3 ms·

> No scientist can ever prove global warming to be true Or to be false. Focusing on "true" vs. "false" leads nowhere except, as you note, to endless debate. T

by pdonis 6y ago

> No scientist can ever prove global warming to be true Or to be false. Focusing on "true" vs. "false" leads nowhere except, as you note, to endless debate. The real question is, do we have models that can make reasonably accurate predictions? That is the right question for ordinary citizens, concerned about what, if any, political policies they should support or oppose, to be asking about any scientific claims. In the case of global warming, the answer to that question is no; we have models, and they make predictions, but the predictions aren't very good, and they haven't gotten any better over the last few decades despite a lot of effort. That means we should be very careful putting much confidence in those models.

neonological 6y ago
Falsification in science is possible. If I hypothesize that all zebras have stripes then observing one zebra with spots falsifies the entire hypothesis. This is definitive. However, no amount of zebras that I observe with stripes can ever prove my hypothesis correct. I can observe 500 zebras all with stripes and at any point in time the 501st zebra can have spots. I can observe 1 billion zebras with stripes and the possibility still remains open that the next zebra I see has spots. Science is not symmetric. Falsification is possible, proof is not.
- pdonis 6y ago
  > Falsification in science is possible. Falsification of really, really simple hypotheses (like "all zebras have stripes", or the classic "all ravens are black") is possible, yes. But no hypothesis of any real significance in science is that simple. In any scientific model of any significance, there are always ways to patch the model to account for new observations. In a model that is destined to be supplanted, the patching gets more and more cumbersome and less and less plausible over time; but there is no hard and fast breaking point at which there is too much patching, that's always a judgment call about which different scientists can disagree. Also, unless and until there is some new model available that can account for all the same observations, including the new ones, in a simpler and more intuitively plausible way, preferably also with more accurate predictions, scientists will continue to try to use the old patched model because there is no alternative.

by pdonis 6y ago

neonological 6y ago

Falsification in science is possible. If I hypothesize that all zebras have stripes then observing one zebra with spots falsifies the entire hypothesis. This is definitive. However, no amount of zebras that I observe with stripes can ever prove my hypothesis correct. I can observe 500 zebras all with stripes and at any point in time the 501st zebra can have spots. I can observe 1 billion zebras with stripes and the possibility still remains open that the next zebra I see has spots. Science is not symmetric. Falsification is possible, proof is not.

pdonis 6y ago
> Falsification in science is possible. Falsification of really, really simple hypotheses (like "all zebras have stripes", or the classic "all ravens are black") is possible, yes. But no hypothesis of any real significance in science is that simple. In any scientific model of any significance, there are always ways to patch the model to account for new observations. In a model that is destined to be supplanted, the patching gets more and more cumbersome and less and less plausible over time; but there is no hard and fast breaking point at which there is too much patching, that's always a judgment call about which different scientists can disagree. Also, unless and until there is some new model available that can account for all the same observations, including the new ones, in a simpler and more intuitively plausible way, preferably also with more accurate predictions, scientists will continue to try to use the old patched model because there is no alternative.