I have a massive backlog of Comments of the Day from last week, so I’d better get cracking.

Here is Tom P.’s COTD on the post, “The Rogan-Kennedy-Hotez Controversy: Is It Ever Unethical To Debate?”

***

Except for scientific laws, irrefutable evidence-based outcomes, and scientific principles. i.e., gravity, laws of motion, combustion requires fuel, oxygen, an ignition source, etc. I don’t think there is such a thing as settled science. If settled science exists, what are the criteria that we should use to claim the science is settled? Who determines the science to be settled? Is there a mechanism to unsettle the science if someone comes up with new findings? The answers to my questions are the same. Don’t know. Labeling something as settled science is a condescending dodge.

I concede policies should not be crafted based on the debating skill of debaters. I also believe there should be peace on earth. People should not murder other people. Politicians should speak the truth and keep campaign promises. Now that we have that out of the way, what is the alternative to debating various scientific principles? Blind acceptance?

I am a strong supporter for debating scientific hypotheses and conclusions. New discoveries are continually being made in many scientific fields. Also, we seem to be regularly hearing of new studies proclaiming this or that. Many of those new discoveries may or may not be valid as is pointed out in multiple studies. Medical research is especially vulnerable.

We continually hear that climate issues are settled science. Many policy decisions, regulations, and laws are based on models. When constructing a model to predict the future, the researcher must use various assumptions in the construction of the modeling program. Basically, the models are only as good as the assumptions made to construct the models. Wally Broecker, a pioneer of climate change research, didn’t believe the science was settled, as is pointed out in his 2019 obit. I knew and worked for Wally back in the early 1970s. He was not an alarmist; he repeatedly stressed that he believed in his theories but that there was still much to learn.

The debates should involve the discussion of the evidence that supports each debater’s position and the conclusions the debaters make based on the strength of the evidence. With medicine, I put faith in large, well-controlled, double-blind studies. Many studies don’t meet all three of the criteria.

I offer a challenge. We frequently hear we should eat whole grains and organic products because they are healthy and good for us. I would like to find one credible, well-controlled study that proves whole grains and organic foods actually increase a person’s longevity or even quality of life beyond someone feeling proud of themselves because they think they are eating healthy. For the record, I enjoy some organic products because of their taste, not their perceived health benefits.