I thought that's what you were doing, but I hate to assume.
"I suppose I take public assurances by politicians and 'so called' experts that something is 'safe' with some high probability like 99%, even though no actual number is given."
Thank you for confirming.
"The point I'm trying to make, is the public has been disappointed too many times. How many experts were sure we would find WMD in Iraq? How many assurances were recently given for safety of offshore drilling?"
Point taken. When I said that idea is horrifying to me, I wasn't saying that I think you're wrong.
Now, the point I am trying to make is that there is a great GULF of difference in the quality of scientific certainty which *can* be expressed numerically (and always are, in the original scientific documents), and the assertions of certainty expressed by corporate spokespersons, which are *never* quantified. The best way to accentuate the superior ability of scientists to be as certain as we say is that hallmark of science, quantifying our measurements. It's the fact that scientists specify just how certain we are. Liars leave it to the reader to infer.
The good news is that science journalists can begin any time, because scientists always quantify the certainty of both measurements and predictions. The bad news is pretty much as you have said.
About Climate Change
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
No comments:
Post a Comment