Scientific disagreement

Scientific disagreement
Encyclopedia Comparison
Compare an encyclopedia produced by laypeople (Wikipedia) with an encyclopedia produced by experts (e.g., Encyclopedia Britannica, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy), or two encyclopedias produced by laypeople (e.g., Wikipedia and Conservapedia), or Wikipedia editions in two languages (e.g., English and Chinese).

Pick a topic related to climate change or environmental health and safety standards (e.g., carbon tax versus emissions trading, polar bear extinction).
The comparison criteria are coverage (amount of stuff), accuracy (errors), and treatment (bias). Develop a hypothesis (e.g., Germans have a mystical attitude towards nature, and in particular
forests, as compared to people in English-speaking countries, who have a utilitarian attitude): what
follows for coverage, accuracy, and treatment (e.g., of Waldsterben vs. forest dieback)? Discuss if your hypothesis panned out. If it didn’t, develop a conjecture as to why not.

Scientific disagreement
Get to the root of a scientific disagreement. The disagreement in question must be between scientists or between scientists and science-influenced organizations such as the National Academy of Sciences or the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—and not between experts and laypeople, or scientists and think tanks, or scientists and politicians.

Examples of scientific disagreement discussed in class are Diamond vs. Hunt, Hockey Stick Graph, Gaia vs. Medea, and climate change caused by human activity vs. sunspots. Wikipedia’s “List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming” can be a good starting point for identifying a scientific disagreement.

Here’s a detailed example. An article in The Economist article will lead you to Castle and Henderson’s critique, a rebuttal by 15 IPCC contributor’s, and Castle and Henderson’s reply. (You can choose to cover this particular disagreement in your paper.)

The Economist. 2013. “Hot potato: The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change had better check its calculations.” February 13.
Castle, Ian, and David Henderson. 2003. “The IPCC Emission Scenarios: An Economic-Statistical
Critique.” Environment, Climate Change, Energy Economics, and Energy Policy 14 (2-3).
Nakicenovic, Nebojsa, et al. 2003. “IPCC SRES Revisited: A Response.” Environment, Climate
Change, Energy Economics, and Energy Policy 14 (2-3).
Castle, Ian, and David Henderson. 2003. “Economics, Emissions Scenarios and the Work of the
IPCC.” Environment, Climate Change, Energy Economics, and Energy Policy 14 (4).

Describe the controversy. Explain why is the controversy important—what hangs on it? Define your task. Describe the arguments and evidence on one side. Describe the arguments and evidence on the other side. Spell out exactly why and where the two sides disagreement. Optionally, come to a conclusion of your own.

Place this order with us and get 18% discount now! to earn your discount enter this code: special18 If you need assistance chat with us now by clicking the live chat button.