Climate change and macroeconomics are really similar in this regard. I think the main reason there is so much controversy is because the science is so entangled with the politics, and that probably applies to the experts just as much as it applies to the average onlooker.
Climate research is nothing like economics. Politics is involved in how we should react to the scientific results, but that doesn't mean the science itself is "entangled" with politics.
You might just as well suggest that paleontology is entangled with religion because its findings offend some people's religious views.
It sounds like you're saying they shouldn't be entangled, which is reasonable, but under what definition of "entangled" are they not currently entangled?
Comments
Climate change and macroeconomics are really similar in this regard. I think the main reason there is so much controversy is because the science is so entangled with the politics, and that probably applies to the experts just as much as it applies to the average onlooker.
Climate research is nothing like economics. Politics is involved in how we should react to the scientific results, but that doesn't mean the science itself is "entangled" with politics.
You might just as well suggest that paleontology is entangled with religion because its findings offend some people's religious views.
I absolutely would say that.
I guess we have different definitions of "entangled".
It sounds like you're saying they shouldn't be entangled, which is reasonable, but under what definition of "entangled" are they not currently entangled?
They have no impact on each other's beliefs or findings. They're completely independent.
Ideologies climb.