Certainty – Science?

From Saturday, December 3rd 2011…

A great op-ed piece in the WSJ today by Daniel Botkin on certainty and science and how it relates to the global warming debate. The gist of the piece: those of us scientists who are convinced that global warming is occurring through anthropogenic means, as well as our non-scientist advocates really do the cause a disservice by their absolutism.

Those people who truly understand the science behind the debate understand that the assertions made carry with them a certain probability. However, rarely do you hear an advocate of the cause say, “It is highly probable that the planet is warming due to man-made causes; with full consideration of alternate hypotheses, we believe the probability is 75%.”

Why do we not hear this? Well aside from the verbosity, an admission that the probability is anything less than 100% – the only scientifically responsible thing to say – opens the door in the minds of the advocates to dismissal by the critics, “Hey, it’s not totally certain, so therefore it’s hogwash!” (see my earlier post on uncertainty and the consequences of being wrong). It can then be tempting to fight one absolute response with another, like “There is no doubt that the planet is warming due to anthropogenic causes.” The use of the term “no doubt” buries the underlying science and ultimately does harm to the cause. Frequently the results here are pointless debates among non-experts (especially politicians).

Math and numbers are the language of science and when they are stripped away from a scientific argument, we have only…argument. A solution? Well, improved scientific literacy, at least among the decision-makers might be a start. How about having something akin to a science entrance exam for politicians?