Posted on 12/05/2006 8:28:46 PM PST by neverdem
Idealistic lawyers and idealistic scientists often describe themselves as engaging in a search for truth.
The scientists follow the scientific method. They state their hypotheses, describe the ways they test them, present their findings — and wait for another researcher to prove them wrong. Lawyers’ practice is built on the idea that the best way to shake the truth out of a complex dispute is for advocates on each side to argue it, as vigorously as they can, in front of an impartial judge or jury.
These approaches work more or less well on their own. But when a legal issue hinges on questions of science, they can clash. And the collision can resound all the way up to the Supreme Court.
Last Wednesday, the nine justices heard arguments in the first global warming case to come before the court. Massachusetts, 11 other states and several cities and environmental groups are saying that the federal Environmental Protection Agency has ignored the requirements of the Clean Air Act and otherwise shirked its responsibilities by failing to regulate emissions of heat-trapping gases, chiefly carbon dioxide.
As the case made its way to the court, it generated interesting questions like whether states have a right to bring such a suit and whether E.P.A. action would amount to unauthorized interference in foreign policy.
But much of the argument hinged on scientific questions. Is the earth’s climate changing? If so, are human activities contributing to the change?
Mainstream science has answers to these questions (yes and yes). But while it is impossible to argue that earth has not warmed up a bit in the last century, there are still some scientists with bright credentials and impressive academic affiliations who argue that people don’t have much do to with it. As Justice Anthony M. Kennedy suggested...
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Thank you very much - you just helped me write my term paper for OR 681. LOL.
What's the problem?
What's OR 681?
"Typically, scientists don’t accept a finding unless, statistically, the odds are less than 1 in 20 that it occurred by chance." Nonsense, that's the problem.
In other words, is is one crazy class, emphasizing the differences between scientists and lawyers. The prof uses case law to illustrate really bad science.
What is "beyond a reasonable doubt", statistically? 5%? 1%?
What statistical standard do you want?
"Preponderance" is pretty well established - more than 50% - just don't assume that the facts are Baysian. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" is loosey-goosey, and I heard one judge say, "Oh, 80% or so." That scared the poop out of me.
Scientists do not accept or reject findings as a function of probabilities, though they use probabilities every day. It gets somewhat technical, but Godel's incompleteness theorum is ultimately the rationale.
The problem is that there are a lot of scientists who want to feed at the trough of government funding and lawyers who want to persuade illiterate juries. They confuse what scientists say with hard scientific fact established by actually studying the methodology and data.
(Although, if you argue that there are no scientists at the EPA, I won't really object.)
read later
Of course human activity has nothing to do with it. We are still thawing out from that last ice age. In fact, we can worry about global warming after the arctic returns to it's previous normal state- a lush tropical forest. If THAT starts dying off because of global warming, then we can worry.
Until then, the court should order "professor" Al Gore and the equally unqualified media from presenting his propaganda as truth, when in fact it is nothing but fabricated scare tactics to promote a political party's agenda.
If all the Al Gore's of the world, and the media that supports them want to make a difference in CO2 output which they claim causes global warming, perhaps they can all just shut up and quit adding millions of tons more to the atmosphere which they do just by promoting this one issue.
Al Gore told a lie on Oprah today, stating that he and his family were co2 neutral. Al Gore is in fact one of the worlds worst polluters in comparison to the average person.
His global warming campaign has added millions of tons of CO2 to the atmosphere, The additional energy and resources used to produce his CD of lies, the energy used to organize and light up Al Gore seminars, the cost of all the gas burned by all the people doing work associated with them, his jetting around the globe etc etc.
What a hypocrite. Just shut up and stay home, Gore. You can save earth much more effectively that way.
To the contrary, they do it all the time, e.g. silicone breast implants not responible for mixed contective tissue disease, vaccination with thimerosal preserved vaccines not responsible for autism, etc.
What Does the Institute of Medicine Report Say About the Safety of Silicone Breast Implants?
When they do statistical meta-analyses, they are not responsible for the original studies, some of which they eliminate for being problematic.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.