Originally Posted by
Camhawk88
Pinhead, science by it's nature, is not based on facts but rather on disproving a given hypothesis. A process of elimination of possible theories is probably the best way to describe it. Now we have many facts derived from science- the earth is round, gravity is a force, an organism is the sum of it's parent's DNA etc. These findings weren't found out by picking a fact and saying- 'it stands to reason can't you see?" Of course we know now however it was a process of assumptions, proving and disproving hypothoses, and in some cases using modeling and other tools to come to these conclusions.
AND when these facts were proposed and could be tangibly shown, there were and are still many scientists who disagreed and shouted down some of the world's greatest scientists. Just because there is not 100% support in the scientific community over a finding does not mean that it is merely an estimate or a guess.
Classic example- evolution. Darwin was regularly pillored for his gfroundbreaking theory and still is by many who feel there religous beliefs are threatened by it. It was based on observation, data, assumtions and an incredible brain, however it is something we can never absolutely prove (I have all the proof I need)- such is science.
Indeed there are some scientists who throughout the scientific community are renowned for making their career based on going against the flow and opposing findings that the great majority agree with (there is a local one commonly quoted in these chat boards). Sometimes these are the pioneers who make the big discovery, but more often than not, they are grandstanding to make a name for themselves and are usually seen (rightfully so in most cases) as the village idiot.
Now with an issue such as global warming, or any atmospheric condition, it is a massively complex and volatile system with many unknowns. Have a look at weather forecasts, 100 years ago we would not have had much idea of what the weather would do in a couple of days, where now we have a reasonable idea of what will happen in the coming season, month or week. As everyone who fishes knows but, it is an inexact science and they do get it wrong.
To find out what is going on, assumptions must be made based on what we do know of the system and models are an essential tool to experiment what happens under different conditions. Very similar to fisheries management (trying to count the trees in a forest that are invisible and constantly moving), we collect what data we can but because we cant count all the fish we need to use the data we have to create models based on asumptions. We can use the data to have an idea of reproductive rates, fecundity, growth rates mortality rates etc. But at the end of the day we need to make a number of assumtions based on this knowledge and plug them into a model to get an idea of what is down there.
This is what we call science- so to say it should be based on fact alone and not on assumptions, models etc.- well that is not science and if we had all the facts we wouldnt need science.
Cheers,