When Science and Politics Clash

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Very interesting point. I'm not sure if science itself has decided that nuclear is the only way to go; the quote you gave us is one scientist's opinion..

It's not an opinion. No more than 1 gravity = 9.8 m/s² was Newtons "opinion" or that c = 300,000 km/s was Einsteins opinion.

Your response is, ironically, a perfect example of what you were asking for. A scientifically established reality that hasn't received the political support that it warrants for reasons that have nothing to do with science.

 

[stokes234]

It's not an opinion. No more than 1 gravity = 9.8 m/s² was Newtons "opinion" or that c = 300,000 km/s was Einsteins opinion.

Your response is, ironically, a perfect example of what you were asking for. A scientifically established reality that hasn't received the political support that it warrants for reasons that have nothing to do with science.

I agree with you that majority nuclear is the best way we can power human civilization, but it's not objective truth because the term "best" is in itself subjective. You can argue that the most cost-efficient way to do it would be nuclear and you can probably produce numbers that all but prove it, but there are many other factors that come into play - aesthetics, build time, waste disposal, perceived risk (and thus comfort for people living nearby) - in which nuclear is not objectively superior.

 

[Blue Mountain]

It's not an opinion. No more than 1 gravity = 9.8 m/s² was Newtons "opinion" or that c = 300,000 km/s was Einsteins opinion.

Errrr, no. One can prove acceleration due to gravity and the speed of light, and can do it with rather simple equipment. Also you got it wrong about Einstein: he didn't measure the speed of light. He theorized (and was proven right) that it is the same in all reference frames.

Proving the hypothesis that nuclear power is the only way among all other options to power our modern civilization is a trickier prospect. There are some counter-examples: I doubt Manitoba will need to build a nuclear power plant in the next century, thanks to its abundance of hydro generation.

The equation for running our civilization after the oil runs out is, in theory, simple: we need n terawatts of power to keep things going, and oil is currently providing some significant fraction of n. But n can be affected by shedding load, improved efficiency, and even draconian measures, while on the supply side technology improvements may improve capture and storage of solar energy.

Having said all that, oil is powering a huge amount of our economy, and nuclear is probably the only existing technology that has the energy density to replace it.

 

[Blue Mountain]

Hot on the heels of debating nuclear technology, another contentious issue.

Health care is a field where the science supports the conclusion that a universal mandate, either publicly provided as in Canada and Great Britain or privately provided as in Switzerland, improves outcomes for society. The failure of the United States to act on this consensus harms the US overall and causes a great deal of suffering to individual Americans.

 

[Mark6]

Is the an example to add to the list, or a counter-example?

Noztradamus never responded, but I am pretty sure "Satanic ritual abuse" was supposed to be a counter-example -- "scientists [psychologists, to be specific] make warnings, public policy is made and laws are passed based on the warnings, and then it turns out the science was wrong."

How did this nonsense with "repressed memories" and Satanic abuse start, anyway? Looking back to 1980's and 1990's, it is pretty shocking to realize it was no different from 17th Century witch trials. In both cases hundreds of people got convicted of crimes which not only they personally did not commit, but when were never committed at all, by anyone.

And some of them are STILL in jail!

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Nuclear energy vs. the wind/solar fad......
Our energy future as a technological civilization is simply nuclear or nothing. But good luck trying to explain that to those who have deluded themselves into believing that our energy hungry society can be run literally on sunshine and happy thoughts.

To claim solar is inadequate ignores the potential. Scientific opinions on technological hurdles are one thing, but the amount of energy available to be tapped is quite another. I find your claim to be much more political than scientific.

Just an FYI, I'm not pro or anti-nuclear power.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Noztradamus never responded, but I am pretty sure "Satanic ritual abuse" was supposed to be a counter-example -- "scientists [psychologists, to be specific] make warnings, public policy is made and laws are passed based on the warnings, and then it turns out the science was wrong."

How did this nonsense with "repressed memories" and Satanic abuse start, anyway? Looking back to 1980's and 1990's, it is pretty shocking to realize it was no different from 17th Century witch trials. In both cases hundreds of people got convicted of crimes which not only they personally did not commit, but when were never committed at all, by anyone.

And some of them are STILL in jail!

You are confusing so called 'experts' with 'scientists'. I'm somewhat familiar with these Satanic Ritual Abuse cases. It was poor interviewing techniques and incompetent prosecutors and psychologists that resulted in false charges and wrongful convictions. Once actual researchers took up the subject, the errors and fallacies were uncovered.

 

[The Don]

Here in the UK there's an ongoing battle between the actual risks of illegal drugs and the risks as politicians like to present them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Nutt

Professor David Nutt said something factually accurate but politically unacceptable and was sacked. Three of hos colleagues then resigned.

 

[Mark6]

You are confusing so called 'experts' with 'scientists'. I'm somewhat familiar with these Satanic Ritual Abuse cases. It was poor interviewing techniques and incompetent prosecutors and psychologists that resulted in false charges and wrongful convictions. Once actual researchers took up the subject, the errors and fallacies were uncovered.

They were incompetent, but they were still psychologists with degrees, i.e. "scientists". And I am fairly sure these psychologists were sincere -- they were not knowingly trying to convict innocent people. (With at least some of the prosecutors I believe otherwise.) So this was the case of scientists being wrong, and bad public policy based on believing them.

Unless you claim that psychology is not a "real science" (so people do claim that), or that an incompetent scientist is not a "real scientist" -- in which case what Blue Mountain asked for becomes an impossibility:

Perhaps more importantly, can people provide counter-examples? For example, scientists make warnings, public policy is made and laws are passed based on the warnings, and then it turns out the science was wrong.

 

[Trakar]

Nuclear energy vs. the wind/solar fad.

"fad?" seriously?

The alternatives to fossil fuels are very, very few that could promise the magnitude of energy required to meet our nation’s need.​

Which single fossil fuel do you refer to? if you are talking about more than one, why do you insist upon comparing the range of fossil fuels to a single alternative source?

It is not as though plentiful alternatives exist, and one can be weighed against another …

Actually there are multiple and plentiful alternatives; no one alternative will replace the range of fossil fuels currently used, but all have areas of application in which they are viable replacements for current specific fossil fuel roles.

The blunt fact is that there are the fossil fuels and there is nuclear.

"blunt" is not synonymous with fallacious, despite the misrepresentations/misunderstandings of Dr. Till Most scientists and AGW proponents recognize and promote a strong role for responsible Nuclear energy applications to help meet energy needs as we progress into the warmer future eras. This does not mean that nuclear is a single solution to our energy needs, nor that there are not valuable and significant roles for alternatives to play, suggesting such is no more than the flip side of the coin where the opposite face is the anti-nuclear extremists.

Regardless, that is a topic for another thread. If you want to say that the anti-nuclear movement fits some of this criteria of this thread,...perhaps, but science, by and large, has always, overwhelmingly supported the expansion and growth of responsible nuclear power.​

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

They were incompetent, but they were still psychologists with degrees, i.e. "scientists". And I am fairly sure these psychologists were sincere -- they were not knowingly trying to convict innocent people. (With at least some of the prosecutors I believe otherwise.) So this was the case of scientists being wrong, and bad public policy based on believing them.

Unless you claim that psychology is not a "real science" (so people do claim that), or that an incompetent scientist is not a "real scientist" -- in which case what Blue Mountain asked for becomes an impossibility:

Some of them were police, no degrees there. Some where social workers, no degree required. In addition, this isn't about individual bad scientists, it's about scientific opinions that are disregarded for political reasons. You can find individual scientists that support bad science. That just isn't the same thing.

 

[Mark6]

Some of them were police, no degrees there. Some where social workers, no degree required. In addition, this isn't about individual bad scientists, it's about scientific opinions that are disregarded for political reasons. You can find individual scientists that support bad science. That just isn't the same thing.

This makes sense, but also makes my previous question even more pointed -- How did this insanity start in the first place? And how did these policemen and social workers become "experts"?

 

[Blue Mountain]

This makes sense, but also makes my previous question even more pointed -- How did this insanity start in the first place? And how did these policemen and social workers become "experts"?

It wasn't science pushing the ritual abuse and repressed memories stuff. At first it was people who were having problems as adults and were seeing therapists, and between the two of them coming up with a narrative of abuse such as satanic or familial (in the case of repressed memories). At some point the police were called (Wikipedia points to the Kern County case as the first case) and it turned into a moral panic.

Neither therapists nor police are experts in things like the unreliability of memory and eyewitness accounts.

A few things happened to defuse the panic: a poor conviction rate in the cases being prosecuted, the overall incredulity of the stories being told by the prosecution, and scientific inquiry into how malleable memory can be.