It should be noted that one should never confuse a Theory with a Fact. Theories require Facts in the form of premises to be considered scienfitically valid, but they are by definition not facts. Once they start being Facts, they are no longer Theories.
The two are not mutually exclusive.
Germ theory for example is both.
Evolution has long since hit this point.
-Bodies fall because of gravity. This is a Theory, as we cannot properly observe gravity (at least not currently). We can observe its effects, but so far we have not been able to find what exactly makes this phenomenon happen.
This makes gravity a fact but its mechanism of action a theory (or hypothesis, i don't know how well they have it nailed down)
Now, some Theories have accumulated so much factual evidence throughout the years that for all practical purposes we can treat them as facts in everyday life. But if we are goin to be precise, we must separate between facts supporting a theory and the theory itself.
I think its a false precision, false humility, an homage to a philosophical relic that should have been discarded long ago.
|
It should be noted that one should never confuse a Theory with a Fact. Theories require Facts in the form of premises to be considered scienfitically valid, but they are by definition not facts. Once they start being Facts, they are no longer Theories.The two are not mutually exclusive.
Germ theory for example is both.
Evolution has long since hit this point.
No, its at the point where any alternatives are shouted down by force of belief...like the world is not flat, or the Sun Circles the earth. Given the insanity of String Theory invalidates Religion and Evolution because all life is the same life at superposition, Evolution has just run into it's Copernicus and it will take a few centuries after I am shouted down/burned alive before What I say is accepted as the Truth. As much as we wish to say reality is as we perceive it, Our Perception of reality is easily manipulated.
Evolution is supported by certain pillars that must be true for Evolution to be true. Unfortunately they will be toppled.
1. Evolution is generational change over time. Time is a Consequence of continuous change in possibility. The Moment of that change in Possibility is the Singularity. Thus there is no time, just change in possibility.
2. One living being is separate to another. A Cat is not a Dog. At Superposition a Cat and Dog are the same Organism. Because all life is the Same life at Superposition. Thus there is no generational change because the only thing that separates you from the guy living in a cave is change in possibility - not generations of sexual choices over time.
The two are not mutually exclusive.
Germ theory for example is both.
Evolution has long since hit this point.
They are two different things. Facts are observations, Theories are explanations. There is quite a division between the two, and knowing the difference is paramount to understanding the Scientific Process.
Germ Theory is not both; it is a Theory. The Facts supporting it are Facts. The Theory of Evolution is not a Fact either; it is a Theory supported by a series of Facts.
Facts do not change, while Theories do. Fundamental to the Scientific Method is observation, experimentation, and repetition. Each time a new fact is presented, theories have to be contrasted against it. If they hold their ground, they either stand as they were or become more refined, in both cases strenghtening. If they do not, the theory is revised or potentially even discarded, as many famous and once seemingly immutable theories have been (such as the Static Universe Theory or the aforementioned Luminiferous Aether).
You cannot equate Theory to Fact. It undermines the whole concept of both.
They are not mutually exclusive, indeed. But this is because they mean different things.
This makes gravity a fact but its mechanism of action a theory (or hypothesis, i don't know how well they have it nailed down)
Gravity and the Theory of Gravity are two different things. The former is the observable phenomenon, the latter is the group of explanations regarding how it works and why. Greeks thought Gravity opposed Levity; later it was proposed that it is the cause of massless particles called Gravitons; modern astrophysicists propose it's the result of space-time distortions caused by mass. All these are theories, not facts. Facts is what scientists try to find to support those theories.
I think its a false precision, false humility, an homage to a philosophical relic that should have been discarded long ago.
I disagree. Science is about precision; Theory and Fact are not interchangeable terms. Proposing they are breaks the Scientific Method in half.
This is not my opinion or my particular perspective; it is the formal definition of Theory and Fact.
Some quick sources:
http://ncse.com/evolution/education/theory-fact
http://www.wikihow.com/Explain-the-Difference-Between-Theory,-Law,-and-a-Fa ct
http://www.differencebetween.net/language/difference-between-fact-and-theor y/
They are two different things. Facts are observations
Facts are not limited to observations. The relationships between them are just as real
If someone has the Human immunodeficiency virus is it just a theory that thats what's making them sick?
Theories are explanations. There is quite a division between the two, and knowing the difference is paramount to understanding the Scientific Process.
Its important for the philosophy of science, which means its not important.
Germ Theory is not both; it is a Theory. The Facts supporting it are Facts. The Theory of Evolution is not a Fact either; it is a Theory supported by a series of Facts.
we can say then that evolution was a theory (albeit a very strongly supported one) when first proposed by Darwin, and since 1859 it has graduated to "facthood" as more and moresupporting evidence has piled up. Evolution is still called a "theory", just like the theory of gravity, but its a theory that is also a fact
-Jerry A. Coyne "Why evolution is true".
Facts do not change, while Theories do.
Either facts change (ie, the size of the earth) or our ability to measure it changes. If you insist that a fact isn't a fact because our measurement of it could always get better, then we have no facts. If you insist that we don't know ANY relationships between any two objects or events you're in outright inanity.
Marxian economics is no less accurate a model than Newtonian physics, really. You can't fault it, because its the start of something not the apex of the field. They're both luminaries.
You have to fault it, because it's faulty.
You have to fault Freud too, when he's faulty.
You have to fault crappy 19th Century pseudoscience when it's faulty, just like Dr. Pepper won't cure tuberculosis or whatever it was supposed to do. Otherwise, you're practicing steampunk witchdoctor magic.
The danger comes when you start applying the theories as a viable socioeconomical model. Bad things happen. Like, "ruin the 20th century for everybody else with your failed socioeconomic system" bad. There's no golden age of liberated proletariates. That's just the hornswaggle they use to sell the snake oil with.
Kinda like creation science, it doesn't actually work in the real world; the speed of light hasn't slowed down for 6,000 years, and the labor theory of value is pretty much meaningless. The market really doesn't give a shit how much labor went into something. Valuation doesn't reflect that. If I want to buy something, the price I'm willing to pay really doesn't have anything to do with how hard it was to make the thing. So you can't really do anything positive with his system. It doesn't hold water. It's creation science.
Does anybody want to buy one of my father's oboe reeds? They're damn hard to make. No? Didn't f%%*ing thing so.
Yeah; rich people can be dicks; wow. There's a f&*%ing no-brainer. Thank Lenin's Ghost we had Karl Marx to illuminate us with that little factoid. So let's just totally screw society up because rich people can be dicks. Sheer genius.
I just marvel at the irony of it.
More country music.Trying to stop the trend of appalling country musicI'm sorry, what? You want more country music?
Hey, can I play?
The only country album I own.
Kinda like creation science, it doesn't actually work in the real world; the speed of light hasn't slowed down for 6,000 years, and the labor theory of value is pretty much meaningless. The market really doesn't give a s+*$ how much labor went into something. Valuation doesn't reflect that. If I want to buy something, the price I'm willing to pay really doesn't have anything to do with how hard it was to make the thing. So you can't really do anything positive with his system. It doesn't hold water. It's creation science.
I'm pretty certain that Marxist economics includes room for the fluctuations of supply and demand, Comrade Spanky.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Its important for the philosophy of science, which means its not important.
While a agree with a lot of what you have said(there are some theories which are in all practicality, factual; at this point we just arn't going to decide evolution doesn't happen for instance. ), I have to disagree with the above quote.
While it might have no practical impact in the daily lives of your average lay person, that distinction is immensely important. It functions to keep science one of the least dogmatic areas of human endeavour.
The fact that we never know anything with absolute certainty, means we are always willing to look for a better explanation, which is a good thing.
"And yea, verily I tell thee, leave them alone and they will turn on one another."
*dances*
Sissyl:
You have a profoundly strange idea of what 'turning on each other" looks like...
[Struts over to Madame Sissyl and starts doing the shimmy]
"And yea, verily I tell thee, leave them alone and they will turn on one another."
*dances*
Of course. Everybody here came to discuss, for the sake of discussion.
If you are unwilling to discuss further your point (which is fine by me, since we were basically talking past each other as you had very different premises), we have to make do with something else. Guess the Atropos effect didn't kick in, this time.
|
I would prefer if you would stop being one.
I would very much prefer if you stopped calling me creationist.
As far as I can tell, he's shown no signs of being a creationist.
He's a kook. Possibly even a crackpot. Though that usually requires more focus on one crazy theory and serious attempts to push it. Make a website, publish books about your theory == you're a crackpot. Rant about various silly scientific ideas on unrelated websites == you're just a kook.This particular craziness isn't really creationist craziness. Some of them buy into it, but it's not that common.
There's plenty of pseudo-science floating around the net. It all follows the same pattern of fervent belief in wacky theories rejected or ignored by mainstream science which just proves it's a conspiracy. Creationism is just one, well-financed and thus dangerous, example.
I generally don't link much because when I research things, it's by talking to professors or reading actual books or journals. The internet is too easy to find and alter information. Sure the truth if ever was on the net can hide in places, but by then such information is regarded as non-sourced.
This is the information age, the ability to control information is very important because it has an increasing effect on the money spent. For a few thousand dollars you can almost eliminate your electric bill, but is this a commonly known fact? No, because rich people want it for themselves but they don't want the poor people to have it because then they are not spending the money.
Same with pharmacuticals, they make more money by feeding you a pill a day for the rest of your life. So they want you healthy enough to survive but sick enough to buy need medicine. They will manipulate knowledge to their benefit. Books can't be rewritten, new copies can be revised but not old copies, and the internet is fluid on information and is easy to change history or old pages. All it takes is a quick virus to look for and find given information and then change it, or in some cases pay the owners to make changes.
How much does this happen, I don't know, but there is extreme motivation for it, so I remain skeptical. I always bear in mind it might be truth, but I don't jump on the band wagon recklessly. Particularly when A and B don't fit.
Some of you say there is so much evidence of things being true yet not one peer-reviewed paper was linked, it was wiki's, homedrawn pictures, and newscasts that were linked. And there has been a few reports of scientists reviewing their own work to make it peer-reviewed.
What I want to see for science, is the destruction of corporations and any economic/social system where one's standing and standard of living is money based. Money should be for luxuries not survival. When that becomes the case science will become more reliable as scientists won't need to follow rich people's desires or directions for research. Not saying they all do, but most need to do so at least a little bit just to make enough money to live.
Frankly, I also think someone should remain skeptical just to keep the honest ones actually considering alternatives. And to notice inconsistancies, the various scientific disciplines don't really communicate with each other, they each have their own definitions for the same terms, etc. A skeptic looks for the fallicies with a view a believer will never have.
I.E. whoever it was above that listed off earths heat sources. In astronomy, we know that pressure creates heat, this is why a can of air gets cold when you let a bunch of air out quickly. Yet above someone listed the heat source for earth with out listing pressure at all, and not even giving a catagory for other. I as a skeptic notice this inconsistancy and point it out, so they can go and verify their facts.
I consider myself a scientific skeptic, I look for the errors, and I don't believe everything I read, but neither do I believe everything is false or a lie. I believe nothing, except that deceptions, errors, and illusions are commonplace. You want the best most current scientific theory, find someone else, if you suspect a theory to be in error, I will point to the most likely mistakes in that theory. Everything requires balance, people like me are important to science because we find and point out the mistakes.
I don't expect everyone to believe me, my ideas are idea on other ways to achieve the known facts, the ideas on how or why our assumtions may be false.
The 620 billions years ago length of day doesn't fit the speed of deceleration measured. That means there is a missing piece to the puzzle. Is my idea that piece? Maybe, maybe not, but it doesn't change the fact that there is an inconsistancy.
So quit telling me how absolutely perfect science is, because for how good it may be, it will never be perfect. I am sure people spent countless hours yelling at others about how things always fall down, how anyone could go outside and experiment with a ball to demonstrate that everything that goes up must come down, and anyone who thought other wise was considered an idiot. Maybe they were idiots, but they were right to question accepted beliefs.
While it might have no practical impact in the daily lives of your average lay person
Do you really think it matters to the scientists either?
Sure, if you're on the bleeding edge of quantum physics your preconceptions could change but do you think that say aids research really needs to worry about the epistemology of disease theory or that a geologist needs to question plate tectonics?
that distinction is immensely important. It functions to keep science one of the least dogmatic areas of human endeavor.
Its a false humility. I know no one is questioning germ theory. you know no one is questioning germ theory.
Its a false humility with consequences, because some nutters keep seeing the wishy washy concessions to philosophy and saying "ahah! they won't say it flat out.. conspiracy! HIV isn't reaaal!"
The fact that we never know anything with absolute certainty, means we are always willing to look for a better explanation, which is a good thing.
At some point you have to stop rebuilding the wheel and move forward.
I have no problem with knowing something with absolute certainty until i have reason to be less certain.
Facts are not limited to observations. The relationships between them are just as real
Yes, they are. Facts are determined by whether or not they can be observed. The process that identifies whether something is or not a Fact is called Verifiability, which requires repeated experimentation. Said experimentation involves re-creating the phenomenon to see if the supposed fact can be observed again. If it cannot be observed, then it is not a fact and thus cannot be used as a premise to support a Theory.
Its important for the philosophy of science, which means its not important.
It is important for the Scientific Method, which means it is important for Science itself. If a Theory does not undergo this methodology, it is not considered scientific.
we can say then that evolution was a theory (albeit a very strongly supported one) when first proposed by Darwin, and since 1859 it has graduated to "facthood" as more and moresupporting evidence has piled up. Evolution is still called a "theory", just like the theory of gravity, but its a theory that is also a fact
-Jerry A. Coyne "Why evolution is true".
That statement is either taken out of context or suffering from the common mistake of assuming a Theory is the same thing as Fact. Theories do not turn into Facts, because they are working on different levels. A body of Facts supporting a Theory can become overwhelmingly strong, but the Theory that uses them to explain a phenomenon never "graduates" into facthood; that is not the purpose of Theories.
Evolutionary phenomenons have plenty of factual evidence to back them; we can say those are true, as they have been observed, replicated, and observed again, holding their ground. They give validity to the Theory of Evolution. But if tomorrow someone finds out there was actually alien manipulation somewhere in the process and turns out to be verifiable, then the theory needs to be revised in light of the new empirical information.
Same with the Theory of Gravity. So far we've had I believe 4 different theories explaining it (Gravity-Levity, Newtonian Mechanics, Gravitons, and Space-Time Curvature). They have all observed several of the same facts. However, each one has supersceded the previous ones not because rocks stopped falling down when you throw them, but because new facts have been found that cannot be explained by the older model.
Either facts change (ie, the size of the earth) or our ability to measure it changes. If you insist that a fact isn't a fact because our measurement of it could always get better, then we have no facts. If you insist that we don't know ANY relationships between any two objects or events you're in outright inanity.
Facts do not change; if they do, then they are no longer Facts. That is the point of Verifiability: If a Fact cannot be experimented and tested by 3rd parties when replicating the conditions, then it cannot be considered empirical and thus unable to become a premise for a Theory.
I generally don't link much because when I research things, it's by talking to professors or reading actual books or journals.
Which you don't understand, because you're missing a lot of the basics.
The internet is too easy to find and alter information. Sure the truth if ever was on the net can hide in places, but by then such information is regarded as non-sourced.
I can't (easily) show you my college geology texts that say the exact same thing.
This is the information age, the ability to control information is very important because it has an increasing effect on the money spent.
And yet the wiki pages are in line with actual geology. Why is that?
Some of you say there is so much evidence of things being true yet not one peer-reviewed paper was linked, it was wiki's, homedrawn pictures, and newscasts that were linked.
Yes, because oddly enough prominent geologists do not put out peer reviewed papers re treading basic high school geology. Peer reviewed papers tend to be mind numbingly specific and you're missing the big picture.
For a few thousand dollars you can almost eliminate your electric bill, but is this a commonly known fact? No, because rich people want it for themselves but they don't want the poor people to have it because then they are not spending the money.
Because the solutions aren't nearly as practical as people make them out to be.
You want the best most current scientific theory, find someone else, if you suspect a theory to be in error, I will point to the most likely mistakes in that theory.
No you won't.
You don't have the information that went into forming the conclusions that science comes to.
You don't understand the process by which that information gets turned into understanding.
Its not that easy. The greek philosophers were wrong. You do not just get to sit on your keister and think your way to the truth. You are not going to argue your way to plate tectonics from first principles, someone needs to go out and LOOK to see whats going on.
People have done that, but you haven't paid the least bit of attention to them. Its not special enough for you. Its too mainstream, its like, under the control of the man man.
Reality doesn't care if you're a non conformist.
Everything requires balance, people like me are important to science because we find and point out the mistakes.
You're not important to science, at all. You are not legitimate criticism. You have no idea what it is you're criticizing. You're a film critic that hasn't bothered to see the movie.
And surely you're crucial as hell to science then, mister Wolf?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And surely you're crucial as hell to science then, mister Wolf?
Not for a long time yet hopefully, I'm still using this body.
That's a shame. Some of your posts make me feel like your fingers (and brain, possibly vocal cords by extension) would make a great contribution to the field.
[
Yes, they are. Facts are determined by whether or not they can be observed.
So is the size of the earth a fact?
The process that identifies whether something is or not a Fact is called Verifiability, which requires repeated experimentation.
Now you're moving the goal post.
No link between two phenomenon is directly observable but they ARE verifiable through experimentation: ie, we can keep injecting monkeys with a virus and watching them get sick.
It is important for the Scientific Method, which means it is important for Science itself. If a Theory does not undergo this methodology, it is not considered scientific.
The method ignores it at some point. If its not part of what you care enough about to do then its not important to you.
That statement is either taken out of context
It is not. It is in fact the entire point of the chapter. Yes i did read the entire book, no i wasn't quote mining.
or suffering from the common mistake of assuming a Theory is the same thing as Fact.
Or you're making the mistake of assuming they're mutually exclusive, which is my entire point of contention.
Theories do not turn into Facts, because they are working on different levels. A body of Facts supporting a Theory can become overwhelmingly strong, but the Theory that uses them to explain a phenomenon never "graduates" into facthood; that is not the purpose of Theories.
If this were true then science would be pointless.
The entire POINT of science, the entire reason for the endeavor, is to figure out how the universe ACTUALLY works. Its not to keep an idea pure or come up with some platonic order of the universe, the entire point, its to find the truth. Science does not make laws, science does not create facts it describes the ones that are already there.
Evolutionary phenomenons have plenty of factual evidence to back them; we can say those are true, as they have been observed, replicated, and observed again, holding their ground.
Science is not limited only to repeatable experimentation. If that were true any kind of historical science (ie paleontology) would be a contradiction.
*burns popper in effigy*
They give validity to the Theory of Evolution. But if tomorrow someone finds out there was actually alien manipulation somewhere in the process and turns out to be verifiable...
Then either 1) the manipulation was pretty small and can be accounted for the same way genetic drift can or 2) the change is big, in which case you may as well worry about loki creating theuniverse and your memories of it last Thursday. (irony)
Facts do not change
Really? Whats the temperature right now?
Whats the size of the earth? Is that a fact or not? Someone measures it with a stick in the ground and gets 24,000 miles. Someone breaks out a telescope and now its 24,800 miles, then we get start playinig with radio waves and its 24,901 miles, then satellites and its 24,901.2, and someday someone will come up with a phase inducer deflector dish thingy and it will be 24,901.2817857817588278 miles. Are we supposed to engage in endless navel contemplation simply because there are no facts?
I must say I wish I was so convinced by the purity of science as some others. Now, I know I am seen here as batshit insane paranoid cuckoo, but it's not the corruptibility of scientists themselves I am talking about, but rather some very worrying patterns and processes. Let me start by saying I am an atheist, and use the scientific, empirical worldview as my yardstick. I realize what science has given the world, and that there are serious threats to scientific endeavour today. I despise creationism, anti-evolution mumbo-jumbo, and so on.
There are a few great questions about science that are rarely put. A simple one is: How certain can we be about the validity of correlations in scientific journals? Well, when you find a correlation, you can calculate the probability of the correlation being only a product of chance, depending on the number of observations and the resulting data you have. This probability is called the p number. Usually, you need to reach a p < 0,05, or less than a five percent probability of the correlation being random, to claim it is a real one. If you don't reach that far, you can improve the p value by making more measurements. Eventually, you get there, and you can get your correlation published in a scientific journal. However: This means that in actuality, every twentieth published correlation in fields that employ p < 0,05 is DUE TO RANDOM CHANCE. Sure, you can always make a reproduction study, and see if you get the same data, but this is far from always feasible. Results that seem odd get checked, certainly, but so long as the results are in line with the dominant paradigm, they are generally just accepted. Over time, then, with correlations based on earlier correlations and every twentieth correlation being only random chance, it's highly relevant to ask how reliable the sum of the data really is.
Second, there is a sharp delineation between basic science and applied science. When people making decisions look at science, they see "a process that gives us valuable stuff". If you come up with a new drug, a new design for cars, a new chemical fuel, a new flavour chemical, everyone is happy and production can begin. If you, however, manage to formalize a greater understanding of the world, people go "Eh?" Maxwell's equations are a good example of this. When he published them, the basics of much of electromagnetics, the most frequent question is "What use are they? What can you do with them?" To which he answered, and I think this is spot on, "What use is a new-born child?" The point is: We don't know what they'll be good for, because we don't yet understand the world seen through a lens where they exist. This is always the problem with basic science. A study was made a while ago, about which the greatest advances in science were. They asked scientists themselves to rate the most important and influential papers in their own field. This was then separated into applied and basic science heaps, defined as "if it's ever discussed HOW this may be used in the paper, it's applied science". It should come as no surprise that not one single of the scientists' chosen papers were applied science, despite the liberal definition of applied science. NOT A SINGLE ONE. Everything we know, we know because people asked WHY, not HOW DO I USE THIS. So, basic science is absolutely vital... and gets less and less resources every year, with central grant boards focusing more and more on science that will produce easily measurable results.
Third, and this ties more into what you were discussing, theorycrafting is not an exact art, or a simple process. Imagine a continuum from on one end completely independent and unrelated points of data, to on the other end completely predictive theories that are fully supported with every dot on the lines. Where on this scale does a certain theory lie? Here, too, is a serious problem. One of the basic ideas of scientific inquiry is to use the data we measure TO MAKE A PREDICTION ABOUT THINGS. Data in itself is not a theory, nor a prediction, but correctly used, a set of data can approach that. However, this is the process of induction, which means you still need to interpret the data and set them in a context. Many people don't like the inductive part of science, preferring to think it infallible or only based on deductive logic. Some think that induction is more or less a crime against science. However, if we keep the need for measuring precisely everything we speak of, without referring to patterns and broad strokes in what we see, we lose the essential power of science. I know this comes off as a bit rambling, but another way of putting it is: If every point of data ONLY speaks for itself, you need an infinite number of measurements to make a line. At some level, you need to ASSUME certain things, i.e. make inductive statements, otherwise scientific theory can't help you.
Fourth: Many people today use scientific tools wrong. Statistics is far from perfect in the community. Shortcuts are taken. Often, this happens when you collect huge amounts of data, or measurements are somewhat diffuse. Example: Many studies in the cardiovascular field work the same way. They collect 50.000 people, a humonguous mass of people, and measure everything even vaguely related that they can on these people, usually while the test subjects use a certain medication. Then with the data collected, they start publishing HUGE numbers of papers on this data, mining the data for every correlation they can find. The results are rather meager, say, they find that a certain drug reduces heart death by 1.2 %-units over five years, but there are hundreds of other interesting correlations they find. Remember what I said about every twentieth correlation being random chance? Yeah. It is actually worse than that. When you do many studies on the same dataset, the statistically proper way of handling it is that the more you have done, the lower your p needs to be to show a correlation. This is soundly ignored by most who do this kind of study. They claim that "We don't believe in that".
So, yes, even without individual or political corruption of the scientific process, there are plenty of things to worry about regarding science.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sissyl,
I can agree with your points 2 and 4. However, scientists will refer to the p value rather than say this is true. They acknowledge this limitation. The popular press and politicians ignore it, but that's hardly the fault of the scientits.
Also, these are problems with all science. So why are you not as sceptical about, say, thermodynamics, plate techtonics, evolution or any other science? Why is it just AGW where these issues trouble you so much?
Without going back into that discussion:
I find the rhetorics about AGW to have far more in common with religious mass psychosis than with scientific exposition and debate. This is not the fault of the scientists, but the associated politicos.
I doubt the veracity of the climate models, and these are the root of most of the political spin. This is an issue where the scientists have most of the blame.
I find the solutions put forward to the problems we see to be directly, and immediately, counterproductive and dangerous. If AGW armagedon is coming, we need the strongest, most flexible political system we can get to meet it. Autocracy is an example of this... up until the 18th century or so. We don't need to go there. And we certainly don't need to shut down every nuclear power plant. Not the scientists' fault either.
Finally, I doubt the composition, selection, conclusions, quality control and methods of the IPCC. Not the scientists.
None of this applies to a degree that is even comparable to climatology to any other field I know about within the natural sciences. But, saying the above did not work in this thread, due to being repeatedly jumped on and called paranoid and inane. Note that if we got a situation where plate tectonics, evolution or any other field became what climatology has become, I would question the same issues in those fields - and I have never felt a need to doubt the truth of evolution. Indeed, I consider Darwin's work to be among the most important and admirable scientific works in human history. Nor did I ever have an issue with plate tectonics. I remember staring at a world map and thinking how it was interesting that the continents seemed to fit so well into one another... I think I was nine. That does not mean I want unending masses of articles about how stupid people who don't believe it are, or massive campaigns about how we need to Protect Humanity of the Dangers of Evolutionary Corruption by "Suspending democracy for a while".
About truth and p values: Yes, of course. My issue with it is what it says about the workings of science when study is laid on study - how firm a foundation does it really give us that 5% of the base we build on is random chance?
I find the solutions put forward to the problems we see to be directly, and immediately, counterproductive and dangerous. If AGW armagedon is coming, we need the strongest, most flexible political system we can get to meet it. Autocracy is an example of this... up until the 18th century or so. We don't need to go there. And we certainly don't need to shut down every nuclear power plant. Not the scientists' fault either.
Put forward by who ?
I am not familiar with swedish politics. Who exactly is pleading for an "emergency" fallback to an authoritarian regime ?
Over here, none of the "green" parties would even come close to hint of such a abysmal idea.... (please, do note that in the document you provided, Dr Lovelace only expressed his fears that democratic governments would not be up to the task : not the same thing as calling for abrogation of all civilian rights).
About the rest : the trick is that as confirming studies piles upon confirming studies, your 5 % probability of a theory being right is getting smaller and smaller, until it's no longer distinguishable from absolute truth. You can always imagine that someday a new revolutionary experiment will prove it wrong, but in the meantime, if you try to disclaim that theory as wrong without anything better than your gut feelings, you will probably be called names. It's what is happening in the field of climatology (and happened with creationnnism/evolution, flatearth/round earth, etc.).
Sis, when you mention rhetorics about AGW and political spin, are you talking about domestic (Swedish) sources? I think the reaction of many posters here (certainly my own) are colored by the framing of the debate in US media.
From what I've seen, throughout Europe, everyone accepts AGW, and debates the severity of its effects and what reasonable counter-measures entail. That's perfectly reasonable; given the example of the Netherlands, Building dykes might be a perfectly appropriate response, rather than spending 50 million years trying to come to an international consensus on carbon output.
However, in the US media, the two sides of the debate are cast as "It's a hoax!" and "It's way to boring to even bother with, why not just watch Keeping up with the Kardashians instead?"
Sorta drives everyone a little defensively crazy, witness the ugly hypothesis incident above.
Edit: always spell dike with an I, the profanity filter doesn't do alternate spellings. :P
I find the solutions put forward to the problems we see to be directly, and immediately, counterproductive and dangerous. If AGW armagedon is coming, we need the strongest, most flexible political system we can get to meet it. Autocracy is an example of this... up until the 18th century or so. We don't need to go there. And we certainly don't need to shut down every nuclear power plant. Not the scientists' fault either.Put forward by who ?
I am not familiar with swedish politics. Who exactly is pleading for an "emergency" fallback to an authoritarian regime ?
Over here, none of the "green" parties would even come close to hint of such a abysmal idea.... (please, do note that in the document you provided, Dr Lovelace only expressed his fears that democratic governments would not be up to the task : not the same thing as calling for abrogation of all civilian rights).
About the rest : the trick is that as confirming studies piles upon confirming studies, your 5 % probability of a theory being right is getting smaller and smaller, until it's no longer distinguishable from absolute truth. You can always imagine that someday a new revolutionary experiment will prove it wrong, but in the meantime, if you try to disclaim that theory as wrong without anything better than your gut feelings, you will probably be called names. It's what is happening in the field of climatology (and happened with creationnnism/evolution, flatearth/round earth, etc.).
The very same groups of people who have tons of people in all sorts of meteorology authorities, the IPCC, climate sections of universities: Greenpeace, the WWF, and similar anti-democratic groups. Every time we have anything about the environment, we get Greenpeace propaganda all over the media. We have the green party in 10 % ofour parliament seats, and all parties supporting their climate agenda. We have week long anti-nuclear power campaigns in news, entertainment and newspapers. But really, I have written answers to this for pages, only to be jumped on in return.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
More country music.Trying to stop the trend of appalling country musicI'm sorry, what? You want more country music?
Both aren't appalling. This isn't so bad, either.
So is the size of the earth a fact?
Earth has a size, yes. We can observe and test it, so it is a fact.
Now you're moving the goal post.
No link between two phenomenon is directly observable but they ARE verifiable through experimentation: ie, we can keep injecting monkeys with a virus and watching them get sick.
I don't see how am I moving the post. I am saying that Facts are observations while Theories are explanations as to why those observations happen in a certain way. Observations have to be experimented upon to be confirmed and to remove bias before they can be considered events of actuality.
In the case of the monkeys, seeing they get sick after we inject them with a virus would be the Fact. Why they get sick would be the Theory. The more facts we gather, the more we can refine a Theory. But it will never become a Fact, because they are two different things.
There is an old saying that goes "Nothing in Science can be proven, only disproven", or in Einstein's version "No amount of experimentation can prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong".
The method ignores it at some point. If its not part of what you care enough about to do then its not important to you.
I'm afraid I do not understand your meaning here.
It is not. It is in fact the entire point of the chapter. Yes i did read the entire book, no i wasn't quote mining.
The "taken out of context" refers to what the quote is actually saying. I believe the man is speaking about evolutive facts and not the Theory of Evolution. They are two different things.
Or you're making the mistake of assuming they're mutually exclusive, which is my entire point of contention.
It is not me who's making the assumption; it is the actual scientific deffinition, and in science a Fact and a Theory are not the same nor they are interchangeable. I have provided at least three credible sources confirming this; I can keep providing more upon request.
If this were true then science would be pointless.
The entire POINT of science, the entire reason for the endeavor, is to figure out how the universe ACTUALLY works. Its not to keep an idea pure or come up with some platonic order of the universe, the entire point, its to find the truth. Science does not make laws, science does not create facts it describes the ones that are already there.
Exactly: Science does not make facts nor create laws. It observes facts, derive laws from them, and builds theories using those premises.
Scientific progress would be impossible otherwise, at said progress is at its very core a permanent revision of theories. A fact is the observation that bodies fall toward larger bodies. A law is the abstract derivative of said phenomenon until you reach the minimum point of reduction, such as the Law of Universal Gravitation. A theory is the explanation of why such law happens and how.
Science is not limited only to repeatable experimentation.
Nor did I say or imply such thing. I said that facts require repeatable observation and experimentation in order to verify them. You prove or disprove theories this way.
The most important job of a theory is prediction of future phenomenon. If a theory says rocks will fall, we need to continue testing whether this happens or not. The moment we find that a rock does not fall (ie, a new fact has been added), we first carry repeated experiments in order to determine whether the anomaly is verifiable or not. Once this has been done and we have established rocks actually do not fall under certain circumstances, we go back to the theory and try to see if we can adapt it to also explain this new case. If it can, the theory gets updated; if it cannot, then the theory becomes obsolete.
Then either 1) the manipulation was pretty small and can be accounted for the same way genetic drift can or 2) the change is big, in which case you may as well worry about loki creating theuniverse and your memories of it last Thursday. (irony)
That's the thing: You have to check the new fact against the theory to see if the later holds ground, but not the other way around. An anomalous fact might (and should) cause an extensive investigation to see if it is actually contradicting, but in the end it is the theory that adapts to the fact, not the fact to the theory.
A very good and recent example is the whole neutrino affair from 2012, when italian scientists thought they had measured the speed of a particle to be higher than C. Since Einstein's theory has managed to undergo a series of trials and is well-established model, the natural reaction was to doubt the finding. New observations and tests were carried out to see if the finding managed to hold up and be verified. It didn't, and thus the theory remained intact.
Had, however, the tests shown that neutrinos can in fact travel faster than C, the theory would have to be revised and adapted to explain why.
Really? Whats the temperature right now?
Somewhere above 20 C° (it's summer over here), I'd guess, since the AC's autocooler started working.
Whats the size of the earth? Is that a fact or not? Someone measures it with a stick in the ground and gets 24,000 miles. Someone breaks out a telescope and now its 24,800 miles, then we get start playinig with radio waves and its 24,901 miles, then satellites and its 24,901.2, and someday someone will come up with a phase inducer deflector dish thingy and it will be 24,901.2817857817588278 miles. Are we supposed to engage in endless navel contemplation simply because there are no facts?
I don't see how improving the quality of information, and thus arriving at more precise facts, causes navel contemplation. If anything, the process you mention is precisely why Theories are not Facts: If the Theory of Universal Gravitation stated that because the Earth is exactly 24,800 miles things fall down rather than up, then a more precise measure would make that part of the theory invalid and thus require a reformulation.
Fact: The Earth is somewhere under 25,000 miles.
Fact: The Earth is bewteen 24,750 and 24,950 miles.
Fact: The Earth is within 5% of 24,900 miles.
However, as Jeff mentions, measures work upon the basis of degrees of confidence, as it is understood that the quality of measures does have an impact on their exactitude. Why? Well, that's another theory that sits on the basis of the observable and repeatedly tested fact that observation itself becomes more precise as the tools used for it improve, so in theory we should be able to operate within a certain level of uncertainty without necessarily invalidating those observations.
So far, that theory works. Maybe tomorrow we'll find it doesn't. Then we'll have to revise it.
About 5%: I am absolutely NOT trying to say AGW is 5% wrong. DO NOT claim I did. This is a worry I hold about scientific study as a whole. Most of the time, repeat studies are not done. Errors spread. Paradigms change. Tomorrow's science builds even higher on a shakier and shakier foundation. To my thinking, it is a rather apocalyptic vision... Because religious mass psychosis is always waiting for the slightest slip up.
About 5%: I am absolutely NOT trying to say AGW is 5% wrong. DO NOT claim I did. This is a worry I hold about scientific study as a whole. Most of the time, repeat studies are not done. Errors spread. Paradigms change. Tomorrow's science builds even higher on a shakier and shakier foundation. To my thinking, it is a rather apocalyptic vision... Because religious mass psychosis is always waiting for the slightest slip up.
Don't worry. We Catholics will be ready with our Papal Zeppelins, Petrine Tanks and our Marble Mechs made in the image of Saints, set to take over when it happens.
And I can take some friends, even atheists. So maybe we can come to an agreement. For instance, I could really use some ginger ale right now.
Both aren't appalling. This isn't so bad, either.
Nice! I think there's some more links up above I missed...
[Scurries off]
About 5%: I am absolutely NOT trying to say AGW is 5% wrong. DO NOT claim I did. This is a worry I hold about scientific study as a whole. Most of the time, repeat studies are not done. Errors spread. Paradigms change. Tomorrow's science builds even higher on a shakier and shakier foundation. To my thinking, it is a rather apocalyptic vision... Because religious mass psychosis is always waiting for the slightest slip up.Don't worry. We Catholics will be ready with our Papal Zeppelins, Petrine Tanks and our Marble Mechs made in the image of Saints, set to take over when it happens.
And I can take some friends, even atheists. So maybe we can come to an agreement. For instance, I could really use some ginger ale right now.
Papal Zeppelins, Petrine Tanks, and Marble Mechs? I'm an atheist, but take me; I'll wear a hair shirt and everything!
Papal Zeppelins, Petrine Tanks, and Marble Mechs? I'm an atheist, but take me; I'll wear a hair shirt and everything!About 5%: I am absolutely NOT trying to say AGW is 5% wrong. DO NOT claim I did. This is a worry I hold about scientific study as a whole. Most of the time, repeat studies are not done. Errors spread. Paradigms change. Tomorrow's science builds even higher on a shakier and shakier foundation. To my thinking, it is a rather apocalyptic vision... Because religious mass psychosis is always waiting for the slightest slip up.Don't worry. We Catholics will be ready with our Papal Zeppelins, Petrine Tanks and our Marble Mechs made in the image of Saints, set to take over when it happens.
And I can take some friends, even atheists. So maybe we can come to an agreement. For instance, I could really use some ginger ale right now.
Hmm, tempting, tempting. But then again, I need ginger ale. And I think hair shirts have been prohibited by the Church for a while, so we might have problems with the check-in.
Get a cool hat and we're set, though. We Catholics dig cool hats.
About 5%: I am absolutely NOT trying to say AGW is 5% wrong. DO NOT claim I did. This is a worry I hold about scientific study as a whole. Most of the time, repeat studies are not done. Errors spread. Paradigms change. Tomorrow's science builds even higher on a shakier and shakier foundation. To my thinking, it is a rather apocalyptic vision... Because religious mass psychosis is always waiting for the slightest slip up.Don't worry. We Catholics will be ready with our Papal Zeppelins, Petrine Tanks and our Marble Mechs made in the image of Saints, set to take over when it happens.
And I can take some friends, even atheists. So maybe we can come to an agreement. For instance, I could really use some ginger ale right now.
While the catholic armies sound extremely badass, I am not really concerned with you guys. There would be no West without your shadow, I think, and if you did get ultimate power, the worst that could happen is Austria. Not good, but not doomsday either.
I am talking about what would happen if science lost its weight due to f*@!ing obvious things up, growing dogmatic or such. The opposing world view is, frankly, not pretty.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
(tosses Klaus a ginger ale)
I assume the badass hat requirement won't be a problem. :-)
I'm just hoping Indulgences make a comeback in this breve new world. *wink*
There are a few great questions about science that are rarely put. A simple one is: How certain can we be about the validity of correlations in scientific journals?.I'm ignoring your "p" factor since it's seems to be a personal conjured thought experiment with not much real grounding in the question at hand.
Science isn't about "purity" or "absolute" truth. It's about generating models and determining how reliable they are. It's almost unheard of to get models with absolute 100 percent "reliability" or "mapping". Science is mainly about testing models and if you get 90 percent corroboration, the model serves until someone comes up with one that gives 91 percent, and so on and so on.
I'm going to challenge one of your statements right off. You can't use "scientific empirical yardsticks" unless you're grounded in the science you're trying to measure. Otherwise you're just a reader like the bulk of us, limited to whatever education or experience you've acquired in any given field.
And quite frankly, since you've admitted that in the discussion you've started, that you don't have substantive background in matters such as climate, or it's foundation sciences such as meteorology, geology, or solar astronomy, the yardsticks you've been invoking are anything but "empirical". Empirical research, a slippery term is working with raw data. Otherwise you're working with only second hand, third hand, fourth hand, nth hand opinion ,and reportage.
Don't start on me again, LazarX. Seriously. And just for your information, criticizing me for not being qualified enough, while also confessing you don't even know what a p number is puts your personal scientific impact at slightly below that of Reader's digest.
I mean it. Get busy reading basic scientific theory before you even think about criticising anyone for lack of qualifications again.
Earth has a size, yes. We can observe and test it, so it is a fact.
Except that you DON"T observe the size of the earth. You measure it, and you measure it indirectly. In doing so you rely on any number of "theories" depending on your method
Stick in the ground relies on very specific relative motions
Astronomical measurements require that the bodies you measure from be where you think they are, and that demons aren't screwing with your glass lenses.
And modern measurements are based around the speed of light and radio waves.
Saying that you know the size of the earth requires you to go through as much if not more "theory" than many theories themselves.
In the case of the monkeys, seeing they get sick after we inject them with a virus would be the Fact. Why they get sick would be the Theory. The more facts we gather, the more we can refine a Theory. But it will never become a Fact, because they are two different things.
A fact (derived from the Latin factum, see below) is something that has really occurred or is actually the case. - Yes, the viruses really the cause of the disease, so its a fact.
There is an old saying that goes "Nothing in Science can be proven, only disproven", or in Einstein's version "No amount of experimentation can prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong".
And at some point this simply isn't so.
I'm afraid I do not understand your meaning here.
The method ignores it at some point. If its not part of what you care enough about to do then its not important to you.
What practical effect does the theoretical nature of viruses and bacteria being a cause of disease have? Is there any functional difference at all between it being a theory and it being a fact in practice? Would anything be done differently?
The "taken out of context" refers to what the quote is actually saying. I believe the man is speaking about evolutive facts and not the Theory of Evolution. They are two different things.
He is not.
He's saying exactly what i said he's saying.
The introduction to science links you're posting really aren't a slam dunk you can rely on. Its simply not how things work.
Exactly: Science does not make facts nor create laws. It observes facts, derive laws from them, and builds theories using those premises.
There is an actual earth. It does have an actual size. Science can measure it
There are actual connections between things. Science can find them.
Scientific progress would be impossible otherwise, at said progress is at its very core a permanent revision of theories.
I don't see the impossibility of being sure that you're right unless you have a good reason not to be.
That's the thing: You have to check the new fact against the theory to see if the later holds ground, but not the other way around. An anomalous fact might (and should) cause an extensive investigation to see if it is actually contradicting, but in the end it is the theory that adapts to the fact, not the fact to the theory.
In the case of evolution, the evidence is so compelling and wide spread that you would need a deity or reasonable facsimile thereof to have faked it without us noticing.
A very good and recent example is the whole neutrino affair from 2012, when italian scientists thought they had measured the speed of a particle to be higher than C. Since Einstein's theory has managed to undergo a series of trials and is well-established model, the natural reaction was to doubt the finding. New observations and tests were carried out to see if the finding managed to hold up and be verified. It didn't, and thus the theory remained intact.
actually, no new tests were necessary. They simply didn't account for the relativity already affecting one of their satalite/clocks.
Somewhere above 20 C° (it's summer over here), I'd guess, since the AC's autocooler started working.
And now?
So far, that theory works. Maybe tomorrow we'll find it doesn't. Then we'll have to revise it.
I see no reason to pretend this is going to happen for the sake of a bunch of philosophers.
[Beats Citizen X off--I mean, away]
And don't let me see you in here again!
[Puts his hands in chainmail gloves and begins stroking Madame Sissyl's hair]
There there, now, there there.
I find the solutions put forward to the problems we see to be directly, and immediately, counterproductive and dangerous. If AGW armagedon is coming, we need the strongest, most flexible political system we can get to meet it. Autocracy is an example of this... up until the 18th century or so.
Honestly, I get a little skeptical as well, but for a completely different reason. Humans love predicting the end of the world, particularly in Western societies. So I get a little doubtful of anyone claiming that such is imminent ([humor]though I do believe the May 21, 2011 apocalypse was prevented by Macho Man Randy Savage sending himself to heaven and suplexing God into submission[/humor]).
That said, AGW is being measured. Climate change is happening, we can see it happening. Very reasonable estimates of results of these changes are being made. Those estimates are very, very bad.
I think in general, conservative politicians and AGW deniers would better serve humanity to actually contribute to the discussion of mitigation and adaptation due to climate change. Right now, the extreme liberals are dominating that conversation, and they're coming up with broad and sweeping programs that fit their ideals, with little intellectual competition. There are some ideas though:
For example: A carbon tax that is directly redistributed to the population and not given to the government. So, all carbon emissions are taxed, someone doesn't come to your home and watch you all day, but rather if you buy some gasoline, the carbon emission of burning it is estimated and you get taxed on that purchase. The money collected gets redistributed evenly to everyone. This will help more correctly reflect the cost and impact of using fossil fuels, making them a more expensive choice. It also leaves the government out of the loop (other than collection and redistribution).
I think there are some fundamental flaws with that idea, but it isn't an autocratic, tyrannical, one-world government idea. It does use a marketplace concept to help try to mitigate AGW. Unfortunately I think the US has shown that taxes don't work very well in encouraging or discouraging behaviors (other than tax evasion).
|
|
If I say it's 24,000+/- 1000 miles and you say it's 24,901.2 +/- 0.1 miles, both are facts. (Assuming we haven't made errors in either taking the measurement or estimating our errors.)
You also have to assume that the Earth actually exists rather than being a figment of your imagination.
There is no 'fact' which does not become 'unfounded belief' at some level of philosophical sophistry.
That said, most discussions take place within the frame of reference of 'perceived reality'. Within that frame AGW is 'fact' and most of what Sissyl has said here is 'fiction'. 'Scientific certainty' falls far closer to the impossible realm of 'philosophical purity' than it does to 'perceived reality'. So, no... AGW is not a scientific certainty... because there is no such thing. Making the term itself meaningless except as an abstract concept.
Within the world we can perceive AGW is simply something which has been observed... like, as I mentioned previously, 'the Sun gives off light'. Both COULD be false if we entertain philosophical notions about whether our perceptions are 'real' or not, but there is otherwise no reason to doubt them.
Sissyl,
I can agree with your points 2 and 4. However, scientists will refer to the p value rather than say this is true. They acknowledge this limitation. The popular press and politicians ignore it, but that's hardly the fault of the scientits.
Also, these are problems with all science. So why are you not as sceptical about, say, thermodynamics, plate techtonics, evolution or any other science? Why is it just AGW where these issues trouble you so much?
As someone who is doing a lot of statistics and dissertation writing right now (marine mammal paleontology, not climate), Paul Wilson has the right interpretation. A good p value only tell you that either there is a significant chance that their is a non-zero slope (if looking at correlation) or that there is a significant chance that the population means of two variables are significantly different. It doesn't actually mean that those two variables are absolutely different.
I think the 1 in 20 might also be a bit of a simplification. A .05 p value is often used in science as a threshhold (although .01 is more common in medicine, IIRC), but we often get p values way lower than that. I had some analyses yesterday that had p values of 0.00001, which is way less than 1 in 20 chance it is correct.
I will also say that the rigor regarding science has increased substantially. A whole new field of statistics, Bayesian, is being increasingly used in studies. And modeling of data also provides a more rigor to statistics
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The very same groups of people who have tons of people in all sorts of meteorology authorities, the IPCC, climate sections of universities: Greenpeace, the WWF, and similar anti-democratic groups. Every time we have anything about the environment, we get Greenpeace propaganda all over the media. We have the green party in 10 % ofour parliament seats, and all parties supporting their climate agenda. We have week long anti-nuclear power campaigns in news, entertainment and newspapers. But really, I...I find the solutions put forward to the problems we see to be directly, and immediately, counterproductive and dangerous. If AGW armagedon is coming, we need the strongest, most flexible political system we can get to meet it. Autocracy is an example of this... up until the 18th century or so. We don't need to go there. And we certainly don't need to shut down every nuclear power plant. Not the scientists' fault either.Put forward by who ?
I am not familiar with swedish politics. Who exactly is pleading for an "emergency" fallback to an authoritarian regime ?
Over here, none of the "green" parties would even come close to hint of such a abysmal idea.... (please, do note that in the document you provided, Dr Lovelace only expressed his fears that democratic governments would not be up to the task : not the same thing as calling for abrogation of all civilian rights).
First, thanks a lot : I spent the last hour reading Greenpeace stuff trying to find where they propose that little bit. And they don't, unless you are taking "green revolution" in a very literal meaning.
Here is their main document about climate change : point of no return. Mostly, it talks about renewable energies.
Same thing for the WWF (the french branch at least).
Do you have read something about their (supposed) antidemocratic stance somewhere, or is it something that you have been told ? Is it something peculiar to the swedish WWF and Greenpeace (as I don't read swedish and didn't check there) ?