Not Understanding Aspects of Science Can be Problematic

Preface

What is "science"?  Both definitions below apply.
1.  Science is a systematically/methodically organized body of knowledge on a particular subject.
2.  It's also an activity involving the systematic study of the structure and function of various aspects of the physical/natural world.
................................
What Some People Don't Seem to Understand

1.  Science and scientists deal in degrees of probability, not certainty.  In other words, science is not absolute.  Why?  There are too many variables (known and unknown) to be accounted for in any scientific investigation.  Because of that, when new discoveries are made in a particular area of research, the previous theory is likely to be modified or even discarded.  With new research, past conclusions change.

At any particular time, our knowledge is limited.  Even some theoretical physicists have said (paraphrased):  we humans have barely scratched the surface of reality.  That runs contrary to what many, perhaps most, people think regarding what we know.  In short, we are not as knowledgeable as we generally believe.  One of the biggest problems in the world today is that too many times we jump to conclusions based upon insufficient/inadequate information.

2.  Scientists sometimes do not arrive at the same conclusion regarding any particular topic of research.  Why?  The reasons are many and varied.  For instance, scientist A may have a vested interest in a particular outcome, while scientist B may be more objective.  Or, scientist A may understand the technical aspects of the study much better than scientist B.  Or... etc.

All the above is why science relies on many investigations, rigorous peer review, and constant challenging of results before accepting any theory as the closest known approximation to what's "true".  Even then, the future may hold some surprises concerning accepted beliefs.
....................................
Why A Lack of Understanding of the Above Items Can be Problematic

• Too many people appear to want instant answers nowadays.  Worse than that, they seem to expect absolutes.  When they get neither, too many migrate over to nonscientific, emotional positions held by autocrat wannabes, corporatists, and others with destructive vested interests.
• Their misunderstandings of science often lead them to reject scientific warnings of damage to natural systems which is not immediately and blatantly visible.  They can experience damage to the economy.  When it comes to the complexity of ecosystem damage, that's not always so visible.
• When new research results in a modification to some particular theory, instead of accepting that as normal, I suspect that too many people tend to reject science in total.  A trivial example---  A fictitious person with little science knowledge speaking:  "First their research claims that drinking coffee is bad for you, then more research says it's good for you, and now it's back to bad for you.  They don't know what's what."  

.....................................
Conclusion

Every time I've read a research article, a "journal article", I've again been impressed with the dedication, the rigor, and the discipline that goes into scientific investigations.  Because of my interests, that's especially true for the natural sciences.  So, for decades I've been amazed and somewhat dismayed by too many people seemingly rejecting the warnings by scientists of the damage being done to natural systems... and of the ever-increasing impact on humans and society in general.

I believe this essay explains a part of that rejection.  Other things are instrumental, too... propaganda/advertising, materialism, the wanting of more & more & more, a lack of education, distractions due to "bread and circuses", etc.  If organized human existence is to thrive on our finite planet, then all that has to change.

Some people believe the answer is for humanity to migrate to another celestial body.  I'm open-minded, but consider the following.  Exactly how are we going to transport billions of people to this new home.  More importantly, who do you think would get to make the trip (should it ever be a possible choice)?  My guess is:  the Super-Rich, and a small contingent of "workers".  Not many others.  So, I don't think that's a viable option.

Though the obstacles are great, a much better option is to change our ethics, change our economic system (which is destroying our life support), and clean up the mess we've made.  Some countries, Germany comes to mind, are already starting that whole process.  Europe, in general, is light-years ahead of the USA in that regard.  Kudos.
.............................................
Not only my opinion.  Stay Well

Time's Up: It's Now or Never for the Implementation of Ecoethics to Avoid Catastrophe

Preface
All credit to Paul R. Ehrlich, ecologist, Professor Emeritus at Stanford University, and still active in the Center for Conservation Biology.  Kudos, too, to the Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics (ESEP) section of IR, Inter-Research (Science Publisher), and its Open Access approach regarding crucial, scientific information.
.........................................
My first job as an ecologist was as one of the main researchers and authors of the "Water Pollution Control and Abatement Plan for Drainage Basin 15, State of Washington".  That was in 1973.  Over subsequent years and various positions in teaching, consulting, & a period of almost seven years with the Sacramento County Environmental Management Dept, I came to the following conclusions.
1.  Despite some progress, Humanity was heading for more and more ecological disasters.
2.  Some of the reasons why included materialism, unlimited consumption, unlimited growth, neoliberal policies, and politics.
3.  The main reason, though, was/is a lack of ethics... specifically, ecoethics.
[Dr. Ehrlich coined that term, I believe, in 2009.]

Our environmental/ecological problem on Earth is not only material in nature, it's metaphysical, spiritual.  Spiritual not in the sense of organized religion, but rather in the sense of ecoethics, life purpose, relationships to nonhuman life, and values which benefit/respect all biotic & abiotic parts of this amazing planet.  It's a question of where and how to direct our energy during our short time in this physical, cosmic dimension.

When first thinking about this particular blog post, I decided to do a limited "literature search" on the subject.  Perhaps someone else already has covered the subject... better than I ever could.  And that's the case.  In the essay at the link below, Professor Ehrlich brilliantly connects all the dots.  [It's on an Open Access venue.]  It's well worth your time.
https://www.int-res.com/articles/esep2014/14/e014p011.pdf
................................
Not only my opinion.  Be Well

Introduction to Ecological Liberalism

Preface
Neoliberalism may be on its deathbed.  The ideology began in the late 1930's, bloomed in the 1970's and 1980's, and essentially has ruled the economics, finance, & politics of the developed world ever since.  COVID-19 (SARS-2) has dealt it a blow from which (hopefully) it may never recover.

What will replace it?  Here's some insight---
https://mahb.stanford.edu/blog/coronavirus-spells-the-end-of-the-neoliberal-era-whats-next/
https://www.ehn.org/pandemic-population-covid-19-2645518249.html
..........................................
For years I wrote (on another blog) about the disastrous effects of Neoliberalism.  Here's the final essay---
http://individualsovereignty.blogspot.com/2020/05/neoliberalism-has-ruled-for-decades-is.html
With this new blog, it's my intention to provide resources enabling open-minded people to educate and inspire themselves (& hopefully, others) on a path forward.

We'll explore subjects which are both social and scientific.  Because politics has become so polarized in this Land, we'll stay away from that topic to a large degree.  It won't be possible to avoid it entirely.

We'll take it as a given that readers here have a basic Main Street knowledge of natural science, common economics, world affairs, and ethics.  Should anyone encounter a term that's unfamiliar (and not defined here), we'll leave it up to them to do a Search for it.  That approach is necessary because of time and energy constraints on me.  😊

Here's a very brief introduction to Ecological Liberalism---

1.  Liberalism is a moral/ethical philosophy and ideology based on the tenets of liberty, consent of the governed, equality before the Law, and tolerance.  Different forms of the belief sometimes depart from one or more of those tenets.  Despite that, the general definition is valid.

2.  Ecology is the branch of Biology which studies the relationships of organisms to one another and to their physical surroundings.  It's essentially the study of ecosystems (to be defined/discussed in a later post).  There are many sub-branches of Ecology, e.g., wetlands ecology, grasslands ecology, desert ecology, Human Ecology, etc.

Significant parts of Ecological Liberalism have been in existence for decades.  To my knowledge, though, those parts never have coalesced into a unified, single ideology.  [If I'm in error, someone please correct me.]  One of the major parts is Ecological Economics, which has been around for over thirty years.  That will be discussed in depth later.  A group similar to Ecological Economists refers to itself as Environment and Resource Economists.  The noted ecologist, Paul R. Ehrlich, believes the two groups are identical in their principles.  Here's a "fair use" quote from his paper, Key issues for attention from ecological economists:
"Environment and resource economists (hereafter 'ecological economists', which I consider to be an identical group) are the scholars examining the most critical problems that will dominate economics in the twenty-first century.". [Emphasis added.]  From:  https://www.jstor.org/stable/44378980?read-now=1&seq=1

The main components and principles of Ecological Liberalism are:  ecology, economics (including finance), ethics and morality (including spirituality, but not "religion"), and social equity.  This is the best path forward.

In addition to the terms above, future posts here necessarily will explore the following topics:  the biosphere, carrying capacity, biodiversity, unlimited growth, over-consumption, industrial agriculture, corporate globalization, industrial ecology, epidemiological environment, sustainable living, sustainable development, climate disruption, the methane bomb, nuclear problems, food and water problems, ecosystem services, technology, the assault on science, local v. global, ecocentric ideology, the population bomb, the holistic approach, world view, and more.

Because of the current pandemic, the door to serious consideration of alternative views regarding the organization of humanity is wide open.  The massive failure of many institutions (public and private) has become glaringly evident.  A new approach is needed if our species is to survive (& thrive) the many severe problems we now face.  We don't need to throw out the baby with the bath water, but a different path is essential.
......................................
Not only my opinion.  Be Well