3 ms·

Oh boy. It was you who said that showing the variables are not correlated would be sufficient to falsify the claim. The variables (according to currently held d

by dozzie 10y ago

Oh boy. It was you who said that showing the variables are not correlated would be sufficient to falsify the claim. The variables (according to currently held data) are correlated, because that was what inspired the claim in the first place. So your point seems to be "just show me an impossible thing and this would prove the claim invalid". > Further, you're arguing that correlation doesn't imply causation. This is true, but again has nothing to do with falsifiability. No, I didn't argue that (I don't need to). I just said (suggested could be more appropriate word) that showing the opposite cause-effect relation would be enough to show the claim invalid. OK, excessive thing, because you had an implication there in your comment, but given your stance about showing no correlation in data that already had the correlation, my guess is it was a coincidence. > However, the absence of a correlation is sufficient to falsify the claim that global warming is caused by CO2. Would be. The correlation of currently collected data is there, it just may be a coincidence (http://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations http://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations), or an indicator of the opposite causation, or indicator that there is a common cause to both observations.

omginternets 10y ago
You misunderstand me, I think. The original question was "how could we falsify the claim that CO2 causes global warming"? One answer is: "show that they're not correlated". Since they are correlated, the claim has not been falsified. That doesn't make the claim unfalsifiable. Questions of validity and presence of the effect are another matter altogether.
- dozzie 10y ago
  On technical level you are right: it would be enough. You've given a trivial and totally irrelevant answer, thoguh, because you simply negated the premise the claim was based upon. The claim was laid as "CO2 causes global warming", basing on some correlation in collected data. How can this claim be realistically shown invalid?
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    > The claim was laid as "CO2 causes global warming", basing on some correlation in collected data. The claim that CO2 causes (or, more precisely, contributes to) global warming isn't based solely on correlation in the collected data on global warming, its based on results separate from climate statistics that demonstrate the mechanism which make CO2 a greenhouse gas (and which also explain other greenhouse gases, and the relative effect of each as a greenhouse gas). There's a whole web of falsifiable (but not falsified, quite likely because it closely reflects the underyling reality) science here.
    - dozzie 10y ago
      I see. This thread started with me asking for a way to falsify a hypothesis (CO2 being major cause of the greenhouse effect; we wandered a little too far to global warming). You only provided a trivial reply ("just show that the data the hypothesis was derived from is invalid") and now you throw some generic statements. I don't see how further discussion with you here would lead to anything constructive.
      - omginternets 10y ago
        The reason we gave you a trivial example of how to falsify the claim is because the claim is trivial to falsify. The fact that it hasn't been falsified doesn't mean that it's true, just that it's amenable to scientific inquiry. Anything you might claim now is (at best) shifting the goalpost. However, if you'd like to submit another claim, I'd be happy to share my thoughts on it's falsifiability; maybe you have a less trivial one than "CO2 is a causal force in global warming" ?

by dozzie 10y ago

omginternets 10y ago

You misunderstand me, I think. The original question was "how could we falsify the claim that CO2 causes global warming"? One answer is: "show that they're not correlated". Since they are correlated, the claim has not been falsified. That doesn't make the claim unfalsifiable. Questions of validity and presence of the effect are another matter altogether.

dozzie 10y ago
On technical level you are right: it would be enough. You've given a trivial and totally irrelevant answer, thoguh, because you simply negated the premise the claim was based upon. The claim was laid as "CO2 causes global warming", basing on some correlation in collected data. How can this claim be realistically shown invalid?
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > The claim was laid as "CO2 causes global warming", basing on some correlation in collected data. The claim that CO2 causes (or, more precisely, contributes to) global warming isn't based solely on correlation in the collected data on global warming, its based on results separate from climate statistics that demonstrate the mechanism which make CO2 a greenhouse gas (and which also explain other greenhouse gases, and the relative effect of each as a greenhouse gas). There's a whole web of falsifiable (but not falsified, quite likely because it closely reflects the underyling reality) science here.
  - dozzie 10y ago
    I see. This thread started with me asking for a way to falsify a hypothesis (CO2 being major cause of the greenhouse effect; we wandered a little too far to global warming). You only provided a trivial reply ("just show that the data the hypothesis was derived from is invalid") and now you throw some generic statements. I don't see how further discussion with you here would lead to anything constructive.
    - omginternets 10y ago
      The reason we gave you a trivial example of how to falsify the claim is because the claim is trivial to falsify. The fact that it hasn't been falsified doesn't mean that it's true, just that it's amenable to scientific inquiry. Anything you might claim now is (at best) shifting the goalpost. However, if you'd like to submit another claim, I'd be happy to share my thoughts on it's falsifiability; maybe you have a less trivial one than "CO2 is a causal force in global warming" ?