From alarikf:
"Useful citations for above referenced philosophers:"
I read the Popper references, and I think I see the source of our confusion. From the Wiki article:
"Logically, no number of positive outcomes at the level of experimental testing can confirm a scientific theory, but a single genuine counterexample is logically decisive: it shows the theory, from which the implication is derived, to be false."
In other words, a theory can be
falsified (i.e. shown to be incorrect or at least incomplete) by a single "anomalous" observation, even in the absence of a competing theory. This is essentially what Renegade and I have been arguing.
From the Stanford reference:
"If the conclusion is shown to be false, then this is taken as a signal that the theory cannot be completely correct (logically the theory is falsified), and the scientist begins his quest for a better theory. He does not, however,
abandon the present theory until such time as he has a better one to substitute for it."
This is apparently what alarikf (and Will?) has been arguing, i.e. we seem to be arguing related but different topics.
I'm not sure I entirely agree with the "don't abandon until you have an alternative" argument. Presumably if the falsified theory is still useful within its newly demonstrated limits, then we can continue using it for limited applications. If, however, the theory is all wrong or the consequences of misapplication are sufficiently horrific, then perhaps we
should abandon the theory entirely and forego its supposed benefits until a better theory is formulated and tested.
Of course, since AGW is a
hypothesis (as Will apparently realizes), this whole philosophy of science discussion is just an interesting sidebar to the discussion of AGW.
