Sci­ence is about con­stantly ex­per­i­ment­ing

The Observer - - YOUR SAY -

IN­TER­EST­ING let­ter from Nev Richards in The Rock­hamp­ton Bul­letin, Oc­to­ber 12, re­gard­ing lack of agree­ment among sci­en­tists on most is­sues, and asks why should we trust them on cli­mate change?

Sci­ence was one of my fa­vorite sub­jects at and be­yond my sec­ondary ed­u­ca­tion. Nev­er­the­less sci­en­tific de­bate is not de­cided by any chang­ing con­sen­sus, even if it is en­dorsed by pub­lic opin­ion.

Sci­ence is a process of ex­per­i­men­ta­tion, de­bate, and re­spect for all the ev­i­dence. And it should be noted that of­ten it is deal­ing with un­cer­tain­ties rather than cer­tain­ties, so its fore­casts and pre­dic­tions can be spec­tac­u­larly wrong.

For ex­am­ple, the on­go­ing con­fus­ing in­for­ma­tion re­gard­ing health is­sues, from elec­tric and mag­netic fields by any­thing which car­ries or uses elec­tric­ity.

This has been an is­sue re­searched by sci­en­tists from around the world over many years, de­bat­ing whether elec­tric and mag­netic fields have any ad­verse af­fect upon our health. John Blanch­field, Frenchville

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Australia

© PressReader. All rights reserved.