Nice analysis! I have to say that Maradona is a raging lunatic and all the offensive firepower cannot makeup for horrific coaching. Argentina barely qualified for the World Cup! These words should never be written. I like Holland as well, but they never seem to perform when it counts. (See Euro 2008.)
I think England is overrated because they always area. Ultimately, I think it will come down to Spain and Brazil. I know those picks are boring...but they're the best for a reason!
Hi All.Thanks for the responses, and sorry for the slow reply. So I think my point about scientific literacy got muddled by using the example of anthropogenic global warming (AGW). I completely agree, Peter, that AGW really comprises several different issues. Your breakdown is very insightful. Pielke does highlight this dynamic often, and the science is only one part of it. To try clarify the relationship between scientific thinking and knowledge, let me try another tendentious sports analogy. I think what we mean by scientific thinking is a general critical thinking ability that can be applied across domains, even when you encounter a subject for the first time. It's kind of like we expect someone who's athletic to quickly pick up any sport.The key point is that in both cases, general skills confer only limited proficiency in a new task. An amazing basketball player will not necessarily be good at swimming or football no matter how athletic she is. Similarly, an accomplished chemist may not be able to reason about geophysics even if she is great at "scientific thinking."Of course within certain domains it is easier to transfer skills. Tennis knowledge probably helps with badminton< and running the 100 m helps with running the 400 m and so on. But it's a leap to assume that either a general athleticism or critical thinking ability can be simply applied everywhere. So Peter, when you say: I would say that we really have to specify what you mean by "the scientific literature." You can understand the thinking in a field by reading its particular literature, and I'm not sure it will apply in other fields.Has any of this made sense?
Paul: I think that we have to carefully define what we mean by "decide" and "matters." If the matter we're discussing is the role of anthropogenic CO2 emissions in global warming, then technocracy might be warranted and mostly scientists should decide. If the matter is the political response, then I strongly agree we should push back on technocracy and scientists definitely should not be deciding.
Interesting post. I see your point, but I'm not sure if there is a scientific consensus about point 4. I suspect many scientists would agree with you that it's not a scientific judgment put a policy one. I would argue the very structure of the IPCC itself recognizes this.