Naomi Oreskes
نویسنده
چکیده
Models in science may be used for various purposes: organizing data, synthesizing information, and making predictions. However, the value of model predictions is undermined by their uncertainty, which arises primarily from the fact that our models of complex natural systems are always open. Models can never fully specify the systems that they describe, and therefore their predictions are always subject to uncertainties that we cannot fully specify. Moreover, the attempt to make models capture the complexities of natural systems leads to a paradox: the more we strive for realism by incorporating as many as possible of the different processes and parameters that we believe to be operating in the system, the more difficult it is for us to know if our tests of the model are meaningful. A complex model may be more realistic, yet it is ironic that as we add more factors to a model, the certainty of its predictions may decrease even as our intuitive faith in the model increases. For this and other reasons, model output should not be viewed as an accurate prediction of the future state of the system. Short timeframe model output can and should be used to evaluate models and suggest avenues for future study. Model output can also generate “what if” scenarios that can help to evaluate alternative courses of action (or inaction), including worst-case and best-case outcomes. But scientists should eschew long-range deterministic predictions, which are likely to be erroneous and may damage the credibility of the communities that generate them.
منابع مشابه
The scientific consensus on climate change: How do we know we’re not wrong?
Many scientists felt that respect was overdue: as early as 1995, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) had concluded that there was strong scientific evidence that human activities were affecting global climate. By 2001, IPCC’s Third Assessment Report stated unequivocally that human activities are having detectable effects on the earth’s atmosphere and hydrosphere. Prominent scie...
متن کاملEnd Times
Historians of science Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway, authors of Merchants of Doubt, have written a new book as ambitious as it is concise. The Collapse of Western Civilization: A View from the Future is told from the perspective of a Chinese historian several centuries in the future, looking back at our current time and attempting to explain to readers the irrationality of our behavior. In the ...
متن کاملScience and public policy: what’s proof got to do with it?
In recent years, it has become common for opponents of environmental action to argue that the scientific basis for purported harms is uncertain, unreliable, and fundamentally unproven. In response, many scientists believe that their job is to provide the “proof” that society needs. Both the complaint and the response are misguided. In all but the most trivial cases, science does not produce log...
متن کاملThe Anthropocene is functionally and stratigraphically distinct from the Holocene.
Human activity is leaving a pervasive and persistent signature on Earth. Vigorous debate continues about whether this warrants recognition as a new geologic time unit known as the Anthropocene. We review anthropogenic markers of functional changes in the Earth system through the stratigraphic record. The appearance of manufactured materials in sediments, including aluminum, plastics, and concre...
متن کامل