140
« on: July 16, 2013, 01:41:37 pm »
Medieval scholarship and Catholic Church dogma relied on the authority of Aristotle and a literal interpretation of the Bible to place earth at the center of the universe. In contrast, Galileo’s views were not based on an infallible authority. His conclusions flowed from observations and logic. Galileo’s evidence- and logic-based method of inquiry later became known as the scientific method.The vast majority of vocal skeptics are not engaged in climate research. The common bond uniting them, observers note, is an ideological belief system:Government regulation is bad, so problems that may require regulation must be resisted. From there, they search for ways to cast doubt on the science. Unlike Galileo and modern scientists, they do not change their view when presented with new evidence, because their position derives not from open-ended scientific inquiry, but from strongly-held ideological convictions.In contrast, climate science applies the scientific method pioneered by Galileo. Scientists make observations, form logical hypotheses, then test their hypotheses through experiments and further observations. They follow the evidence wherever it leads.The Church’s attack on Galileo and the skeptical assault on climate science are far from unique. History is full of examples where new scientific findings threatened powerful vested interests – whether religious, financial or ideological -- and provoked a furious backlash.