0
1

[–] repoman 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

The sun doesn't rise in the east. The earth spins towards the east.

Yeah yeah, you get my point. I agree that anthropogenic climate change is a given just by the mere existence of mankind.

"Opening up a debate that 98% of climate scientists unequivocally agree to be a non-debate would detract from the central concerns of environment and health addressed in this course"

That is what concerns me since consensus does not make something factual. Very likely to be sure, but not a fact. To refuse to even engage those who question if humanity is a significant factor in climate change is just bad science. They thus are teaching a class based upon assumption/belief, and that means this presumable science course is really a faith-based course founded on the notion that "98% of climate scientists can't be wrong". While the article lacks detail about this course, I assume it's more of a social engineering course wherein they discuss the means by which society can be pushed in a direction that reduces AGW. That is fine as long as they make it clear to students that the this is not a pure science course.

I'd like to know more about the profs too, because quasi-science courses often use "science" as a curtain to mask ulterior motives. Are they stakeholders in some "green" technology being developed at that school or elsewhere such that they refuse to debate anything that might call into question the central thesis behind their anti-AGW endeavors? This is a legit question to ask when a science professor refuses to stay true to the scientific method and casts out any undesirable factors or opinions. DISPROVE the deniers instead of DISPARAGING them; antipathy doesn't belong in pure science.

0
2

[–] oedipusaurus_rex 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Anytime that you are dealing with any 'real' thing you are taking it on faith that the 'real' world is in fact real. At the end of the day no one can prove that the world we live in is real. All of human knowledge (except for certain branches of philosophy that question reality) is based on the assumption that the waking world is real, other people are actually other people, and the world is more than just the figment of someone's imagination.

Your final paragraph is a very good point. I'm trying to break my way into a career in the geosciences and it is very heavily politicized on both sides. There is money to be had from either a government that is pushing very hard for green technology as well as money to be had from large corporations that are trying to get rights to "rape and pillage". Usually neither side is right and the truth is very nuanced.

For an undergraduate college course I don't have any problem with this. Most students don't start doing hard core research until their senior (and sometimes junior) year. Scientific research figures much more heavily in a masters or PhD program. In the meantime, almost all students have to get a baseline understanding of their field (and the consensus works really well for this) before they can have any success at poking holes in other professional's research.

At the graduate level science is self correcting. At the undergraduate level consensus is there to provide a baseline understanding. At least that's how it is in STEM fields. If someone is majoring in debate or a similar field then I would expect a class to cover both sides of the "controversy".

Edit: formatting

0
1

[–] repoman 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

Would that the discourse on campus were as civil and open-minded as this. In any case, the responsibility falls upon each thinker to separate faith from fact, but this doesn't help dispel concerns that campuses are increasingly becoming co-opted by special interests interested more in slanting minds than expanding them.