Mind stretching

"Jim Thompson" wrote in message news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com...

Right on the mark!

Thanks

Hmm. Religion is theory. Therefore .... Art

message

Agreed. ...Jim Thompson

-- | James E.Thompson, CTO | mens | | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | | | Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat | | E-mail Icon at

| 1962 | I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.

message

message

--
Miracles validate the theory.

I appreciate what he's trying to say but he has his terminology off. Einstein's Theory of Relativity *was* a "theory" precisely because it was falsifiable and, hence, testable. The other, so called, 'theories' he mentions are, in fact, *not* "theories" because they're not falsifiable and testable. They are speculation, conjecture or, at best, hypothesis but, generally, hypothesis is the stage where falsifiable predictions are required.

The fallacy of developing 'ideas' (models) about how things work, and presuming they are 'right' because it appears to 'explain' what one thinks they observe, is precisely what the Scientific Method of falsifiable predictions, and the testing of same, addresses. It *is* what defines 'science' as science.

One of the best examples is the 'crystal spheres' model of the universe. It was a marvel at 'explaining' the then observed movements of the heavenly bodies with the only flaw being it was completely wrong.

So called 'Climate Change' operates on the same 'logic' as the crystal spheres model in that proponents deliberately refuse to make falsifiable, testable, predictions.

The problem with populist atheists (aside from being populists) is that they think the inverse is also true, so they can make people think by telling them not to believe in God. That's completely non-sequitur. If they don't know how to take a direct approach to teaching people how to think in the first place and decide for themselves about God then they should shut up.

--

Reply in group, but if emailing add one more
zero, and remove the last word.

message

It would seem you missed the point despite the presenter explicitly making the distinction. There was no objection to "theory" but to "love of" theory. As he explained "It is truth which gives weight to a theory, it is not so that theory gives weight to truth."

Now, as I mentioned in another post, his terminology is off, because non falsifiable and non testable notions are not a scientific "theory," but he's correct in the colloquial sense, as people use it, since everyone wants to ride the 'science' bandwagon whether they're practicing it or not. It's become just another propaganda tool.

This makes very little sense. A theory is a very humble thing. All it takes is one demonstrable experiment against it and it vanishes.

-- Les Cargill

It does unless one is so in love with their theory they reject those 'demonstrable' things. In fact, it never even reaches to 'theory' unless one proposes falsifiable and testable predictions but that doesn't stop people from claiming their notion is not only a 'theory' but 'true'. So called "Global Warming," or "Climate Change," is one example as proponents have never proposed falsifiable predictions and get quite agitated if you ask them to because, after all, it's 'true', so there is no need to 'test' it.

>

True - what it's actually a theory. Unfortunately, many, MANY people use the word "theory" to describe any old notion that cannot, even in principle, be falsified. Such "theories" are immune to experiment or observation. They sound nice - they make you feel all warm and fuzzy, or they maybe are exciting (the world's going to end again, this time on December 12, 2012, that sort of thing). Of course, that one's falsifiable.

Not so the ones that describe "unknown" energies, "alien" technologies, "forgotten" civilizations that left no traces, and so on. In order to explain the profound lack of evidence, many turn to conspiracy theories ("they" have suppressed all the evidence), which again makes their notions incapable of being falsified.

--
System going down at 1:45 this afternoon for disk crashing.

What kind of predictions are you asking for, a one-hour lab test for climate change? Climatologists most certainly make falsifiable predictions... it's those very predictions that seem to get some people's panties in a bunch. The only problem is that you can't get instant results. That's hardly the climatologists' fault!

Best regards,

Bob Masta DAQARTA v6.02 Data AcQuisition And Real-Time Analysis

Scope, Spectrum, Spectrogram, Sound Level Meter Frequency Counter, FREE Signal Generator Pitch Track, Pitch-to-MIDI Science with your sound card!

The same 'kind' required for any science: testable predictions capable of falsifying the premise.

If you can devise one that meets the scientific criteria then more power to ya and lets get on with the testing.

Name one.

The closest thing that came to a 'prediction' was the climate model's atmospheric temperature distribution and it's been long enough to test. But when it turned out observations did not match the models AGW proponents went on a screaming fit that was *NOT A PREDICTION!!!*

Hysterics about what 'might' happen are not predictions, and they'll tell you so if you bother to ask, nor are they intended to be testable. You're supposed to scream in terror and do what they want long before the 'doomsday' scenario that 'might' happen.

Which, so called, (non) 'prediction' are you favoring this week? That we'll burn to a crisp or a new ice age gets triggered?

Btw, we are *in* an ice age, the Quaternary to be precise. We just, fortunately, happen to be in an interglacial but, compared to the geological mean, the earth is damn cold right now.

Einstein didn't have to create warp drive to test his theory of relativity but even if, for the sake of argument, we accept your dubious premise it's irrelevant because science does not provide an 'exclusion' for 'tough to test'. No falsifiable predictions is not science, 'excuses' notwithstanding, nor does it qualify as a theory.

So the people involved simply don't know what a theory *is*. Why can't the person at the link ( who appears to have rented or made a fairly fancy stage setup - that wasn't free ) simply *SAY* that?

Some things are not testable right now for various reasons.

AGW makes falsifiable predictions, but the time scales are highly inconvenient...

-- Les Cargill

Besides being longer than the time required to move the goal posts again.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

=A0 =A0...Jim Thompson

So far, so good.

There is where flipper loses it. The basic proposition of anthropogenic global warming is that an increasing level of CO2 in the atmosphere increases the average temperature of the earth (as measured at sea level).

We are busily engaged in testing the hypothesis by continuing to burn fossil carbon and dump the carbon dioxide produced in the atmosphere, and monitoring the - rising - average temperature of the earth.

So far, the observed temperature rises are consistent with the hypothesis. They aren't all that big when compared with the natural noise sources, but we've been burning fossil carbon for long enough to have made a significant difference to the temperatures measured at the surface of the earth. No other explanation fits the data as well. The rise became significant around 1990, and that's the point where the scientific community was persuaded.

Flipper is thus some twenty years behind the times.

-- Bill Sloman,

=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0...Jim Thompson

On the contrary, it is being continuously tested. The predicted warming is happening. We haven't yet made a big enough mess of the atmosphere to create any particularly dramatic effects, but we are working on it.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0...Jim Thompson

I think you have misunderstood the difference of opinion about some of the satellite measurements, probably because the denialist propaganda machine hasn't been reporting this isue entirely accurately

The projections of what will probably happen if we keep on burning fossil carbon at a progressively increasing rate aren't in the least hysterical - in fact they are somewhat more conservative than is entirely prudent. The Younger Dryas event at the end of the last ice age was an interesting - and rapid - temperature excursion which last for about 1300 years. The Gulf Stream seems to have turned off for the period, then turned back on again. If a big lump of the Greenland ice sheet managed to slide off into the ocean, it might manage to pull a similar trick.

Predictions are obviously testable. You'd have to be pretty stupid not to try to prevent the anthropogenic global warming predictions from coming true, and in that sense nobody wants them tested.

It's not exactly a doomsday scenario. A lot of people could starve to death if we don't take the problem seriously enough, but that won't doom the human race, though it may well doom social institutions that prevented the society involved from taking advantage of the information that it had in time to save those lives.

Read the most recent IPCC report. It's a little too conservative to be entirely prudent, and a couple of minor details were a bit off - the Himalyan glaciers aren't going to vanish any time soon - in part because the Hamalayan plateau is rising at 5mm per year

Unfortunately, we evolved - as a species - while the earth was relatively cold, and our current society is tuned to fit the current climate. Getting back to the geological norm wouldn't be a good idea.

Sadly for your pretensions, the hypotheses involved are testable, are being tested, and haven't yet been falsified.

The predictions currently being tested aren't all that dramatic, but no other plausible explanation (such as "nothing is actually happening") fits the data as a well.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 ...Jim Thompson

,

If you want large effects with lots of statistical significance. What's current observable barely hits two standard deviations, if that.

Don't be silly.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen