> How old is the universe? I don't know. We have these three models, however, which give us some idea... And so on. A little humility can go a long ways here. Guess what? Average Joe Citizen knows you don't know. Trying to oversell the science is not the way to go.
Yes, but beware the Average Joe who doesn't like the conclusion of those models and therefore seeks "we don't know" as a free pass to disbelieve. Scientific consensus represents the best state of human knowledge so far. I.e. just because we aren't dead sure about those 13.4 billion years doesn't give you free pass to believe the Universe is 6000 years old. Humility is cool and all, but one has to remember that if there was another reliable way to get information about the universe, it would have been incorporated into scientific process.
> and how would that work, anyway? Got another Earth nearby?
Venus. That's where we discovered the concept of runaway global warming in the first place.
> I've said it before: this is a terrible debate, full of scientists who shouldn't be advocates, politicians who are looking for the latest bandwagon to jump on, the vast morass of uniformed folks who want to look knowledgeable and the poor voter stuck in the middle of all of it.
Yeah, it's just a huge mess. That's what always happens when a topic gets politicized - when it can be used to push agendas and persuade voters.
Yes, but beware the Average Joe who doesn't like the conclusion of those models and therefore seeks "we don't know" as a free pass to disbelieve. Scientific consensus represents the best state of human knowledge so far. I.e. just because we aren't dead sure about those 13.4 billion years doesn't give you free pass to believe the Universe is 6000 years old. Humility is cool and all, but one has to remember that if there was another reliable way to get information about the universe, it would have been incorporated into scientific process.
> and how would that work, anyway? Got another Earth nearby?
Venus. That's where we discovered the concept of runaway global warming in the first place.
> I've said it before: this is a terrible debate, full of scientists who shouldn't be advocates, politicians who are looking for the latest bandwagon to jump on, the vast morass of uniformed folks who want to look knowledgeable and the poor voter stuck in the middle of all of it.
Yeah, it's just a huge mess. That's what always happens when a topic gets politicized - when it can be used to push agendas and persuade voters.