4 ms·

> point blank denial of facts such as that of human-caused climate change Science can't prove/disprove AGW because there's no control, which means that it isn'

by isolate 11y ago

> point blank denial of facts such as that of human-caused climate change Science can't prove/disprove AGW because there's no control, which means that it isn't and can't be a fact. (I believe we should assume AGW to be safe.)

scarmig 11y ago
By that standard, science also can't confirm human's shared ancestry with apes, or the Big Bang. Science doesn't fit in a test tube.
- isolate 11y ago
  > Science doesn't fit in a test tube. Karl Popper begs to disagree. (By the way, I also believe we evolved from apes. I am not so sure about the Big Bang just because it's so strange and hard to comprehend, but okay, I'm not like against it or anything.)
- tbrownaw 11y ago
  Yep. And I generally take such "this is how we got here" reconstructions somewhat less seriously than I take laws / principles that can be experimented with and used to do things (and somewhat more seriously than predictions of the future based on said reconstructions).
js8 11y ago
> Science can't prove/disprove AGW because there's no control, which means that it isn't and can't be a fact. This is so wrong... If it was correct, what would be point of doing science? Let's face it - the point of science is to build models of reality. And every model (except of usage of the world in logic) by definition is a type of inductive reasoning about reality. The reason why we want to have models is to be able to predict situations where we don't have control; for instance, we don't want build two bridges that are to be used by people to see which one fails. So you're pretty much rejecting inductive reasoning in that sentence. The AGW theory, specifically, is not a fact (GW is a fact), it's a model that tells us what's gonna happen (conditionally on our emissions) with the planet. And you can believe it's a good model even without having control (just like you can believe that a computer model of a bridge is a useful tool). For instance, because you understand laws of thermodynamics, and you can measure what greenhouse gas is. (Oh, on 2nd reading, I understand where you're coming from. Model is technically not a fact, fact is some observation. But I guess in common language, most of the things we call facts are actually models.)
- isolate 11y ago
  I agree with your point of view on just about everything. I was just objecting to the use of the word fact. I make a point of doing this. The AGW believers hate me for calling it a belief, and the AGW deniers hate me for believing in AGW. I must be doing something right! Your words about models and inductive reasoning are helpful. Bringing that up in the future will probably help clarify my position, which is about like yours. Thanks.
  - js8 11y ago
    Yeah, I think you should just call it a model or scientific theory (although both of these may be confusing terms for laymen) and not be too picky about people calling it "fact" (I think there is no point arguing with people you share beliefs with). We also often informally call gravity a "fact", although technically it's just a theory too.

by isolate 11y ago

scarmig 11y ago

By that standard, science also can't confirm human's shared ancestry with apes, or the Big Bang. Science doesn't fit in a test tube.

isolate 11y ago
> Science doesn't fit in a test tube. Karl Popper begs to disagree. (By the way, I also believe we evolved from apes. I am not so sure about the Big Bang just because it's so strange and hard to comprehend, but okay, I'm not like against it or anything.)
tbrownaw 11y ago
Yep. And I generally take such "this is how we got here" reconstructions somewhat less seriously than I take laws / principles that can be experimented with and used to do things (and somewhat more seriously than predictions of the future based on said reconstructions).

js8 11y ago

> Science can't prove/disprove AGW because there's no control, which means that it isn't and can't be a fact. This is so wrong... If it was correct, what would be point of doing science? Let's face it - the point of science is to build models of reality. And every model (except of usage of the world in logic) by definition is a type of inductive reasoning about reality. The reason why we want to have models is to be able to predict situations where we don't have control; for instance, we don't want build two bridges that are to be used by people to see which one fails. So you're pretty much rejecting inductive reasoning in that sentence. The AGW theory, specifically, is not a fact (GW is a fact), it's a model that tells us what's gonna happen (conditionally on our emissions) with the planet. And you can believe it's a good model even without having control (just like you can believe that a computer model of a bridge is a useful tool). For instance, because you understand laws of thermodynamics, and you can measure what greenhouse gas is. (Oh, on 2nd reading, I understand where you're coming from. Model is technically not a fact, fact is some observation. But I guess in common language, most of the things we call facts are actually models.)

isolate 11y ago
I agree with your point of view on just about everything. I was just objecting to the use of the word fact. I make a point of doing this. The AGW believers hate me for calling it a belief, and the AGW deniers hate me for believing in AGW. I must be doing something right! Your words about models and inductive reasoning are helpful. Bringing that up in the future will probably help clarify my position, which is about like yours. Thanks.
- js8 11y ago
  Yeah, I think you should just call it a model or scientific theory (although both of these may be confusing terms for laymen) and not be too picky about people calling it "fact" (I think there is no point arguing with people you share beliefs with). We also often informally call gravity a "fact", although technically it's just a theory too.