It is pretty well agreed that cigarettes can cause lung cancer, and as such, there’s very little controversy over that assertion. It’s hard to ignore the cause and effect of somebody having smoked their whole life and ending up on their death bead with emphysema.
What’s the “right education”?
Mark Nutter

As you would say, this is hindsight. Fifty years ago when the studies were new and the smoking industry was publishing pseudo-science, it looked a lot murkier.

We can observe many, many, many details about climate change. There isn’t just one observable, the global climate, there are tons of different factors that go into the climate and can be observed to change over time. And that observation has occurred, leading to useful predictions.

I think my main issue here, as I said in the other comment, is that Pragmatism seems to be too Machiavellian for me; if all we care about is the outcome, then we might be burning bridges that lead to a better outcome down the line. If we have the time, energy and resources (and individual interest in pursuit), I think humanity’s best bet is to research every possible avenue of knowledge. Only by combining breadth and depth searches will humanity discover the absolute most useful things to know relative to how we live, and how we want to live.

Thanks for the engaging dialogue!

Like what you read? Give Benji Lampel a round of applause.

From a quick cheer to a standing ovation, clap to show how much you enjoyed this story.