This forum was closed on October 1st, 2010. However, the archives are open to the public and filled with vast amounts of good reading and information for you to enjoy. If you wish to meet some Wardrobians, please visit the Into the Wardrobe Facebook group.

Lewis on Global Warming

The man. The myth.

Lewis on Global Warming

Postby Charis » 07 Dec 2009, 12:34

(Yeah I know but I figured Anthropogenic Climate Change wouldn't work as well in a thread title... :snow-wink: and I hope this is the proper forum.)


Anyway, the climate change topic fascinates me and what I'd give to hear Lewis' take on it. To demonstrate my bias I recall his comments about what 'true' science can, and can't, do. What do you think his assessment of the climate change debate would be? Why?


And hi, Jo: been a while - hope all is well.
Charis
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 48
Joined: Nov 2005

Re: Lewis on Global Warming

Postby msd1835 » 28 Dec 2009, 15:08

I won't claim to know exactly what Lewis would thought of the climate change debate, what I can do is share my beliefs based what I have learned from Lewis and others.

I have studied science in college. The one thing that stands out to me is that science has changed from it's pure form. In the Classroom it is taught that the collection of data is what is important (not being correct). The modern truth of the matter is that you don't get much funding or support for being wrong. You don't get government funding if your work contradicts the popular political party's view(sorry for the alliteration lol). I feel science serves more of a political, religous, and social agenda than it should.

The other thing that I feel would strike a wrong chord with Lewis is the constancy of assumptions within science. Before one theory can be fully proven or tested, it seems we have a hundred other hypothesis based upon it. Anytime a firm answer cannot be reached an assumption is made. Cyclical reasoning runs rampant within scientific circles; all the while scientist are accusing the faithful of it.

I think the best quote I have heard from a scientist was this "The only thing a scientist is sure of is that a scientist is not sure of anything." Science has become, in my opinion, far too confident in it's knowledge and where it came from. I mean it is a monumental assumption just to assume that human beings can truly understand anything scientific.
User avatar
msd1835
 
Posts: 17
Joined: Feb 2009

Re: Lewis on Global Warming

Postby archenland_knight » 29 Dec 2009, 15:17

msd wrote:I think the best quote I have heard from a scientist was this "The only thing a scientist is sure of is that a scientist is not sure of anything." Science has become, in my opinion, far too confident in it's knowledge and where it came from. I mean it is a monumental assumption just to assume that human beings can truly understand anything scientific.


I have to agree. Galileo would be appalled at the state science is in today. It's all about who can come up with the most attractive theory. No one has to prove anything anymore.

That's why I'm glad that my fields are computer science and mathematics. In those fields, you still have to prove a theory before you are allowed to base anything else upon it. Or at least, as in the case of the Euclid's Parallel Postulate, if you use it to prove a theorem of your own, then you at least have to say, "Well, assuming that 'A' is true, we can conclude 'B'." You at least have to admit that should 'A' be disproven, your own theory falls apart as well.

And in Computer Science, the only way to prove a theory is to build the machine or write the program and start it running.

But most fields today require nothing on the level of proof required by Galileo.
Romans 5:8 "But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us."
User avatar
archenland_knight
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 771
Joined: Aug 2008
Location: Obviously at a computer keyboard

Re: Lewis on Global Warming

Postby msd1835 » 29 Dec 2009, 20:41

Exactly right, mathematics is the perfect example. In math if you start with an problem like (5+6=17-4) and you follow your steps back from your answer to the beginning you find that your answer doesn't fit. What I see in most of the sciences today (evolutionary biology, astro-physics, etc.) is that they make up a new theory to make "17" work. All these physical and social sciences fall apart whenever they reach their beginnings. The beginnings can't be solved/proven. When trying to explain the birth of the universe everything works fine until you reach the beginning, when none of the math works. Evolution works fine until you try to explain the creation of the first cell or even the amount of data contained in a single strand of DNA. Carbon data, though based mostly upon the mathematics of radioactive carbon half-life, must begin with an assumption of a closed system and the fact that evolution is a fact so that an "appropriate" dating method can be chosen. Lord forbid that one of mankind's theories prove to be an error. Try looking up String Theory, which if memory serves was one the biggest and most popular theories of the 80 and 90's proved in the end to mistaken, and it turned out that the lesser known theory explained the issue better.

The examples of cyclical thinking within academia will spin your head. I almost got roasted by one of my professor's glares one time because I mentioned that I had recognised a certian arrogance that seems to come with intelligence and education. I personally feel that this is related more to pride than anything else.

This is all my opinion and is totally capable of being wrong.
User avatar
msd1835
 
Posts: 17
Joined: Feb 2009


Return to C. S. Lewis

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered members and 3 guests

cron