You can login if you already have an account or register by clicking the button below.
Registering is free and all you need is a username and password. We never ask you for your e-mail.
[–]Donbuster0 points
6 points
6 points
(+6|-0)
ago
Right, but, if you were taking a course in say, physics, it is assumed that, for purposes of the course, you accept that 1+1 equals 2. If you disagree that one and one is two, that's fine, but don't derail the entire course because of your belief; if you want to debate the concepts that lead us to conclude that the sum of one and one is two, or debate the relevancy of the assumed solution to the discussion of arithmatic, then you should take a course in number theory. This is no different from how any other university is structured. If no course was able to progress without first proving beyond a doubt all of the evidence the content relies on, nothing would be taught, both because nothing can be proven true in science (only proven false), and because the body of material that encompasses for even physics is incredibly vast. Climatology is applied physics and statistics and chemistry and a dozen other fields. Nothing would ever get done. As such, we accept that, for our courses to be productive, we must declare certain things outside the direct scope of the course to be true for the purposes of discussion, as they have done here. All this email does is warn students of this concept, and state that this is not the appropriate course for discussing such concepts, which makes sense, as, according to the course code, this is a humanities course, NOT a course in climatology, meteorology, or environmental science. All that this email is is an attempt to allow students to make a more informed decision about participating in the course, and hopefully allow the course to better stay on topic.
I think there is reason for concern when entire fields of study that have great influence upon policymakers are built upon foundations short of the irrefutable bedrock of logic. For an example of why this can be dangerous, I invite you to learn more about Keynesian economics.
AGW has a mountain of circumstantial evidence to be sure, but it's far from being proven an empirical fact such as claiming that the sun will rise in the east. Until indisputable mathematical proofs exist for AGW (which is nigh impossible for such a complicated system as global climate), it should not rise to a level that puts it beyond debate. It's fine not to spend time debating it in that course, but I hope the professors are at least disclaiming that AGW is a very strongly-supported hypothesis and that those taking it must to some extent "believe" the AGW conclusions based upon the preponderance of evidence.
As for me, I think the whole debate is pointless since we cannot possibly cease and reverse the damage we necessarily inflict on the climate through industry, mining, agriculture, forestry, fishing, etc - we HAVE to do those things to feed and shelter ourselves. I think we are better served to invest our collective intelligence in finding ways to thrive in the face of climate change which no matter what we do is inevitable. Unlike the dinosaurs, we have thumbs and supercomputers to help us in that regard.
really people, the debate on climate change is over. The climate changes, we have the evidence to prove that it does. the only thing that should be discussed or debated is what human impact on the change is (if any) and what problems it can and will cause in the future (10,100,1000+ years down the road).
[–]Donbuster0 points
4 points
4 points
(+4|-0)
ago
See my reply to Zaqwert; This is a humanities course, questions behind the science causing climate change and its validity are not particularly relevant here, and would be better suited to courses in climatology, meteorology, or environmental science. It also is reasonably accepted practice, in an academic setting, to teach the prevailing viewpoint in any course (and the prevailing scientific viewpoint is that abnormal climate change is happening, is caused by humans, and is a problem), save courses dedicated to discussing alternatives, which this is clearly not. Doing anything else would be to teach information in conflict with the central tenants of science, that information be based off repeatable experimentation that is well documented and examined for consistency and possible errors by outside academic bodies. Teaching something that goes against such information is counterproductive, as it means accepting that such information is more likely to be false than true. While it's certainly possible for any given research to be wrong, the way to determine that is through independent methodical research, an option that is most certainly available to UCCS students, not through needlessly obstructing tangentially related courses based off a weaker body of evidence than that which supports the precepts that course is structured upon.
Sort: Top
[–] Zaqwert 3 points 5 points 8 points (+8|-3) ago
There's no such thing as "settled science"
The number of things that were "settled" that we later learned to be either flawed or flat out wrong is staggering.
True science welcomes constant critical inspection and scrutiny.
[–] Donbuster 0 points 6 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago
Right, but, if you were taking a course in say, physics, it is assumed that, for purposes of the course, you accept that 1+1 equals 2. If you disagree that one and one is two, that's fine, but don't derail the entire course because of your belief; if you want to debate the concepts that lead us to conclude that the sum of one and one is two, or debate the relevancy of the assumed solution to the discussion of arithmatic, then you should take a course in number theory. This is no different from how any other university is structured. If no course was able to progress without first proving beyond a doubt all of the evidence the content relies on, nothing would be taught, both because nothing can be proven true in science (only proven false), and because the body of material that encompasses for even physics is incredibly vast. Climatology is applied physics and statistics and chemistry and a dozen other fields. Nothing would ever get done. As such, we accept that, for our courses to be productive, we must declare certain things outside the direct scope of the course to be true for the purposes of discussion, as they have done here. All this email does is warn students of this concept, and state that this is not the appropriate course for discussing such concepts, which makes sense, as, according to the course code, this is a humanities course, NOT a course in climatology, meteorology, or environmental science. All that this email is is an attempt to allow students to make a more informed decision about participating in the course, and hopefully allow the course to better stay on topic.
[–] repoman ago
I think there is reason for concern when entire fields of study that have great influence upon policymakers are built upon foundations short of the irrefutable bedrock of logic. For an example of why this can be dangerous, I invite you to learn more about Keynesian economics.
AGW has a mountain of circumstantial evidence to be sure, but it's far from being proven an empirical fact such as claiming that the sun will rise in the east. Until indisputable mathematical proofs exist for AGW (which is nigh impossible for such a complicated system as global climate), it should not rise to a level that puts it beyond debate. It's fine not to spend time debating it in that course, but I hope the professors are at least disclaiming that AGW is a very strongly-supported hypothesis and that those taking it must to some extent "believe" the AGW conclusions based upon the preponderance of evidence.
As for me, I think the whole debate is pointless since we cannot possibly cease and reverse the damage we necessarily inflict on the climate through industry, mining, agriculture, forestry, fishing, etc - we HAVE to do those things to feed and shelter ourselves. I think we are better served to invest our collective intelligence in finding ways to thrive in the face of climate change which no matter what we do is inevitable. Unlike the dinosaurs, we have thumbs and supercomputers to help us in that regard.
[–] Capt_Rye 1 point -1 points 0 points (+0|-1) ago
really people, the debate on climate change is over. The climate changes, we have the evidence to prove that it does. the only thing that should be discussed or debated is what human impact on the change is (if any) and what problems it can and will cause in the future (10,100,1000+ years down the road).
[–] TAThatBoomerang 2 points -1 points 1 point (+1|-2) ago
I get it if they want to restrict debate to certain times or certain areas, as to not disturb classes, but this just comes off as scared to debate.
[–] Donbuster 0 points 4 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago
See my reply to Zaqwert; This is a humanities course, questions behind the science causing climate change and its validity are not particularly relevant here, and would be better suited to courses in climatology, meteorology, or environmental science. It also is reasonably accepted practice, in an academic setting, to teach the prevailing viewpoint in any course (and the prevailing scientific viewpoint is that abnormal climate change is happening, is caused by humans, and is a problem), save courses dedicated to discussing alternatives, which this is clearly not. Doing anything else would be to teach information in conflict with the central tenants of science, that information be based off repeatable experimentation that is well documented and examined for consistency and possible errors by outside academic bodies. Teaching something that goes against such information is counterproductive, as it means accepting that such information is more likely to be false than true. While it's certainly possible for any given research to be wrong, the way to determine that is through independent methodical research, an option that is most certainly available to UCCS students, not through needlessly obstructing tangentially related courses based off a weaker body of evidence than that which supports the precepts that course is structured upon.