Unabated lunacy continues
-
Fisticuffs wrote:
Proof is
Fisticuffs wrote:
This is why you cannot prove things in science.
Proof actually means test. For example, a gun would be 'proved' by being loaded with a massive charge and fired. If the barrel didnt splinter it was proved. Alcohol is also proved, hence the term, 80` proof. Epreuve is the original French word, mening test, from which we get our word. So, given the real meaning of 'proof' can you now see how it means to test a theory through experimentation? It really is very simple and doesnt requitre the kind of mental gymnastics you apply to the issue.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
Proof actually means test
That's fine that you've decided to use such a loose definition of proof, but by claiming that "AGW isn't proven" you're essentially holding it to another method of scientific evidence that is inaccessible to many other well-understood and demonstrated scientific tenets. By your definition, the theory of evolution has not been "proven" to satisfaction but you don't have any problem with that - so it leads me to conclude that the problem isn't with the science or the evidence, it's with you. Rigor is important. You can get all loosey-goosey with "guh science" because you can afford to. The rest of us don't have that luxury and appropriately recognize the limitations of science. You can't always test with experiment; experiment is not always necessary to draw reasonable conclusions about natural processes.
- F
-
fat_boy wrote:
You know, theres an old saying. If it looks like sh*t, and smells like sh*t, it is sh*t. You can argue how many angels sit on the head of a pin all you like, but eventually youve got to face reality.
And science takes a different view: that while individual experiences are good for hypothesis generation, time and time again individual people are not good at differentiating correlation from causation. You value your personal experience over a rigorous scientific approach and that's fine but the plural of anecdote is not data so don't expect people like me who hold things to a far higher standard of evidence to be impressed with "well i did it and i got better so it must work."
fat_boy wrote:
I think you ought to reflect at this point how you think you are right, and how so many other people thnk otherwise about this subject.
Shockingly, opinion doesn't dictate science. The evidence and the literature do.
- F
Fisticuffs wrote:
And science takes a different view: that while individual experiences are good for hypothesis generation
In fact scientific rigour acts against individual experiences by encapsulating repeatability. And that is why data and procedure must also be public, so that anyone can come to the same conclusion. And in fact a big problem with AGW is the unavailability of data and method for scrutiny. In afct the times they have been forced to provide acces to these there have been serious problems found. Hanse and Mann notably.
Fisticuffs wrote:
You value your personal experience over a rigorous scientific approach
As stated no, I disagree with this entirely, and it is a criticism I would level at the likes of Mann and Hansen.
Fisticuffs wrote:
Shockingly, opinion doesn't dictate science
And yet we are told that concensus proves AGW. Is that not opinion.
Fisticuffs wrote:
The evidence and the literature do
And the evidence is that temparatures are not abnormal and are not tied to CO2. While CO2 might have an effect it is too small to be detected against natural variability. Its an interesting post this, of yours. You have pretty much stated MY position on science, and hence the problems I see with AGW.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
fat_boy wrote:
Proof actually means test
That's fine that you've decided to use such a loose definition of proof, but by claiming that "AGW isn't proven" you're essentially holding it to another method of scientific evidence that is inaccessible to many other well-understood and demonstrated scientific tenets. By your definition, the theory of evolution has not been "proven" to satisfaction but you don't have any problem with that - so it leads me to conclude that the problem isn't with the science or the evidence, it's with you. Rigor is important. You can get all loosey-goosey with "guh science" because you can afford to. The rest of us don't have that luxury and appropriately recognize the limitations of science. You can't always test with experiment; experiment is not always necessary to draw reasonable conclusions about natural processes.
- F
Well, its not loose, its actually the original deffinition.
Fisticuffs wrote:
the theory of evolution has not been "proven" to satisfaction
Well, if you study the white moth of northern england that became darker due to soot deposits on trees I believe you have a very good example of specialisation and natural selection. Its an interesting study. Of course I am also aware that there are problems with applying such a classic minutae example as this ti the whole of life. One of the classic is, why does 'evoloution' seem to rest at fixed points. The horseshoe crab for example. Why hasnt it evolved in millions of years. Can it seriously be so well adapted to its environment that it has no need to adapt? The same can be said for many animals. Where is the fossil, or existing evidence, for evoloutioinary steps? Why do we only see the whole numbers and not the fracitons in between? So yes, there are problems with its 'experimental' proof, and yet as a theory it is so elegant, so well suited to life that, and in this case I agree with you, a self evident truth can also constitute proof.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription