OT: I know how to solve global warming

[Hunpecked]

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.

[Will]

Hunpecked said:
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.

Ahhh, cross posting... bleh.

Anyway, there are multiple concepts flying around here, but AGW is a hypothesis, yes, and one that has not been falsified yet (and it will be a hard one to falsify; in logic notation it is ∃x(AGW) and to falsify it, you must show that ∀x(~AGW), where x is some set of conditions, ∃ is the "there exists symbol, ∀ is the "for all" symbol, ~ is the not operator, and AGW is, of course, our hypothesis). The theory or model that we have been talking about is our understanding of how various factors influence temperature throughout the world, including the affects of solar output, surface and atmospheric albedo, greenhouse effects, ocean and atmospheric currents, geothermals, and countless other factors and their interactions. THIS is the theory that must be replaced by a better one, and the AGW hypothesis is an element of this theory. Current opinion says there is not an alternative theory that leaves out the AGW hypothesis that explains the data as well as the current theory with the AGW hypothesis.

--edit: logical symbols fixed? maybe? nope... in your minds, please replace ∀ with an upside-down capital A, and ∃ with a backwards capital E...

[Renegade 13]

Will said:
I leave it as an exercise to the reader to discover exactly what this dangerous chemical is.

Might it be...just maybe...the dreaded *gulp*...water?

[AMF]

HP and R13,

Honestly: let's just not discuss anomalies in AGW at all. I have never said that AGW is perfect, no one ever has. You keep talking about anomalies in the research program, and then claiming that invalidates the theory. That is entirely NOT the point, and two thousand years of philosophy says I'm right.

Once more:

If you only point out that data is imprecise, or that there are holes in a hypothesis, then you are showing nothing except that anomalies exist. You have to come up with an alternative that better explains the phenomenon in question if you want to question a theory. Otherwise, you're just showing your ignorance of how science works.

I've tried to illustrate this in the above posts with analogies to Copernicus-Newton-Einstein, but you both keep coming back to talking about anomalies in AGW, as if their existence alone threw AGW into question.

I'm not making my point well, so I'll use Will's words: "you can be skeptical about the degree of that impact, but you cannot deny it unless you present a viable (and better) alternate explanation."

EVERY THEORY IN THE UNIVERSE has anomalies. The presence of anomalies alone is irrelevant.

What IS relevant is how well a different theory accounts for those anomalies. And if a new theory can account for those anomalies, and can explain everything the old theory did and more, then it "wins" and the old theory is tossed out.

Again, two thousand years of philosophy says I'm right.

Re: "Guys, I'm just scratching the surface here!"

No, what you are doing is the same thing that those untrained in philosophy of science have always done: throwing out an entire research program based on one question about the data (not even really an anomaly) without suggesting an alternative. It's bad science. End of story.

It's the kid-dad analogy:

Kid: Dad, why is the sky blue?
Dad: Because of X.
Kid: No it's not!
Dad: ok, then what causes it to be blue?
Kid: I don't know, but it isn't X!
Dad: Well, we'll have to continue to say it's caused by X until you come up with something better.

That...is science.

QED.

AMF.

PS: As for my 'sickened' statement, what I said, in full, was: "Often, I am literally physically sickened when I see people making important decisions based on their self-interest, ideologies, or dogma, rather than facts and scientific methods. In my line of work, I see it a lot, and it puts people's lives at risk. I can't help but get angry when people make important decisions based not on facts but on what they WANT to believe."

I don't see how that is ambiguous - to wit, I get disgusted with people when they make important decisions based on what appears to be their ideologies, or dogma, or self-interest, rather than an understanding of the facts and, more importantly, scientific methods. Full stop. No interpretation of "what I really meant" is needed, or desired.

[AMF]

I should probably have specifically responded to this as well.

Re:

Hunpecked said:
Presumably if the falsified theory is still useful within its newly demonstrated limits, then we can continue using it for limited applications.

This is certainly true, and is what I have in part been saying all along.

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.

If such a theory existed, then to derive a replacement research program is a trivial matter. But, really, until you have an alternative, you have to go with what you have in place at the moment, because to do otherwise is non-rational because it would have no logic inherent in it. It would be, for example, totally ad hoc, self-contradictory, incoherent, etc…it would essentially be like saying “well, every possible thought we have given on this matter is so terrible that we have no possible explanations for it, and we can’t think of anything better” – even the most bizarre phenomena that mankind has ever experienced don’t fit that. At the very least, the explanation for something like that would be “The Gods make the sky blue because they like the color blue.” This at least is a theory, albeit a very silly one that would, thereby, be relatively easy to supplant with a better one.

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.

This is why I use the phrase ‘research program’ not theory or hypothesis (when I remember to…). We do risk getting into obtuse terminology here, but a research program is a theory or succession of theories that is, at least in principle, empirically testable. These theories share “a hard core, a protective belt of auxiliary hypotheses, and a heuristic, i.e., problem solving machinery. Thus, in the Newtonian programme, the laws of motion and the universal law of gravitation are the hard core. Anomalies in the motion of planets are dealt with by considering factors that may affect the apparent motion, e.g., refraction of light or the existence of a hitherto unknown planet. The problem solving machinery is the vast body of classical mathematical physics.”

In AGW, the hard core would be the belief that human activity contributes to global warming. I’d have to give some thought to what the negative and positive heuristics would be...but it’s a long weekend coming up, so don’t hold your breath…



AMF