “Scientific Socialism”.
Lenin, leader of the Russian Comunist Revolution, asserted that Marxism was “the scientific method in sociology “.
It was this that granted scientific certainty to the ultimate victory of socialism.
A curious paradox laid at the heart of this analysis. If socialism was the inevitable outcome of material conditions, why did it need pointy-headed party leaders to educate the masses??
For Lenin, the Party was the guardian of “Truth”. Marxism couldn’t advance without the purging ‘false ideas.
You know suppressing “misinformation and ‘disinformation”.
Thus Lenin demanded that the party continue to purge itself of ‘wrong-think’.
Yes, plenty of party members were ‘cancelled’.
Yes, our social justice warriors frequently attack their own for violating the demands for ideological purity. (Pause for the world’s smallest violin.)
The USSR purged plenty of non-party members as well. Millions of innocent people were murdered. About 18 million people were sent to the gulag. Scores died…
This current social justice movement is cultural Marxism and it has its pointy-headed elites that believe they have “the truth”.
Throughout the education system they indoctrinate their students into this poisonous, tribalizing ideology.
Cultural Marxism seeks to weaponize its various identity categories. Each is, allegedly, oppressed by the evil, exploitative system…
This ideology has infected the corporate world, entertainment, sports, the church and the mainstream media.
As witnessed by the disclosures of Twitter and Facebook, they will make effort to purge what they declare to be “misinformation and disinformation”.
These are the labels they rigorously apply to anything that challenges their narrative.
I hope you’ll check out my book. I promise you it’s important, very important.
this one seemed a little basic, like it was tailored for children, largely because publication bias and reporting bias were ignored and not even addressed because those issues do impact trust in science, and areas prone to errors where one's trust is misplaced if placed at all
Exactly. Listening to Naomi Oreskes is like listening to one of those cackling hens on The View. Arguments for elementary minds.
tl; dr: Mathematicians are the only honest ones. Just ignore everyone else =)
mainstream academia of all subjects is riddled with egocentric people clinging to their ideas and refusing to acknowledge evidence that doesn't agree with them. maths seems to be more concrete. this is coming from a scientifically and mathematically illiterate person, just something i've observed about 'scientists' in interviews and stuff.
Maths is the language of science. Maths is everywhere in science, and so are mathematicians.
Pure maths, on the other hand, does not have any direct application (for now, or it is not the mathematician's role). But, mathematicians are regularly saying that they proved a huge theorem... and they have, if you ignore the flaws. The stakes aren't the same, because mathematicians are not mainstream, because the are a step away from technology (which is what interest people).
Maths -> science -> technology.
It's not accurate, but it's the idea if you are doing research.
Math live's in it's own informational universe. Math is infinite, perfect, and intractable. It is very likely that math has a perfect model of how the universe works, the problem is their intractably large set of equally plausible models that are wrong, and the only way to know which is which is by testing it against the physical universe we live in.
Math has its own limitations though, especially when applied to counter intuitive problems for the first time. For example, math can illustrate a coherent model for a logical fallacy when this shouldn't be possible....because it's a fallacy. The problem isn't with the numbers, the numbers obey the rules and the parameters of the problem, but the problem is applied in such a away that does not accurately depict the real life understanding of the phenomena; like a poor analogy. Occasionally it's in this approach to problems do we find mathematics can overstep its boundaries for an explanation or simplified solution when our philosophical exploration of the topic indicates that there are far too many variables for a deductive solution to be reached
Michael Minkler right so slide rules don't make mistakes, people with slide rules make mistakes
Why should WE trust those who tell us whom we SHOULD trust, when they hardly speak out against those we should NOT trust!
Collective folly happens also. And the size of your brain does not make you immune.
Size of brain is not correlated with intelligence.
I stand corrected.
Overonator You were right the first time, intelligence is a different reality than brain. One of the things I've noticed in arguing with atheists is they pride fully say they're more intelligent than theists followed by "the brain produces the mind", but the brain doesn't produce our pride, our heart does. We live from our hearts not from our brains.
NyxSilver8 I'm quite sure it's the brain that produces our pride. The heart just pumps blood.
***** emotions effect the heart more then the brain.
You should always try to falsify your hypothesis, you can never prove it. (Or completely falsify it, but that is a ex.phil. course in itself). Personally I think it would be more educational to have a scientist talk about science.
She's a traitor pushing the climate scam on us.
*Pourquoi fait-on confiance aux scientifiques ?*
Excellente vidéo (pas encore de sous titres, mais compréhensible). Rejoint énormément de discussions tournant à l'idéologie.
Ping Tyrian Dunaédine ;-)
Je regarderais dés que possible ^^"...
degrées centigrades? You just lost all credibility!
:P
Vraiment intéressant en tout cas, ça touche la question de la fiabilité de la science, et par extension de son autorité, pourquoi lui faire confiance? et à qui cela veut-il dire faire confiance, des réponses intéressantes sont données :).
Je regarde ça ce soir.
arrf sans sous titre ^^"
forced to watch this for uni. rip
Sam Bertram same except Its for a TOK assignment
@@Lina-nj9ys here for TOK assignment too
@@hayatabdu1607 Too bad you had to be "forced." The ignorance of most students these days would fill several oceans.
Yeah. Here are we.
You were forced to watch climate cult propaganda from a climate propagandist.
Watch the documentary merchants of doubt. The same speaker applies the ideas of this talk on controversial topics such as tobacco and global warming. Worth it.
Tobacco has nothing to do with global warming. BTW, did she address how LITTLE CO2 has increased since 1880? 1.29 parts per 10,000. Teenie-Tiny!
I don't mean to troll but this is not just a mere grade 3 Science class lecture but also wrong in its basic idea. Evidence never proves an idea to be true; evidence can only show that the hypothesis is not proved untrue. At no time does the evidence become so great that we can say we have found THE truth. This idea about not being ever to totally prove anything to be ABSOLUTELY TRUE in a RELATIVE COSMOS is what all real science is based on. Too many people ignore this in a search for comfortable CERTAINTY.
Or - even worse - it shows a basic inability in many people to ever " Get it." By that I mean the fact that there are no unarguable absolute truths yet some people live with absolute faith in money, or the government or a religion as their god - and will die on request because of their absolutism. Get it? ( or are you gonna argue!)
Gordon Ballinger In five years no one has argued your point. So it MUST be true.
I would just like to add that the other way round that is just the way evidence does not necessarily indicate the hypothesis to be absolute, absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence in the context of any sort of theory or hypothesis that one devices and is not able to prove or other scenarios when the proof is less experimental and more experiential.
@sakor88 well she doesn't say that but science is all about claiming itself to be undeniably true and absolute. Ever studied the "law of gravitation"? Just as an example, "LAW" means that its absolute, no questions should be asked and the instant you say that this law of gravitation (just an example) is the absolute truth and can never be debunked, it would be a contradiction to what you just said earlier.
The biggest debunking of her claim is the fact science is self correcting unlike faith, as once you adopt a belief there is no motivation to abandon it. It's only when faced with overwhelming contradiction and inconsistencies within the scriptures, in the actions of organized religion, or by other people of faith, do people tend to let go of a belief. Religion assumes it knows the answer while science assumes it doesn't know the answer.
How can you develop a healthy skepticism ?
Applying all your thinking and discriminating weapons, I'd say. Trying to tell science from politics, personal beliefs, trying to find the core important truth in media extrapolations, and thinking about how much truth and which method those that oppose a particular scientific postulate use to do it. Doubt is actually part of the scientific method. And also there is "practical" philosophy methods. How you act upon your doubt is what matters. It is hard though. No certainty will reward your final choice most of the times. But it is the good way. Good luck
Naomi Oreskes is as anti-science as they come. Maybe that's why she's not a scientist.
Faith, Censorship and Blind Obedience to protect and save you... Not just for religious cults...
The scientific process itself can only lead to more and more accurate information. This is why we look back and see 'shifts' of various paradigms: because better info, or new evidence leads to a necessary revision of what we know.
Yes, science can be wrong about stuff here and there, but especially these days with the growing technology, the idea that hundreds of thousands of international, independent scientists could be totally wrong about something is bunk.
No, science is ruined because of the global warming scam and traitors like Naomi.
ok let us get this straight. we can trust science, of course. trusting scientists is another thing. in general they do not deserve our trust. how may i count the ways?
faith is based on belief, science is based on doubt.
This speech is amazing! So beautiful! :D I love the finish she did! :)
Perfection is to be found in the detail-but perfection itself is no detail.
Corruption never happens in science. It’s impossible.
Just ask Michael E Mann and Phil Jones, for example.
modern cars hardly ever break down? haha not only do they break down, they are designed to do so.
Indeed they do, and they do so to keep the passengers safe.
PtNyer crumple zones are not considered a 'break down'
***** Not? the car is destroyed and unusable after that. I would say thats a "break down"
@@PWNDer1337 a break down means that your cars engine stops running for a number of reasons- flat battery, no fuel, worn out engine ect. a crash is when your car smashes into another causing it to compress and break in the area where it hit the other car. a crumple zone is a place designed into your car that is designed to deliberately crumple and absorb as much of the impact as possible when smashing into another car.
break down does not literally mean "the car breaks" it means the car stalls or stops working. Jesus Christ
and its true that an increasing amount of products today including iPhone batteries are designed to have shortened lives so that you come back to the company to buy more. its a marketing strategy.
@@georgehamilton6624 yes, but the same idea does not apply to cars.
Why?
Because you need to be alive to buy a new car.
This speech is full of the majority fallacy, such as the statement, "WE" don't believe in belief any more.
A case of spurious relationship (Wikipedia)?
Naomi Oreskes said (at position 12:50):
"we know that greenhouse gases are a major part of the reason why (the temperature increased over the last 50 years)",
because (at position 12:30):
"the only way You can reproduce the observed tempeature measurements with all these things (different factors) put together (into a computer simulation), and the increases in greenhouse tracks this very dramatic increase in temperature over the last 50 years".
So her main argument is the eminent correspondence between the increase of the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and the increase of the temperature. In fact the predictions of the computer simulations fit very well with the observed temperature measurements over the last 50 years.
But this argument seems to be of the same quality as the argument, that convinced most astronomers for more than 1000 years to believe in the correctness of the ptolematic system. With her words: (at position 6:00):
"The ptolematic model (of the planetary system) made lots of predictions that came true. The ptolematic system enabled astronomers to make accurate predictions of the motions of the planets".
Therefore I agree with her statement (in minute 5:30): "False theories can make true predictions". The seemingly correlation between the increase of greenhouse gases and the increase of temperature over the last 50 years is solitarily not sufficient to convince me that the increase of greenhouse gases causally determined the increase of temperature.
By all means I'm afraid and angry about the pollution of air, water and soil and all of our natural ressources by our way of devastating producing and consuming in the developed countries. We have to stop this as soon as possible.
What relationship? Almost nothing cannot cause something. CO2 levels have only increased by 1.29 parts per 10,000 since 1880. Naomi Oreskes is full of crap. She's a propagandist of the climate cult.
Evidence is the key.
Evidence can highly controversial. Big bang are example.
Scientist A say big bang have solid evidence, scientist B disagree, scientist C say no any evidence support big bang.
Great talk!
Now, if we only could make our governments work this way....
Naomi is a traitor pushing the global warming scam.
I'm an atheist and don't believe in a God but I wouldn't argue that pascal left reasoning and rationalism behind. In a way he was the most rational
We shouldn't just trust scientists we should approach everything with a skeptical critical mindset and check the facts and evaluate the evidence for ourselves I'm sure most scientists would agree with me on this, an educated population is a good population.
She wants you to believe in the global warming scam.
@@ricktd6891 It's not as a scam it's an undeniable fact supported by overwhelming scientific data. 😑🤨
@@WokeandProud Yea ok, so bring me 1 piece of proof.
@@WokeandProud And they don't want an educated population because if you knew history or science you would know it's a scam.
@@ricktd6891 You have access to the internet look up the scientific data yourself I'm not your library dude...
It's difficult for me to truly believe in a science professor these days. He may very well know the truth of the science on a subject yet I believe we're lectured on what the person paying him wants us to believe. Very sad for us. Very sad for the professor.
I really hope for someone to explaim this one for me because thats the biggest concern on science for me. Its not transparent sometimes what the motivation behind some studies are and the general public either has no time to confirm these studies themselves because not everyone is a scientist. As a random person its more about trust than being able to understand and confirm every part of science studies and how every aspect of them comes to a rational and logical conclusion. The general public doesnt know how to accurately interpret evidence the right way or better said, how to acctually proof a theory.
She's a traitor pushing the global warming scam.
@@tomkem.6515 I can show you how to falsify CO2 caused catastrophic global warming if you want.
@@ricktd6891 go for it
Outstanding talk. One of the best ted talks ive ever seen.👏
She's a traitor pushing the climate scam on us.
Even better than Oreskes first TED Talk.
I believe in the Big Bang theory but I also believe there is a higher power
when i saw the title of the video...hhhhh. its like saying why we should breathe air. like...wtf dude.
She insuinates that we should blindly accept scientific theory as fact, based on the faith that they know what they are doing and they are using a 'method' ... but... (aside from the obvious that most theories are proven false or seriously incomplete) science is based on asking questions, faith is not. I think the more intelligent people in the world don't believe much of the so-called 'science' being presented to us, because the scientists have yet to PROVE that what they are claiming is true and cannot provide FACTS to back up their claims.
Watch the entire video before commenting and a couple other scientists talking about it, that might prevent you from saying something so stupid next time :)
@@lucycharlotte1641 I am not what you think I am. You are what you think I am.
@@comfortouch Shut up.
Gravity does not "bend" rays. The gravitational mass distribution bends space-time locally and turns the straight lines into curved spacetime geodesics (the equivalence principle). Light propagates along null paths in curved spacetime Whether or not an object gets bent depends on its material constitution and shape. It has nothing to do with gravity.
TED Talk comment debates are so hot they're heating up the environment!
Science is looking into nature. It is unbiased, whatever nature there is, science will represent. It aims to go against the negative human behaviors by use of the scientific method. No other system or body tackles big questions and looks at nature by firstly preventing the negative aspects of us getting involved, no better than science.
She almost lost at Pascal's Wager, but overall it was very informative and an _excellent_ TED talk.
She's a commie pushing the global warming scam on us.
You should trust the more smarter (and superior) people (like me) because they trust YOU! It’s been scientifically proven that smarter people trust others more than the average person...
We need to do something about global warming.
I have a theory (actually just a passing thought) that all science that we get taught at school is incorrect, what if we're learning things that are wrong?!
Then write your science paper and convince others via hard evidence or a working, testable evidence.
Pascal left "Science and rationalism behind." (Cough, cough...) So, that is why he is known as a preacher today, instead of a scientist.
Not a fan of the smaller room setting. The acoustics and noise from the audience is distracting.
Oreskes has to be the most protected warmist shrill out there. Never is she allowed to enter a uncontrolled debating arena. She is the crown jewels of the warmist brigade.
A true gem.
Chris Price. I'm sure she could best any contrarian shill in debate.
Yup, she's a traitor pushing a global scam.
@@danzel1157 She's a commie traitor pushing the global warming scam and commie Agenda 21 on you.
There is nothing wrong with Ptolemaic model of the world. It just made the math too complex.
Good talk in general, and I guess I completely agree as far as science is concerned. I do wonder why her "Climate Change Attribution" graph only shows data until the mid '90s. Is this TED talk really 20 years old? Or could it be that showing the data from 1998 onwards would pretty much eradicate the point she's desperately trying to make in favor of the global warming religion?
@dextr79, could you provide a link to the data you claim refutes the greenhouse gas-driven climate change hypothesis?
Here is some information, which after READING all of it, you can choose to disagree with. If you don't actually review the evidence yourself, how can you be so sure? www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/causes.html
I think everyone reading this would agree that we shouldn't necessarily trust the scientists but rather, we should put our trust in the scientific method and the process of peer review.
Peer review is a joke. An editor can cherry pick the reviewers to get something rejected or accepted as he/she wishes. I think everyone should have to publish their raw data online and any computer code (if relevant) so anyone can download the stuff and check it. Peer to peer review. This would get a lot of garbage research tossed out of the discussion very quickly.
MrRob1967
What a great idea! I am sure that a doctorate with specialisation within immunology are four times worse at reviewing a paper on Complement Receptors in Pathological Human Renal Glomeruli than a geologist, a pothead, a mechanic and a drill instructor.
(no offence meant to those career paths and life choice btw.)
But many schools and scientist do publish their work, and sometimes data for free online. If you feel like it, you can probably contact them and talk about it as well, in my experience researchers love to talk about their subject.
plainlake Well it's not my idea. There's lots of scientists such as Dr. Judith Curry at Georgia Tech who is advocating this. She calls peer review "pal review" as (she's in climate science) people are often asked to suggest three reviewers for their work. No danger of creating bias there. LOL Obviously the idea becomes irrelevant when something becomes so specialized that only a dozen people in the world can understand the subject. As far as publishing or providing data on request. Duh! Thanks, tell me something I don't know. I've just finished a book on the "climate wars" that made me sick. Total nonsense. Just one example. Nature has a policy that all authors have to provide data on request to other researchers. There were several examples of pure refusal and stone walling, which in the end, Nature simply refused to enforce their policy. So in general, where practical, this should be standard practice in an ideal world.
This would work in history; my area. Historians go digging through archives to find obscure documents to write new stuff. There are innumerable examples of people citing some obscure achieve document to prove this or that. Only later, after refusing to produce it, someone takes the initiative, digs through the files at, say, the biblioteque nationale finds the original and finds the author utterly misrepresented it. So the more transparent the better.
MrRob1967 In natural science the equivalent of digging up the source material would usually be to replicate the experiments, this is sometimes not done enough simply because it is hard to get funding and interest to try something that has already been done. And within f. example ecology, alot of experiments can never be truly replicated because of the amount of random factors. Think if the history books partly changed every year.
And then you got collections of case studies and meta-reviews, thouroghly reviewing these is alot of work, and previous knowledge and experience in the subject discussed is kind of necessary in order to to give any constructive input.
I think all articles and reviews should be open for free to the public. Sadly most people will only read those that are sensational, simplified and agree with their current opinions.
plainlake Once again tell me something I don't know. No, I'm not a scientist, nor an expert, but for the last couple of years I've been tunnelling my way through works on the history of science, medicine, climate and the like. The simple fact is there are innumerable examples where papers can have been chucked out after the raw data from an experiment was finally released and reanalyzed. The fix was in after the fact. It wasn't the experiment wasn't performed properly; it's just the numbers were cooked after the fact. And you're thinking: "well they could just post cooked data." You're right. That would still be a problem.
The only way around this, to some extent, is what is evolving in some online forums for scientists. People publish preliminary results, others dig through, critique it and return their comments. It actually speeds things up and gets really well vetted papers. Once again if you don't participate it changes nothing. But perhaps, one day, peer-to-peer review will be the gold standard. That would really clean things up.
No. Trusting a scientist's word is believing that he/she is honest with his/her work, and a believe goes against the fundamental idea of science.
I just up-thumbed a TED talk. I bet it wont happen again. But this is good.
+Hellavadeal I agree w you. Darwinism is a religion itself.
“God is the the creator of everything”-Haseeb
God is not the problem, humans are!
@@D800Lover Something that doesn't exist ( your preferred version of an invisible supernatural sky wizard ) can't really be a problem...
@@Raydensheraj - See, there you go, the first weapon in the arsenal of an atheist is ridicule.
*You lose!*
I bet you don't get it.
.
To be honest I feel it depends on which kinds of science we can or cannot trust
If an event is observable ( based on evidence ) demonstrable( based on evidence) and verifiable( based on evidence ) …is it a fact ( is the Truth?)’
Is it false because I don’t trust your opinion that this is “ true.”.. ? ; or is it that we do not trust the models / explanations for the facts?
Are the explanations ( Theories)!also subject to support by evidence ?
The test of a “ theory “ is based on evidence that is observable, demonstrable and verifiable .
There can be many explanations that meet the criteria. But the evidence is the ultimate test, When we debate the theory and ignore the evidence, we are no longer “ sciencing”!!. . We and are just giving our personal opinion based on ….. ?
Sciencing is Inductive reasoning , data collecting , (?evidence) and “ searching for patterns of regularity “ ( Bronowski? ) .
. What is Science? Somebody’s explanation?
How is a “ theory “ credible if not supported by evidence ? ( e.g. there is evidence that the air temperature is rising , the water level is rising, the water temp is rising ,the glaciers are melting, people are dying ,regardless of who said it ( authority or faith) or “why” I personally think it is happening,
It’s the Truth, it is a fact. Its based on evidence that effects our survival as a species?
Do we care?
Onlyif we ( by consensus ) accept the evidence can we decide if we care, and whether or not we want to find out how we can survive as a species.
If it's government science you can't trust it. Global warming science is bullshit.
@@wernermuller3467 All the global warming scam believers think hurricanes are proof CO2 controls the temperature of Earth but that's not science.
I would further say that the problem lies not so much in science as public policy makers (politicians and bureaucrats) who demand we make wholesale policy changes based on science that is not fully vetted. This is why we have faulty nutrition dictates, climate change policy that doesn't help climate change and social policy that makes social problems worse. In the end we all suffer from this and we never require that the policy makers take responsibility for the faulty policy changes they demanded
Good general honesty clauses, except they don't describe the warmist science community we all know.
When we are called irrational, go ask the activist to explain slowly to a deluded denier where some of the contrarian theories go wrong.
As an example here how about the sun-spot correlation (not included in her chart)
wherein its the clouds that are influenced by sun's extended magnetic solar system wide atmosphere.
That's final statement is the key nowadays, "scientists have to be better communicatiors".
Yet you completely bypassed the last statement smfh...sometimes scientists can't communicate it better to you because the idea is too complex and watering it down will ultimately produce a false claim.
I have a great deal of trust in science but often find it difficult to have full trust in new and obscure published works since many of the claims made by these are often later found to be either false or exaggerated. This article in Macleans basically sums up this idea: www.macleans.ca/society/life/when-science-isnt-science-based-in-class-with-dr-john-ioannidis/. I find this very upsetting because false studies lead to skepticism of science, and theories and ideas that are backed up riddiculously well like Darwin's theory are often pushed away as a result. I remember once reading that up to 80 percent of newly published research contains false claims, and assuming this is true, this is totally unacceptable and is halting the progress of science.
She's a commie pushing the climate scam.
..but at least the science method, unlike the doctrinal method, allows revision (constantly), critique (definitively) and progression.
Also how do you know you are deling with a scientist or an activist.
There are too many groups that look quite non-nonbiased to me.
Ask yourself if they made any sort of doubting noise how long would they
retain their well-paid position?
You look at the work of multiple accomplished scientists and use critical thinking skills to guide you. Most scientists are interested in making scientific contributions...not making contributions to a ideology.
Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts - Feynman
Why should we not trust scientists? They are experts within a subject, they know so much more about that subject than any other basic human that just chooses to not believe in the scientist for some odd reason. Ofcourse the scientists may be wrong at times but everyone is wrong sometimes so that does not mean you shoul not trust them
Science is not static. Yesterdays science is often proved wrong by today's science. Trust Engineering instead. Yesterdays engineering might be improved upon, but the engineering still works to the limits established. She is more of a philosopher than a scientist who mocks Christians. She has a set of beliefs but calls them science instead of beliefs.
If you want to listen to a very nuanced and careful climate scientist who has a deep understanding of the subject, then give Dr. Judith Curry a listen
We need scientists, but we also need to see the fact that it would be wierd if this beautiful creation, called earth, would've created it self. We do not have to make it more difficult than it is. The life on this beautiful earth is a gift, and we choose by ourselves if we belive in god or not. I think that every man and woman should read the bible with an open heart to study the good reasons to belive in god.
If the general public wants to know if they can trust science then they must learn it well for themselves to make that decision. Strong arguement a against science can only happen when one knows it well, so to ask a general pedestrian if they believe when they have no history in science is a waste of time. These people shouldn't accept someone else's reason on why to believe in science like in this video because that person could so easiest manipulate their ignorant mind. Philosophy of science is a very fun topic, but I will never understand why we care what the general public thinks about it if they lack the appropriate background to understand it. I beg it is no different then asking someone to analyze a sport they have never seen before
I wish that the majority of general public were educated to be scientists themselves. Not specialists or practicing researchers, but scientifically literate. At what point does knowledge become self-sustaining? Can't more people have the will and ability to seek information and decide responsibly for themselves?
Also, the population may not be as ignorant as the boldest, most opinionated anti-science comments on this page would suggest. Maybe the sample is enriched for people at the edges of scientific literacy (very ignorant and very learned): people in the middle are less likely to comment.
algum br?
Science advances by refuting the hypothesis not what she is saying. This lecture is BS.
I trust scientists because they _love_ to poke holes in each others' theories. But sometimes they can't.
compañeros alguien esta prestando atencion al vidio?
You are trying to argue that conjecture (interpretation) refutes fact (measurement of temperature).
You are the first person to back up claim with something real.
Thank you. Gonna read...
EggZacklee !
The writing is on the wall. The powers that be figuring to get ready for breakdown if human society for whatever reason. Lack of resources bring the fear. Warming is the current excuse. When they pull out 'aliens' you know the plan is winding up. They are getting ready to fight God. They know the Bible is truth and it's the play book.
I think it's gonna just be a ugly mess and we will screw stuff up and nothing will happen and life goes on.
And if God shows up how can you fight Him?
How about the measurement of CO2? Atmospheric CO2 has only gone up 1.29 parts per 10,000 since 1880. Don't tell me that this trace increase is causing any thermometer movement.
Nailed it.
Honestly, this video is good if you wanted to deter people from science and back to believing in an almighty man in the clouds granting wishes to people who praise him. It didn't, however, help people to see why we should trust scientists who spend their lives providing information on a subject. They actually do provide information or evidence on subjects for everyone else to look into. Just because people are too lazy to do the work themselves doesn't mean that the science isn't there is or isn't to be trusted. If you're afraid of a scientist feeding you false information or think that you can't trust all scientists, do the work for yourself and see if it's true or not. All scientific information can't be trusted but you shouldn't generalise all science because of a few bad apples paid to get results that benefit both the scientist and the company who needs some "scientific data" to rattle off to the press.
On a side note to that messy wall of text, I have to say I lost track of what she was even trying to prove half way through the video. She really took a long road to where she was trying to go and in the process, discredited her whole argument by going about it wrong - Just my two cents
OK enlightening presentation but question does most of these discussion have relate back religion or god?
That was all very interesting. I was particularly curious about what she said about the automobile. I was wondering, how did Henry Ford come up with the first model?
I trust my inter-knowing/God.
I used to do that. It led to repeated embarrassment. Intuition is not trustworthy.
@@chaotickreg7024 Do you have anger?
@@greggergen9104 I try to feel as little anger as possible. Why do you ask?
@@chaotickreg7024 Because anger separates one from God. To the degree that one has anger, can not have inter-knowing/God.
@@greggergen9104 Then why didn't God ever answer my prayers even in my happiest times?
Trust Me, I'm a Scientist
vorsye. Probably the most trustworthy; unless you have another group in mind?
@@danzel1157 yeah yourself, your brain? Your soul and your eyes. Jesus ain’t still relevant for no reason. He also says I should love you no matter what you believe in but I don’t really.. why? Because I’m human and I have an ego, but heart of hearts I know that your just a man like me no better and definitely no WORSE. However, God is capable of such immense love that it’s unfathomable. Everything you long to be and fall short of is already been said in the Bible. Where does your shame and guilt come from lol? Scientists? Just think about. No for real, think about it. God bless.
Who do you trust more, John Campbell or Anthony Fauci?
Science has to use 360 degree observation of evidence, in as disparate a range of contexts as possible
here for my homework lmao
Philosophy is the mother of Science
empirical method- science, working within the margins of error and self correcting under the scrutiny of community of inquiry(pragmatic method) is but one means(singular genus of plural genre) of comprehension as elaborated by Aristotle and refined for millennia for PHYSICS, the physical/natural sciences(i.e. biology, astronomy, geology,botany, anatomy, et cetera).this process yields KNOWLEDGE(Epistome) Aristotle suggests that it should also serve as TOOLS IN THE TOOLBOX, the backdrop for a greater comprehension vis a via Metaphysical inquiry(Philosophy) whose product is Wisdom. Wisdom being comprehension by investigation of the active intellect(the part of being SEJUNCT from the corporeal/material/physical= a.k.a the SOUL, the mind, thinking). The alleged "paradigm" shifts e.g. the scientific revolution, Copernican revolution/ unified theory of biology(Darwin), or physics(Einstein) the presenter refers to are not as commonly presented diametrically opposed as in science versus religion, but are instead degrees of comprehension via various genre of inquiry. To reiterate- singular genus of inquiry of plural genre seeking comprehension of knowlege(Epistome) and wisdom(philosophy).
I don't agree. People need to become scientific themselves, so they can BELIEVE in themselves, not in others, that has always resulted in small or largescale tyranny and corruption, not because of scientists of course, but because the public remains ignorant and subject for being mislead.
There's not a single person that won't have enormous benefits in understanding TRUE science, no matter if they are homeless, CEOs, Religious or Atheists, it surpasses all and can agree with/help all, no matter where they are in life.
If one does not want to listen to science of global warming, then there is a lot easier way:
Check out the insurance costs go on coastal and volatile ares. (Which GB is predicting to be hit.)
Science; No lying, no cheating, no nonsense.
Question is, why should we trust someone is a scientist?
Um, this video literally answers that question.
@@HelloWorld-tp7wt Let me guess do you think religion is what divides the world? Just a judgment question but I want an answer, and an honest one.
@@nikoinacut5166 yes religion divide presently. Mark the word present. Not talking about past
I don't understand the choice of this video's title "Naomi Oreskes. Why we should trust scientists." It's not what she suggests. She chose a different subject: how science is conducted by human beings and therefore not neutral in the results of research. Not objective either (deliberate twists of data and conclusions) And she suggests that scientists are in need of communicating better and us in need of listening better. As long as human beings practice scientific research, it will be defined subjectively.
I do not trust the conclusions of scientists that are set a task and funded by anyone. Most often, the task, or question posed the scientist is a limiting factor in itself. And then there are specific data banks the scientists use in basing their models on, another limiting factor, and a reason why many scientists come to the same conclusion, however correct they appear. Thete is also the recent trend in the science community to limit the range of factors that could affect the model to a very specific area, or science, such as weather patterns of the earth, where the limit is the atmosphere above us. Did you know that all of our planets in the solar system have had weather changes coinciding with our own? Did you know that the sun is one of the major factirs that affect our weather, wind patterns, and precipitation? And what is happening below the earth's crust that we can not determine with the technology and knowledge we have at this time? Simply put, our weather system interacts with our solar system and the movement of each and every particle in it. Humanity is a factor, don't get me wrong, we as a species can throw wrenches in most anything we can reach. And our reach is ever expanding, further out, and deeper within.