[oskkejdjdkjd]

Freeman dyson, who is one of the smartest human beings ever to live, questions evolution and climate change. On climate change, I don’t think he opposes being proactive — he just disagrees about the completeness of the evidence. He also has an unconventional opinion about nuclear war: that it’s not a very big deal.

[mikeyouse]

Freeman Dyson doesn't doubt climate change in the idiotic "CO2 doesn't lead to warming" sense, he just disputes projections around the impacts that AGW will have on humans and on civilization which is a very different thing.

[anth_anm]

> who is one of the smartest human beings ever to live

Strange way of saying "who is neither a biologist or climate scientist".

[commandlinefan]

> who is neither a biologist or climate scientist

And, of course, you can't _become_ a credentialed biologist or climate scientist unless you keep reciting the party line on global warming.

[vbuwivbiu]

he likes to take a contrarian position for the fun of it & sometimes it leads to the truth - take with a pinch of salt

[SpikeDad]

Sorry but you can't be one of the smartest human beings alive if you question settled science like evolution and climate change.

Being smart isn't just thinking of new stuff. It also includes understanding the world and it's proven qualities, properties and processes.

[erikpukinskis]

Intelligence is context specific. Find me a person who you think is intelligent, I can find a situation in which they will act like an idiot.

[noneeeed]

A great example would be Linus Pauling, who later on in his career became a proponent of mega-doses of vitamin C as a cure for all sorts of stuff, including cancer. He remained obsessed with the idea in the face of repeated studies that have shown it's no better than a placebo (in fact mega-dosing may even increase your risk of some cancers).

History is full of really smart people believing some pretty stupid things, especially in areas outside of their area of expertise. We have a very one-dimensional view of intelligence that assumes that because someone is smart (or even a genius) in one way, or knowledgeable about one area, that this must automatically apply to every facet of intelligence or knowledge.

Smart people are still people, with all the same biases, preconceptions, ego and other human frailties.

For some reason some physicists in particular seem very prone to underestimating the complexity of other branches of science, and over-estimating the applicability of their ways of working to them, especially the biological sciences which are full of complex systems that often turn out to react in unexpected ways.

[oskkejdjdkjd]

So we are supposed to dismiss dysons conclusions because he’s a genius? That is the most astounding contortion of logic I have ever seen. If you disagree with him, then go find out the logic he uses to justify his conclusions and discuss that.

[noneeeed]

Absolutely not. In fact I think Dyson is definitely worth listening to. Obviously I didn't explain myself clearly enough.

The point of my comment was that just because someone is a genius, does not automatically make them right. The fact that Linua Pauling was very wrong about vitamin C mega-dosing doesn't stop him from being one of the greatest scientists of the 20th century, and someone who was right about an awful lot of things.

[toasterlovin]

While I am generally in favor of taking a very conservative approach to our impact on the ecosystems which we inhabit, you may want to reserve a little humility when saying things like:

> Sorry but you can't be one of the smartest human beings alive if you question settled science like evolution and climate change.

Climate change is not settled science. It's model building. It isn't really possible to set up experiments where you can control variables and test hypotheses (because there's only one Earth). In that respect, it shares more in common with economics than physics, chemistry, or biology. Everyone takes economists' projections with a grain of salt. Yet the complex inter-dependent ecologies that we call Earth are way more complex than the global economy. So maybe we should be a little more guarded in our statements about what we know about how climate works.

Just some food for thought.