It’s a pretty

impressive intellectual tour-de-force. If you are at all interested in such things, you need to give it a listen.

The major problem, as I see it, is that people generally don’t understand the scientific concept of validity–are you measuring what you think you’re measuring?

Instrumentation is a big deal. Let’s say that it’s 1974 and I put up a thermometer to measure the temperature. It is in the middle of immense grasslands, so there is little interference from other sources.

BUT, come 2021, that thermometer is now in the middle of a mall parking lot–it is surrounded by asphalt for miles around. Needless to say, that area is no longer a grassland.

Do you think that the 1974 readings might be different than the 2021 readings? Yeah, maybe…

See, this is where the scientific concept of validity comes in. And if I adjust the readings to take account of the new conditions, upon what is that adjustment based? And just who decides the magnitude of the adjustment? And how is their decision scientific and not raw politics?

See, if I “adjust,” is what I’ve done now politics and not science at all? Not that it’s ALL not politics, but still…

Leave a Reply