The first of two meetings with Dr. Teodoro Georgiadis of the CNR, Institute of Biometeorology was held at the Red Room Theatre San Biagio to 'teach the topic of global warming. This we did not expect were the questions that the doctor has put us all at once 'beginning of the conference. It was a really nice box (I confess that I enjoyed it a lot!): The starting point was simple, what was the meaning of the word anthropogenic, that is, if the causes of climate change resulting from human activity. To get to the end, however, it took us about two hours through several topics.
- Scientific knowledge was defined as a profane knowledge. Science has in itself a part of religion? The answer was: Today, more than ever, science is getting closer to religion. In fact, the general consensus scientists on a certain topic does not lead to more debate and exchange of views, the one who thinks differently is automatically cut off and everything reflects the religious system in which all credeno a certain thing which is presented as true by the servants of God .
- The fact that everyone 's agreement is understood by the people on that particular topic as if you were a true knowledge and that what has been said is true. But the reality is not so: as Socrates said, the truly wise and expert is one who 'knows he does not know' and the same applies to science: it has in it a room for doubts.
- But this 'room of Doubts' what is? Start by explaining the difference between basic research, applied research and targeted research. The first has as its primary objective the advancement of knowledge and is exploratory and often driven by curiosity, interest and intuition of the researcher, conducted without a practical purpose in mind. Applied research, other than that intended, as its objective the exploitation of knowledge for practical purposes and is performed in industry or in universities with funding from the industries concerned. Finally, the purpose was a purpose to be achieved even before the scan starts: in fact, political scientists or industrial commission work and for him to play aspettanano the time of their set.
- Times of science, however, does not coincide with those of politics: the 'politician needs to get the science results immediately applicable, because theirs is an act in the present, then the thing is not good in ten years is their problem.
- To make science funding is needed: the politicians are trying to address the new scientific studies that are more relevant to the problems of nationality, such as, for example, climate change: they know, in fact, that if you propose new solutions for those specific topics , then the consensus and the votes that will get the population will be greater. But democracy is given from awareness, ie knowing exactly what you will choose and what these will, and is also given to participation: being part of a State means an interest in the events and debates, no longer do to the city once indifferent to all his surroundings, not on its interests.
- Scientists, however, can not make forecasts: the forecast is a finished object, mathematical knowledge of the previous data, their analysis one can say what will happen in the future, with a near-certainty.
- The answer then give the scientist the company is a scenario: it is neither science nor the scientific method, but a 'hypothesis for what might happen in the future. Think of it as a room full of switches: each switch corresponds to a possible alternative to what will happen, the scientist tries to make the most logical combinations of these switches, considering numerous factors such as the development of society, physics, past findings, factors linked among them ... .
- Those who definitely should not take into account catastrophic and deniers are: first, for example when referring to our future, say that all die. The latter, however, argue that the Earth is not absolutely nothing happening. Yet we know very well that Some climate change is occurring or that if we know the end of our world, then we already know all about our future, even the smallest detail. But in both these ways it is claimed to know all the cone, when science said they did not have all the answers to our questions, do not possess the truth.
- Science has a knowledge that is not full, because the truth is not confined to science, but science is to contribute to this' last: and here, our room of Doubts, left open for possible errors and this we can not predict (as a principle of precaution) in our scenario, in what scientists offer the world, as a precautionary principle.
- Now, finally, climate change is occurring and this can not be questioned. It is true that 'man has his faults, but to remedy should not focus all of its interest in a particular case (eg' emission of carbon dioxide) and try to solve them only that: he must leave open the 'horizon to many factors that can determine in this case global warming scenarios and by knowing that they never possess a thorough knowledge and which will allow for a room for doubts (Giulia Guidazzi).
0 comments:
Post a Comment