tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9172766774137902766.post3533251509733847402..comments2023-12-23T09:28:20.869+00:00Comments on The View from Cullingworth: Politics and science...Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9172766774137902766.post-34450443570512007892014-08-30T10:44:10.422+01:002014-08-30T10:44:10.422+01:00This discussion on science and politics is interes...This discussion on science and politics is interesting. Here are a few additional views.<br /><br />Engineering is often described as the application of science and technology for the benefit of business and society. This leaves the word science to usefully express the concept of (a purer sort of) investigation for the purpose of 'mere' understanding. Thus engineering builds on foundations of science, but is different from it. There is also the expression that an engineer can make for sixpence what any fool can make for a shilling: thus introducing the importance, in engineering, of cost versus benefit. The main blog posting does not mention engineering. Though government has quite a few chief scientific advisors, it has no chief engineering advisors. Both absences worry me.<br /><br />In the formulation of scientific method (and also and particularly mathematics), there is the concept of axioms: a very modest number of basic and intrinsic beliefs which are extended by gathering of evidence and logical deduction therefrom. A particularly important axiom for all natural science is that the 'laws of physics' (effectively the laws of the whole of natural science) are invariant across time and place - other things being equal. As is pointed out in the main blog posting, this does not really apply in politics (nor economics, nor any other social science) as there is no practical repeatability of circumstances at different times and in different places. Thus these social sciences are much less certain that the natural sciences. This must be remembered by scientist applying their skills in engineering, political and other societal ways (and, I think, often is). It must also be remembered by politicians, economists and other non-scientists when relying on social-science evidence to support their arguments as to what should be done. This seems to be forgotten more often than not. Sometimes, as exposed by <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair" rel="nofollow">Sokal in 1996</a>, the 'extension' of science beyond its true contribution can be so extreme as to be ridiculous. There was a highly worrying example (though less extreme than Sokal's) of this sort of thing yesterday on the BBC Radio 4 Today Programme. The UN, seemingly, is going to listen to some 'ordinary people' on important aspects of world government, including the alleged Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW). As an example, we were given a lady from the Philippines pleading for help on CAGW, to reduce the increasing occurrence of (indisputably) destructive severe tropical storms (hurricanes, named tornadoes in the Pacific) - which she put down to CAGW. The BBC went along with this, totally ignoring the absence of any evidence whatsoever that the occurrence of severe tropical storms has increased with the level of atmospheric CO2. Thus, a supposedly scientific and logical argument skips one absolutely vital and evidentially measurable step of logical argument, but the UN and BBC carry on regardless in promulgating this person's view as sound scientific support for the political action she called for.<br /><br />One thing the main blog posting does not really emphasise is the effective of the free market, on the eventual correct application of science and on wise political decisions. Having government decide on policy makes it a requirement that one solution (within a country or local government region) must be forced on all, no matter how well it fits the many different individuals, families and businesses. Having the market decide does (usually after a delay) allow everyone to contribute wisely to the 'societal' decision by their own (purchasing) actions. Where it is possible for different people to make different decisions for application to their own lives, this will happen: and so more people will get what they want, rather than some (or many) having a disbenefit forced on them. The current fuss from the EU's position on vacuum cleaner power limits is an example of this.<br /><br />Best regardsAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com