Climate change: What we do – and don't – know - New Scientist

Climate change: What we do – and don't – know - New Scientist

A conservative overview of strong evidence we now have.

More of History

Earlier this month I published a post on the nature of history entitled Of History. This post continues my understanding of what history is and how it is done.

History might be called the recording of certain doings and happenings. Each such recording might be said to have been done from a given world view, a particular perspective. The perception and narration of each of those happenings or doings is an interpretation by a particular human being of set of human beings. Each of us, including historians, have biases; we ca be said to be ethno-centric. That is, history is told from were the teller and his audience is, in their center. As broad-minded and objective as I am, I view the world and its doings from my placer in my culture.

I not only see and tell from my particular place, but also from my particular time. I am part of an 'us' in our time and am so disconnected from 'them' in their time that there is very much that I do not know of their vision and motivation. It is difficult for me to imagine their world much less to know it. Still, the more aware, conscious, and knowledgeable I am, the more capable of imagining their world I may be.

That of which I can be aware, conscious, and knowledgeable can be called evidence. Careful consideration of the evidence is what makes a story, history.

Science, law, history have rules of evidence and methods for dealing with it. We benefit by having a definition for 'evidence' well in mind. My definition often begins something like this: Evidence is that which is so seen that what it is, is clear and obvious to me; it is so distinct that the probability that my vision is correct, is high. I suggest that you consult your dictionary.

I have also told myself the following of evidence: Evidence helps me approach proof or truth. Evidence is a sign or indication that my proposition or hypothesis is likely.

The dictionary that I have open here calls evidence "The data on which a conclusion of judgement may be based." It also calls evidence an indication. We might ask, "How strong is this indication?"

The idea that I am trying to convey is that, the better a historians understanding of rules and methods of evidence is, the better a historian he may be.

These days among us the evidence for history most often comes in the form of documents. Documents come in various forms and qualities. They may be described and sorted in various ways. We may, for example, use a measure for the trustworthiness of their author. A common way of sorting documents is into those that are primary sources and those which are secondary sources. A given primary source may be made up of falsehoods, lies, and stupidity. However, all other things being equal, that source which is closer in time and space to the original data, is the better evidence.

There is a lot more to the understanding of history and the methods of historians, and I am likely to post more on the subject, but not just now.

As always, I shall be pleased to interact with you in the 'comments' section below. If you should choose to contact me by email, please carefully identify the post you are referencing.

Science Fundamentals

You are beginning to get the fundamentals when you:
~ consider how science is done;
~ grasp a distinction between scientific fact and theory;
~ appreciate the workings of scientific methods;
~ have checked out examples of scientific method at work;
~ define even the common words involved;
~ make sure that you know what words like 'evidence' and 'observation' mean in this case;
~ take time to trace the path from discovery to hypothesis to further research and revision;
~ get a feel for the process.


Then begin to ask questions about the evidence and move on to greater adventure.

Know the Writer

Appropriate trust is important.
Reliable information is available on this www.
It takes some skill and understating to sort the useful and the accurate from the rest.
Knowing the writer is of some help in judging in which cases and to what extent he may be trusted.

Here are some more tips I have found helpful in my attempts to get trustworthy, accurate, useful, reliable information:
~ Look for a post written or reviewed by a qualified professional or expert..
~ Be aware of the probable nature of the bias. A company selling a product is likely to have a bias in favor of that product.
~ Check the date of the post. Up-to-date info may be more useful than information that is several years old
~ Seek a second opinion. Get quality opinions from more than one source.
~ Get help to evaluate the information and how the information gathered applies to you.

When I express an opinion I am very happy when someone asks, "What makes you think so?" or "What is your evidence?"

A person who won't find time to answer a question may not be a good source.

Where Is The Evidence

Where is the evidence that American citizens will not harvest their own crops when they can receive a living wage for doing so?

I believe that we are willing to reap what we sow!