Scientific Dogma is No Longer Subject to Debate

[lawrocket 3]

http://news.yahoo.com/fox-news-climate-coverage-93-wrong-report-finds-193433943.html

Apparently, the Union of Concerned Scientists takes issue with deniers like Fox News and the Wall Street Journal. “simple undermining and disparaging of the field of climate science” is considered to be bad form. Huh? Take a look at the Oxburgh report – disparaged the field of climate science not on the science but on how they behave.

Indeed, calling “NASA climate scientist James Hansen a ‘global-warming alarmist’ is apparently also unacceptable (though Mr. Hansen himself refers frequently to “contrarians” and/or “deniers.” No, not bad.)

Here’s the kicker paragraph of the news story:

Quote

The goal of the report, according to the UCS, is not to shut down legitimate debate on the appropriateness of various climate policies (really? Hmmm. Let’s see now…)
"It is entirely appropriate to disagree with specific actions or policies aimed at addressing climate change while accepting the clearly established findings of climate science," the authors wrote. "And while it is appropriate to question new science as it emerges, it is misleading to reject or sow doubt about established science — in this case, the overwhelming body of evidence that human-caused climate change is occurring."

SWEET JESUS! Up yours, Copernicus! Go fuck yourself, Einstein! Hubble can kiss or asses – the universe is the size of the Milky Way! Permutter, Schmidt and Ries should be boiled! (Universe is accelerating its expansion? Come on. I read “A Brief History of Time.” Nowhere did he discuss that!)

The report actually stated this little doozy:

Quote

Equally important, News Corp. needs to help its staff to differentiate between opinions about climate change and scientific facts. It is entirely appropriate to disagree with specific actions or policies aimed at addressing climate change while accepting the clearly established findings of climate science.

So here’s a report that states the need to differentiate between opinion and fact, then offers an opinion on: (1) how to act; and (2) another opinion on findings of climate science. What’s the second opinion? “Clearly established” is an opinion.

Is this what science has come to? Scientists creating manifestos on that which you shall not be allowed to challenge?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 3,132]

>SWEET JESUS! Up yours, Copernicus! Go fuck yourself, Einstein! Hubble can
>kiss or asses – the universe is the size of the Milky Way! Permutter,
> Schmidt and Ries should be boiled!

What are you talking about? Do you really think that Einstein denied Newtonian physics?

They have it right. It is entirely appropriate to question aspects of _any_ science. But when you reject entire areas of study due to your political beliefs (evolution, climate change, dangers of smoking, biological differences in races or sexes) then you are not a scientist; you are a politician.

[jakee 1,610]

Aren't you the guy that said looking for the Higgs-Boson was unscientific?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[lawrocket 3]

Einstein did not deny Newtonian physics. Einstein bucked the establishment by showing that Newtonian physics did not work well in large gravitational fields. Same as Einstein had his debates with Bohr.

But Einstein challenged the paradigm of the time. he was revolutionary in a new way of thinking of things. Newton didn't bother to explain the nature of gravitation because his ideas worked. That's fine. Einstein refined it. According to the report I cited, this is improper.

Quote

It is entirely appropriate to question aspects of _any_ science.

Here's what it said:

Quote

"And while it is appropriate to question new science as it emerges, it is misleading to reject or sow doubt about established science

Your statement is at odds. CThe release said it's appropriate to question new science. That it is appropriate to question policy decisions. But that is "misleading to...sow doubt about established science."

Here's the translation: Don't question the science behind global warming.

Here's my response: "Why not? We question physics."

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Aren't you the guy that said looking for the Higgs-Boson was unscientific?

I don't think it was me.
I do recall you pointing out a few months back that Higgs boson was predicted by mathematical models – based on the most accurate measurements ever, or something to that effect. My rejoinder to that was not that looking for Higgs boson was unscientific. The search for it was, indeed, a scientific endeavor and I never questioned that.

“Unscientific” would be the statement last spring that “we know Higgs boson exists.” It’s unscientific because we did not know it. Back then there were options if Higgs Boson was not found: either keep looking for it or come up with another theory. The standard was, however, “Higgs boson does not exist until we observe evidence of it.”

Then July came about and I myself was rather thrilled with the publication of the results that Higgs boson was detected. Now the null hypothesis is that Higgs boson does exist and it is up to evidence to find some alternative explanation for the bump in the curve.

See, I always was under the idea that science is not just the answer but the process for finding things out. The process for coming up with the answers. Science is the process that tests an idea. The ultimate arbiter of the truth of an idea is observation! Have an idea. Predict a result. Test it. Observe the results. Do the results match the prediction? If no, then the idea is disproven. If yes, then the idea is proven. If mostly yes but partly no the rule is disproven.

That’s it. The idea was that if Higgs boson exists, there would be an unusual number of decay events at the 125 GeV level. But there were no observations to confirm it. So at CERN they tested it. And by golly by gee they had actual observations that matched pretty closely with the prediction. Prediction. Test. Observe. Yay. Until I see results, I remain skeptical.

I saw the results. I am no longer skeptical.

You may be a person that does not need to see results before you are convinced. That’s fine. It’s your personal value on things. You may take an idea and say, “I’ll run with it until proven otherwise.” We find this in religious people, who accept God unless He can be disproven (which is impossible). Me? I’m skeptical of the existence of God unless observations confirm His existence. I’m skeptical of the existence of alien life until there is some tangible evidence of it (you’d think that if a person got raped by an alien there’d be some alien detritus on the victim – sample it and test it).

With climate science, however, there are lots of predictions being made. There are lots of correct predictions but there are also lots of exceptions. I personally have the idea that if there is an exception to any rule that can be shown by observation that rule is wrong. Isn’t that a principle of science? “Rule: warming will be amplified at the poles under AGW theory.” Observation: “There’s amplification at the north pole, but not the south.” Conclusion: rule is wrong.

Prediction: “Sea levels will rise three feet by 2050.”
Observation: Gotta wait to 2050 to observe it.
Conclusion: none can be reached.
Caveat: computer models predict it.
Rejoinder: we’re testing that prediction and results won’t be available until 2051.

Questions: (1) Is my understanding of science erroneous?; (2) is it wrong for me to challenge this aspect of climate science?; (3) If the answer to any of those is “yes” explain why without using subjective analysis.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 3,132]

>Einstein did not deny Newtonian physics.

Agreed!

>Einstein bucked the establishment by showing that Newtonian physics did
>not work well in large gravitational fields.

I disagree there. Einstein AGREED with Newton that Newtonian physics had some drawbacks in gravitational fields (or specifically in gravitationally warped space-time.) From an essay by Einstein:

"Before I enter into this I must emphasize that Newton himself was better aware of the weak sides of his thought-structure than the succeeding generations of students. . . . He had recognized that the observable geometrical magnitudes (distances of material points from one another) and their change in process of time do not completely determine movements in a physical sense."

Indeed, even Newton, although he did develop some truly revolutionary theories of motion, said that he did not do so by disregarding previous research, but rather expanding on it: "If I have seen further [than other scientists] it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants."

> But that is "misleading to...sow doubt about established science."

Often it is. Let's apply such a statement to other fields:

"It is entirely appropriate to question medical treatments for lung cancer, epidemiological study results on the relationship between smoking and lung cancer or the value of smoking prevention programs - but it is misleading to use such questions to dispute that smoking puts people at risk for lung cancer."

"It is entirely appropriate to question the mechanisms of chromosomal molecular drift, biological selection and genetic mutation - but it is misleading to use such questions to question whether evolution exists."

"It is entirely appropriate to question the assumptions that scientists have made concerning any specific part of physics - but it is misleading to use the existence of such uncertainties to question whether physics is real."

>Here's my response: "Why not? We question physics."

Of course we do. But I am sure you do not think "since there is some doubt in some areas of physics, maybe physics does not exist."

Instead, I suspect that you think we will, as time goes on, move from our somewhat accurate understanding of physics to an even more accurate one.

[jakee 1,610]

Quote

I do recall you pointing out a few months back

No, before that.

I'm pretty sure you were saying that designing an experiment to look for it specifically was unscientific.

Quote

See, I always was under the idea that science is not just the answer but the process for finding things out. The process for coming up with the answers. Science is the process that tests an idea. The ultimate arbiter of the truth of an idea is observation! Have an idea. Predict a result. Test it. Observe the results. Do the results match the prediction? If no, then the idea is disproven. If yes, then the idea is proven. If mostly yes but partly no the rule is disproven.

So pretty much the opposite of that.

Quote

You may be a person that does not need to see results before you are convinced. That’s fine. It’s your personal value on things.

I thought that was beneath you, but from this observation I'll revise my assessment of your personal values

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[kallend 2,182]

Quote

Quote

Aren't you the guy that said looking for the Higgs-Boson was unscientific?

I don't think it was me.
I do recall you pointing out a few months back that Higgs boson was predicted by mathematical models – based on the most accurate measurements ever, or something to that effect. My rejoinder to that was not that looking for Higgs boson was unscientific. The search for it was, indeed, a scientific endeavor and I never questioned that.

Hmmm - bit of revisionist history there, Counselor.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

I'm pretty sure you were saying that designing an experiment to look for it specifically was unscientific.

Show me where it was and I'll wear it. I'll retract it. I've been wrong before and I'll be wrong again.

Quote

You may be a person that does not need to see results before you are convinced. That’s fine. It’s your personal value on things.

We all have different lines. Shoot, my wife was pregnant and I never questioned whether it was mine. I didn't need to see results.

We all have certain worldviews, and often we take information in and either accept or discard information that does not fit into them. It's understandable.

I apologize if I was insulting.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[lawrocket 3]

I did a search for "Higgs." I'm not seeing anywhere that I mentioned that the search for Higgs was unscientific. I did see that I posted in April "You've got people searching all over for Higgs Boson - theorized to exist, searched for like mad, but nobody has found it."

On July 2, you posted a link to the discovery and that "only the most curmudgeonly will not believe that they have found it."

I'm struggling to see how my statement, "they haven't found it" was wrong when nobody knew about it until more than two months later. Isn't that like criticizing a person who said in April, "Nobody's walked on the moon yet" and then putting something out there in July that, uh, yes they did?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kallend 2,182]

Quote

I did a search for "Higgs." I'm not seeing anywhere that I mentioned that the search for Higgs was unscientific. I did see that I posted in April "You've got people searching all over for Higgs Boson - theorized to exist, searched for like mad, but nobody has found it."

On July 2, you posted a link to the discovery and that "only the most curmudgeonly will not believe that they have found it."

I'm struggling to see how my statement, "they haven't found it" was wrong when nobody knew about it until more than two months later. Isn't that like criticizing a person who said in April, "Nobody's walked on the moon yet" and then putting something out there in July that, uh, yes they did?

You likened the search for the Higgs to a search for pink unicorns and other mythological creatures.

www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=post_view_flat;post=4310207;so=ASC;sb=post_latest_reply;#4310207

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[lawrocket 3]

Negative. You are engaged in the process of fitting something in with your preconceived notions.

The poster wrote: "If something can't be shown to exist, the presumption is that it does not exist."

I mentioned Higgs Boson. It could not be shown to exist - at the time. (Actually it could, but not enough data or analysis of it had been obatined/performed.) Yet most presumed it existed. Then they proved it.

How is it that my mentioning something like Higgs boson not being proven yet being searched for means I am advocating for pink unicorns?

You're creating a nexus that isn't there.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kallend 2,182]

Quote

Negative. You are engaged in the process of fitting something in with your preconceived notions.

The poster wrote: "If something can't be shown to exist, the presumption is that it does not exist."

I mentioned Higgs Boson. It could not be shown to exist - at the time. (Actually it could, but not enough data or analysis of it had been obatined/performed.) Yet most presumed it existed. Then they proved it.

How is it that my mentioning something like Higgs boson not being proven yet being searched for means I am advocating for pink unicorns?

You're creating a nexus that isn't there.

Lame-O. You made a direct comparison of the Higgs with invisible pink unicorns and other mythical creatures.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[brenthutch 444]

Quote

Quote

Negative. You are engaged in the process of fitting something in with your preconceived notions.

The poster wrote: "If something can't be shown to exist, the presumption is that it does not exist."

I mentioned Higgs Boson. It could not be shown to exist - at the time. (Actually it could, but not enough data or analysis of it had been obatined/performed.) Yet most presumed it existed. Then they proved it.

How is it that my mentioning something like Higgs boson not being proven yet being searched for means I am advocating for pink unicorns?

You're creating a nexus that isn't there.

Lame-O. You made a direct comparison of the Higgs with invisible pink unicorns and other mythical creatures.

I have to agree. We all know that the correct correlation is pink unicorns and AGW.

[lawrocket 3]

And Tipper Gore found that a Twiseted Sister song about fear of surgery was about S&M.

You're impossible sometimes. So here is a retraction in the event that you believe that I did.

No. I did not make that correlation. But in the event that others believe it, then consider this a retraction. I do not equate the search fro Higgs boson with the search for pink unicorns. On it searching for a prediction based upon evidence and the other is based upon a conjured thought.

How's that?

Now, what are your thoughts on questioning science, John?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[pirana 0]

Scientific Dogma.

All-Star level oxymoron. Right up there with Creation Science.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[winsor 236]

Now, what are your thoughts on questioning science, John?

[JackC1 0]

I occasionally get letters from people questioning science, usually disproving the uncertainty principle or promoting their latest perpetual motion machine. Fuck 'em, I've got better things to do than give some deluded moron remedial physics lessons.

[lawrocket 3]

I get that. (Note the news on Heisenberg - not disproven but somewhat mitigated). There is a history about perpetual motion machnes. I question those, too (First Law of Thermodynamics).

The issue I have with climate science is that predictions are considered to be observation. "Established climate science" is predictions considered to be observation. I have a problem with people saying that it is inappropriate to question predictions.

My wife is hotter than your wife.