Rileys Freaky Fridays

Science is the base of every environmental issue. If you don’t understand the science, then you don’t understand the environmental issue. Simple as that. Global warming is the perfect example.

If you were to study Epistemology: the philosophical study of truth or knowledge, you would read that knowledge is the intersection of truth and belief. Piles of data mean nothing if you don’t believe it. An education in science, or any subject, gives you the ability to determine what is logic and what is total BS.

Science is critical to understanding environmental issues. Unfortunately the science will be interpreted 5 different ways by 5 different groups based on what way they want a project to go.

Sometimes science is irrelevant in a projected getting halted but “green groups” have an excellent connection and get their message out, often to the political arena Once out it is taken as fact. (kind of like politics).

You also have to look at who paid for the science as if you are a consultant your study will come out in favor of your client.

Basically there are three sides to every story. Yours, mine and the truth. You can only let projects take their course to find the true solution.

I think the most beneficial effect of an education in science is you develop a sense of what constitutes “evidence” or “proof”. In here you see someone trying to make a point, and support it with links to Wikipedia, blogs, YouTube, hoax and conspiracy theory web sites and the life. Those can be very useful if you’re trying to argue that Curly was the funniest Stooge, or Donald Rumsfield can beat up Al Gore. They actually have negative impact on the credibility of a scientific argument. It leads to what in a courtroom is called “summary judgement”.

If you read Jamessk82001’s answer on this one, it’s a fine example.

Science is not a “thing”. It a system of thinking about and then predicting future outcomes based on CAREFUL OBSERVATION and experiment. One cannot “oppose” science any more than one can “oppose” mathematics. Within the discipline of science (as well as mathematics) at any time there may be vigorous debate and disagreement at the cutting edge where new knowledge is being acquired. But there is no opposition to the method of science. (There is no longer any vigorous scientific debate concerning the shape of the Earth or the fact that it orbits the Sun and not vice versa)

Science has shown to be the best way to gain knowledge about the universe and with that the Earth and our environment. For example, we understand the features of the Gulf Stream and how it is responsible for the relatively mild climate of Northern Europe because many people have over the years made detailed observations and measurements which have made possible accurate predictions of the behavior of warm water currents in the Atlantic Ocean. Over the years more observations and experiments have been repeated and have returned similar results such that the knowledge gained is now very useful.

Science is, at heart, a very ad hoc enterprise. Scientists are chiefly concerned with what can be said in a reasonable way about objects and phenomena; if scientifically credible evidence refutes her hypothesis she will accept the evidence. There have been no shooting wars between scientists.

All people will benefit by understanding how the scientific method works whether or not they understand the details. When you understand a scientific approach to thinking you will be better able to spot B.S. when it is presented to you.

because of recycling the product

Of course science is pivotal to our understanding of environmental issues. It is like how medical knowledge is vital to us understanding our bodies.
If we look at Gaia theory it says that our earth is like an organism, and should be treated as such. So, when we are looking at environmental science it can embrace that view, or go down the road of hard science - which is the common approach as a lot of environmentalists do not want to be associated with what they percieve as hippy dippy stuff

I don’t see science, technology, and environmentalism to be mutually exclusive things, just that the motivations behind the people who use them may have different goals.

I’m all for saving the earth, and if it takes technological advances to do so, then sign me on.