4 ms·

Somehow that doesn't seem to be possible. The entire question is a fraud of course : the argument for climate change is based on statistical likelihood of exis

by waps 12y ago

Somehow that doesn't seem to be possible. The entire question is a fraud of course : the argument for climate change is based on statistical likelihood of existing trends continuing based on past measurement. While that does satisfy some standards used in science, no scientist in his right mind would refer to that as "proven", because it isn't. So here's my version : 1) There is no argument from either maths, or even a simulation from first principles (NOT measured data and statistics and correlations) that shows a scenario like global warming. 2) principle of the excluded third ("tertium non datur") was an accepted standard in logic before Christ was born. It states that any statement that cannot be proven from first principles is disproved just by that fact (NOT wrong, but that wasn't asked) Ergo, climate science disproved. Or at least, there is no known proof. There is loads and loads of statistical correlations indicating it exists, but there is no correct argument from first principles known, which is what I'd require to say "proof". It is overwhelmingly likely (well I haven't checked, but I believe them) that it exists, but not proven. Now please keep in mind what I am and am not claiming here before you vilify me. I am claiming that climate science is very far from satisfying the standard used in exact sciences that is referred to when scientists use the word "proof". Obviously I am not claiming that global warming will reverse or is just a mistake or whatever. The graph has been rising pretty constantly for 150 years or so, and yes, it absolutely does not look like it will reverse. This is however very far from having an explanation from first principles for climate change.

leephillips 12y ago
While the idea of "proof" here is just a distraction, we have vastly more than merely "statistical correlations". We know that we've significantly increased the CO2 concentration in our atmosphere, and we have a pretty good idea of what that does to a climate: "Of all the planets in our solar system, Venus is the hottest one, even hotter than Mercury, the planet closest to the sun. Venus, whose daytime temperature can reach 900 degrees Fahrenheit (464 degrees Celsius), is surrounded by a thick gaseous layer that consists mostly of carbon dioxide. When the sun's rays reach Venus, the carbon dioxide traps the heat within, causing a kind of planetary greenhouse effect." From http://curiosity.discovery.com/question/venus-hottest-planet http://curiosity.discovery.com/question/venus-hottest-planet EDIT: Also, you seem to be confused about what the law of the excluded middle says.
bsbechtel 12y ago
I thought one of (not the only) the main aspects of the scientific method was that it could only be used to disprove a theory, but never to prove it 100% correct. For example, you cannot ever prove that Big Foot is a hoax, but you can disprove it by finding him. Or, the theory of gravity can never be proven, only disproven if an experiment showed it to be false. Isn't that all this scientist is asking for?
- tbrownaw 12y ago
  Consider relativity. There were some interesting observations that didn't seem to make sense (the speed of light is constant, regardless of the motion of the observer). Then someone figured out how to modify Newton's equations for motion to make this possible. Then someone else took this seriously, and gave a comprehensive explanation of the implications. Then someone built the GPS system, which would not work if the clocks it uses didn't account for the time dilation that relativity predicts. Or, consider quantum mechanics. This follows much the same pattern. Someone made interesting observations about how light behaves (and other things). Someone worked out some math that would explain how it works. Someone else used that math to build useful things like computers (semiconductors work like they do because of QM). You can be nitpicky and say that those theories aren't "proven", and that Newtonian mechanics is "wrong". Or you can say, they are all obviously true enough to be useful. Just because Newtonian mechanics is "disproven" for the inside of computer chips or for the precise motions of GPS satellites, does not stop it from being correct and useful for everyday life or even for serious engineering.
  - bsbechtel 12y ago
    I'm not arguing that scientific theories aren't useful, just that the point of science is to continue to search for ways to disprove things, not to ever prove something. Considering the infinite amount of knowledge about our universe that has yet to be discovered or understood, the only way to go about making sense of it all is to start by disproving things one at a time. There is always a deeper level of understanding and knowledge that could potentially make something previously thought to be true untrue. Considering the billions of dollars both sides of this debate have on the line, spending a few thousand to incentivize individuals to disprove this theory would be quite rational in my mind. Whether Global Warming can be disproven or not is a completely different question.
Iftheshoefits 12y ago
> the argument for climate change is based on statistical likelihood of existing trends continuing based on past measurement. < That can easily be generalized to any scientific construct, since all predictions and theories based on experiment implicitly contain the assumption of their continued validity. Consequently what you're doing is conflating an argument against the metaphysical underpinnings of science (amusingly, by arguing from the assumptions of rationalism which are themselves subject to at least as much skepticism and scrutiny) with an argument against the products of scientific discovery.
- waps 12y ago
  No it can't. You'll find exact sciences don't work like this. First in maths you have models. Of course some models match reality and some don't, but proven "given" a model means a very specific thing and is extremely rigorous. Second physics, at least particle physics, has a lot of models these days. The most famous "in use" one is the standard model. It is not based on measurement, but on the assumption that a specific geometric shape determines the laws of physics, along with a number of constants, none of which can be directly measured (and generally, you don't use the "real" ones for calculation because they're somewhat inconvenient). The conclusions of the standard model are valid given those assumptions, just like mathematical theories are. That has good sides and really bad ones. The good, everybody knows. The worst: according to the standard model, gravity shouldn't exist. You'll find most rigorous theories of exact sciences work like that. We can give a very, very thorough argument why electrical current and magnetism work in perpendicular planes, give exact values for the magnitudes, and you will not find a single measured quantity anywhere in that argument with one exception : the one that determines the units used. But that is an arbitrary constant, different for the metric versus imperial system. Now I'm not saying there aren't variations on what it means to be proven within these sciences, but you can reasonably say that given the peano axioms and the model used, these conclusions are proven. No such claim can be made for climate science. The "laws" of climate science are not the result of first principles (because they don't match observed behavior of the atmosphere), but statistical best estimators of observed measurements. This is absolutely not the same standard as used in exact sciences.
  - 12y ago

by waps 12y ago

leephillips 12y ago

While the idea of "proof" here is just a distraction, we have vastly more than merely "statistical correlations". We know that we've significantly increased the CO2 concentration in our atmosphere, and we have a pretty good idea of what that does to a climate: "Of all the planets in our solar system, Venus is the hottest one, even hotter than Mercury, the planet closest to the sun. Venus, whose daytime temperature can reach 900 degrees Fahrenheit (464 degrees Celsius), is surrounded by a thick gaseous layer that consists mostly of carbon dioxide. When the sun's rays reach Venus, the carbon dioxide traps the heat within, causing a kind of planetary greenhouse effect." From http://curiosity.discovery.com/question/venus-hottest-planet http://curiosity.discovery.com/question/venus-hottest-planet EDIT: Also, you seem to be confused about what the law of the excluded middle says.

bsbechtel 12y ago

I thought one of (not the only) the main aspects of the scientific method was that it could only be used to disprove a theory, but never to prove it 100% correct. For example, you cannot ever prove that Big Foot is a hoax, but you can disprove it by finding him. Or, the theory of gravity can never be proven, only disproven if an experiment showed it to be false. Isn't that all this scientist is asking for?

tbrownaw 12y ago
Consider relativity. There were some interesting observations that didn't seem to make sense (the speed of light is constant, regardless of the motion of the observer). Then someone figured out how to modify Newton's equations for motion to make this possible. Then someone else took this seriously, and gave a comprehensive explanation of the implications. Then someone built the GPS system, which would not work if the clocks it uses didn't account for the time dilation that relativity predicts. Or, consider quantum mechanics. This follows much the same pattern. Someone made interesting observations about how light behaves (and other things). Someone worked out some math that would explain how it works. Someone else used that math to build useful things like computers (semiconductors work like they do because of QM). You can be nitpicky and say that those theories aren't "proven", and that Newtonian mechanics is "wrong". Or you can say, they are all obviously true enough to be useful. Just because Newtonian mechanics is "disproven" for the inside of computer chips or for the precise motions of GPS satellites, does not stop it from being correct and useful for everyday life or even for serious engineering.
- bsbechtel 12y ago
  I'm not arguing that scientific theories aren't useful, just that the point of science is to continue to search for ways to disprove things, not to ever prove something. Considering the infinite amount of knowledge about our universe that has yet to be discovered or understood, the only way to go about making sense of it all is to start by disproving things one at a time. There is always a deeper level of understanding and knowledge that could potentially make something previously thought to be true untrue. Considering the billions of dollars both sides of this debate have on the line, spending a few thousand to incentivize individuals to disprove this theory would be quite rational in my mind. Whether Global Warming can be disproven or not is a completely different question.

Iftheshoefits 12y ago

> the argument for climate change is based on statistical likelihood of existing trends continuing based on past measurement. < That can easily be generalized to any scientific construct, since all predictions and theories based on experiment implicitly contain the assumption of their continued validity. Consequently what you're doing is conflating an argument against the metaphysical underpinnings of science (amusingly, by arguing from the assumptions of rationalism which are themselves subject to at least as much skepticism and scrutiny) with an argument against the products of scientific discovery.

waps 12y ago
No it can't. You'll find exact sciences don't work like this. First in maths you have models. Of course some models match reality and some don't, but proven "given" a model means a very specific thing and is extremely rigorous. Second physics, at least particle physics, has a lot of models these days. The most famous "in use" one is the standard model. It is not based on measurement, but on the assumption that a specific geometric shape determines the laws of physics, along with a number of constants, none of which can be directly measured (and generally, you don't use the "real" ones for calculation because they're somewhat inconvenient). The conclusions of the standard model are valid given those assumptions, just like mathematical theories are. That has good sides and really bad ones. The good, everybody knows. The worst: according to the standard model, gravity shouldn't exist. You'll find most rigorous theories of exact sciences work like that. We can give a very, very thorough argument why electrical current and magnetism work in perpendicular planes, give exact values for the magnitudes, and you will not find a single measured quantity anywhere in that argument with one exception : the one that determines the units used. But that is an arbitrary constant, different for the metric versus imperial system. Now I'm not saying there aren't variations on what it means to be proven within these sciences, but you can reasonably say that given the peano axioms and the model used, these conclusions are proven. No such claim can be made for climate science. The "laws" of climate science are not the result of first principles (because they don't match observed behavior of the atmosphere), but statistical best estimators of observed measurements. This is absolutely not the same standard as used in exact sciences.
- 12y ago