4 ms·

Science is not as simple as that. We have to use the experiments we can a actually perform, and those are usually less rigorous than we'd like. Disregarding any

Science is not as simple as that. We have to use the experiments we can a actually perform, and those are usually less rigorous than we'd like. Disregarding anything that doesn't fulfill some arbitrary standard of rigor as non-science is foolish. We have to keep the limits of our experiments in mind, but that doesn't mean that anything shirt of a perfect experiment is useless. Computer Models are also testable, repeatable and falsifiable. They are certainly science, you just have to always keep the limitations and goals of a specific model in mind and avoid over-interpretation.

hga 12y ago
Follow the link and you'll see Crichton is not talking about those sorts of models; from near the end: To an outsider, the most significant innovation in the global warming controversy is the overt reliance that is being placed on models. Back in the days of nuclear winter, computer models were invoked to add weight to a conclusion: "These results are derived with the help of a computer model." But now large-scale computer models are seen as generating data in themselves. No longer are models judged by how well they reproduce data from the real world -- increasingly, models provide the data. As if they were themselves a reality. And indeed they are, when we are projecting forward. There can be no observational data about the year 2100. There are only model runs. This fascination with computer models is something I understand very well. Richard Feynman called it a disease.... I'd add that I read the TAPPS paper when it came out (back before I gave up on the AAAS) and followed the debate closely: one of the many reasons that paper was fatally flawed was that it used a one dimensional model of the atmosphere and planet, i.e. particles could go up and down, but there were no winds, no oceans, etc. People in the field said such models were notorious for being easily overbalanced by inappropriate inputs, which were of course another problem with the paper, one I could personally confirm (having been a nuclear war survivalist since 2nd grade in 1969). When LLNL did 3D modelling, their results said, yeah, maybe a nuclear fall, but that's it. Which comports with the observed effects of volcanic eruptions, which we have a lot of data on. I.e. the bottom line in simplest terms is "earth big, humans small". ADDED: just remembered that Feynman was there at the dawn of computerized scientific models, back when "computers" were the operators of calculators. Some of the necessary scientific inputs into creating the bomb could not be solved, only approximated, and they used a bunch of computers as they were called then and the current state of the art electro-mechanical calculator. He helped organize the operation so it would run well. This no doubt helps explain his much much later involvement in the development of the Connection Machine, and one can imagine his horror as cheaper and cheaper computing was abused. [Insert a Cargo Cult Science observation here.]

hga 12y ago

Follow the link and you'll see Crichton is not talking about those sorts of models; from near the end: To an outsider, the most significant innovation in the global warming controversy is the overt reliance that is being placed on models. Back in the days of nuclear winter, computer models were invoked to add weight to a conclusion: "These results are derived with the help of a computer model." But now large-scale computer models are seen as generating data in themselves. No longer are models judged by how well they reproduce data from the real world -- increasingly, models provide the data. As if they were themselves a reality. And indeed they are, when we are projecting forward. There can be no observational data about the year 2100. There are only model runs. This fascination with computer models is something I understand very well. Richard Feynman called it a disease.... I'd add that I read the TAPPS paper when it came out (back before I gave up on the AAAS) and followed the debate closely: one of the many reasons that paper was fatally flawed was that it used a one dimensional model of the atmosphere and planet, i.e. particles could go up and down, but there were no winds, no oceans, etc. People in the field said such models were notorious for being easily overbalanced by inappropriate inputs, which were of course another problem with the paper, one I could personally confirm (having been a nuclear war survivalist since 2nd grade in 1969). When LLNL did 3D modelling, their results said, yeah, maybe a nuclear fall, but that's it. Which comports with the observed effects of volcanic eruptions, which we have a lot of data on. I.e. the bottom line in simplest terms is "earth big, humans small". ADDED: just remembered that Feynman was there at the dawn of computerized scientific models, back when "computers" were the operators of calculators. Some of the necessary scientific inputs into creating the bomb could not be solved, only approximated, and they used a bunch of computers as they were called then and the current state of the art electro-mechanical calculator. He helped organize the operation so it would run well. This no doubt helps explain his much much later involvement in the development of the Connection Machine, and one can imagine his horror as cheaper and cheaper computing was abused. [Insert a Cargo Cult Science observation here.]