For local consumption.
Talking with a friend this morning (thanks, friend!), I think the human tendency toward dualism might have sent us talking past each other. Here's how I see the distinctions between science, policy and politics:
Science: Determining what is. Involves
a) doing the science, aka investigation
b) understanding the science: street smarts about interpreting reported results of the investigations of others.
Policy: What we should do about it. Based on the science, it also involves:
a) values (e.g. whether it's desirable for human civilization to continue, whether it's ok to revert to human lives being nasty brutish & short)
b) risk analysis (evaluating alternative policies based on outcome spectrum-of-probability and hazard; includes the implications of uncertainty)
c) technology (what tools are at our disposal); created via engineering
d) economics (how to tweak the playing field to most effectively deploy (and encourage) the technology at our disposal); makes use of ecology and psychology
Politics: What policies are feasible, and how one can go about getting them implemented. Involves stuff I should be interested in, but, alas, am not.
Conclusion: Policy isn't science, but it also isn't politics; one can talk about policy without becoming enmeshed in politics.
Stale blog offering Perspective on ideas, issues and life from Nevada County, California - belaboring the obvious since 2003
Wednesday, August 04, 2010
1 comment:
Welcome, and thanks for caring enough to donate your time and thoughts toward greater collective wisdom...
Terms of engagement:
* Please be civil.
* * * * Please do not post anonymously * * * (I'd remove this choice if I could, and I may remove your comment if you do) - instead, do this:
Click on the 'Name/URL' radiobutton, then enter your real name (if you're brave) or a pseudonym (if you're not). (You can leave the "URL" field blank.)
Or go ahead and click "Anonymous", but put your name in your comment.
* The Management reserves the right to delete comments (Moderation Certificate can be found here). You can always post it on a blog of your own.
If you run into technical difficulties, please a) accept my apologies, then b) email your comment to aherror2011 at gmail.com with "Comment for [name of this blog]" in the Subject line.
New policy re climate contrarianism comments as of 11/11/2009:
Comments questioning the climate science community's understanding of climate change (97% of active climatologists now believe that the earth is currently warming and that it's human-caused - link) will be deleted unless the commenter:
a) is local
b) uses his real name
c) provides link(s) to substantiate his claim(s)/inference(s)
d) is willing to collaborate on constructing an argument tree, to get us past the usual sterile point-counterpoint-countercounterpoint.
(For people who can't read the above, a summary:
1) Be civil;
2) Don't post w/o giving at least a pseudonym;
3) Don't espouse climate-denial crankery unless you're local and willing to stand behind it.)
Caveats:
1. Comments could be delayed: they are being moderated, and I'm sometimes away from the computer for a day or more.
2. : Perfectly legitimate comments are sometimes miscategorized (by the blogging platform) as spam, & not published. If this happens to yours, please notify me, else I might not notice for a day or two.
Speaking of policy, there's a wonderful climate policy exchange in Grist today - Can’t greens and libertarians just get along on climate?
ReplyDeleteMore like this, please.