Here follows a few quotes from another thread here about AGW that has been posted under this general subject, "Science" I have seen many similar exchanges between folks here, usually discussing man-made global warming and it seems to me that according to my experience my science is not the same science that others here hold as being their science. In this exchange for example a turn is taken that involves a discussion of Newton. As it so happens, I understand and agree with @Mushroom's arguments and hold the opinion that it seems apparent to me that @(original)late apparently doesn't actually understand science in general or physics in particular and has nothing at all to say about mathematics. I notice there is a description here just below the title of this page to create a thread topic here in the Science forum: "Discuss physics, chemistry, astronomy, oceanography, medical advances, etc." So when I see someone argue that Newton is no longer relevant, I have to admit I am, well, what's the word? Dumbfounded, I suppose seems sufficient. So, what is science to you? Science to me is, well, first off, there is no science without math. Math and science go together better than bread and butter. Over in the thread these quotes came from there was a discussion about the laws of science. This also prompted me to create this thread. It seems to me that @(original)late asserted that "laws of science" is an outdated concept. And the only explanation I have been able to arrive at is that his science is not the same stuff I'm referring to when I talk about science. For example, there is a law called Ohm's Law, V=IR. It's freaking awesome, but there are exceptions to it. Superconductivity is a phenomenon that does not adhere to Ohm's Law. This does not invalidate the relationship under most circumstances. Supposing you are a fan of the movie Apollo 13, there is a cool scene where a NASA nerd calculates that the crew of mission Aquarius Odyssey had to turn everything off to conserve battery power. To me, that's science. To me, this guy that @(original)late mentions as he explains why Newton is no longer relevant to science is nobody talking about nothing related to science. Here is what Wikipedia has to share with us about Ronald N Giere: In his book Scientific Perspectivism he developed a version of perspectival realism in which he argued that scientific descriptions are somewhat like colours, in that they capture only selected aspects of reality, and those aspects are not bits of the world seen as they are in themselves, but bits of the world seen from a distinctive human perspective. In addition to the color example, Giere articulates his perspectivism by appeal to maps and to his own earlier and influential work on scientific models. Maps represent the world, but the representations they provide are conventional, affected by interest, and never fully accurate or complete. Similarly, scientific models are idealized structures that represent the world from particular and limited points of view. According to Giere, what goes for colors, maps, and models goes generally: science is perspectival through and through. So science is perspectival according to some folks. I suppose I'll just have to disagree. But I suppose I'm more passionate than that about it. I most certainly disagree. What's more is that it seems to me that there is an intentional effort to blur the facts in these discussions by simultaneously asserting that science is simply whatever one wants it to be, and then asserting that it proves something about something. Hell, there was even one guy that seems to hold a completely different concept of what science is than I do who asserted that science proves nothing about anything: except that it does prove man-made global warming is a fact! Now it may very well be a fact, I personally do not see it as proven fact, but I certainly won't assert that science proves nothing about anything as part of my arguments that that particular subject is overwhelmed with stuff that is not the stuff of science. Science proves plenty of things, but it does not prove what the weather will be in 100 years, trust me or better yet, trust the accuracy of your local weather and the ability of science to predict it next year, much less 10, 100 or 1000 years from now.... Now, I've never heard of Ronald N Giere, but I have heard of Isaac Newton and I've spent many hours studying concepts that he literally invented. I assert that if you think you know what science is because you've read some stuff by Giere but haven't studied the stuff of Newton then you don't know what science is. Suffice it to say that my point is toward making the point that my science has nothing at all to do with the philosophy of science.
1) Newton is used all the time. When we went to the Moon, we used Newtonian physics with what they called a 'fudge factor'. 2) About 30 years ago, physicists started working at the philosophy of science. They developed a new way of talking about science. That's the part you're not getting, you haven't read it. 3) That goes back to the 70s, about the limits of language. 4) If you're talking about me again, then no. 5) For most of the history of science, I would agree heartily. But things change. Suffice it to say the Seventies was a long time ago.
The problem that many have is that they will change science around in order to make it fit their beliefs. And that is not how any of it works. And I will readily admit I absolutely despise the "you just can't understand me" argument. That is a lazy cop-out, and then you need to explain yourself more clearly. Do not blame me because you can not explain yourself properly. And yes, the above is a perfect example of why in most cases in here, I am actually not speaking to the individual themselves. I am speaking to the other readers, to pout out the gross flaws in logic and failure to comprehend basic concepts. In the hopes that I can help others see how faulty their claims are. Because I learned long ago that actually trying to "debate" with them is foolish. And yes, I do not "argue", I "debate".
And in closing, Ronald N Giere is not himself a scientist, but a "science Philosopher". This is my general opinion of somebody trying to bring such nonsense up in an actual debate about science. Essentially claiming that "Scientific laws do not matter" is just bullshit in my opinion, and belongs in a serious scientific discussion as much as somebody trying to drag creationism into a serious debate about evolution and geology.
What you're talking about here is science-ism Science-ism in a lot of respects is anti-science. They use part of science to buttress some beliefs but they don't look into what guess against their beliefs with anything but a skeptic eye. It's like the people who talk about how the missing link completely undermines evolution and disproves it. This is a science based concept loosely but it doesn't really hold much importance. It's a way to sound intelligent without being truly skeptical. The most important step in intelligence is first admitting I don't know. To be certain about beliefs is to be ignorant of that which could disprove them. I see this in regard to truth as well. I've heard adults in our culture talk about "your truth." This is anti truth. You don't get to have your own truth that's called a delusion.
And here is the thing, I am in many ways the "ultimate skeptic". I question almost everything, and try to find the most logical and rational solution. It does not matter if it is history, or science. And I am also known for cutting through "Conspiracy Theories" with Occam's Razor. If the explanation requires a gross suspension of belief and ignoring of past examples of things known by science, then the concept is flawed and should either be ignored, discarded, or worked again until it comes into compliance with previous examples. And the biggest reason I tend to ignore most "global warming scares" is exactly because I do know what happened in the past. Case in point, the average global temperature during the Carboniferous Era was 68f. Today, the average global temperature is actually 57f. And during the Carboniferous Era, the CO2 PPM was in the range of around 1500. That is well over three times the CO2 levels of today (421.99 ppm). This is what I see missing in almost all of the "claims" of those trying to sound "authoritative" on the subject. Actual hard facts and numbers. I give them frequently, and they ignore them, saying we have to "just believe them", with absolutely no credible references at all. And here is another big difference. I actually tell people to question me, and my sources. Do not just take my word for it, read my sources, look for your own (credible ones), and find out for yourself. And I also tell people to "vette their sources". Do not just find one that agrees with you, but ones that are really looking at the science in a clear and neutral manner. That is something that is seriously lacking in here. I admit, I tend to look at things like "climate" through the eyes of a geologist. Where even a million years is barely a blink of the eye. Hell, want to have a discussion of the "Boring Billion", I will happily discuss that also. But try and tell me while we are still technically in an "Ice Age" that I have to be concerned about the fractional rise of a rather unimportant gas? From what I have seen in the geologic record, CO2 levels follow temperature rises, they do not cause them. Which is why almost every "prediction" fails. Talk to me in a few tens of thousands of years more, when the glacial deserts are gone, and the limit of palm trees moves back up to central Alaska. Because that is actually much closer to the "Global Norm" than we are today. Oh, and the claims things are going to get more dry? In complete ignorance of geological history. Interglacials are actually some of the wettest our planet has been in tens of millions of years. We are still in a "transition period", where things are warming up, but the plants have yet to expand to areas that are still "arctic tundra". This means CO2 levels will rise, as much of the ecosystem is still recovering from around 100ky of deep freeze and has not expanded much beyond moss. But it will continue to rise, and that will fuel more plant growth as CO2 is actually critical "plant food". I see people scream about a few decades, and laugh. I wonder what they would have said during the MWP or LIA. Or if they would have gone around telling Neanderthal to stop their fires as it created "global warming" as they were camping out in Doggerland.
So you ignore actual science and prefer to stick with your own opinion. You know Occam's Razor isn't science, right? So again, you ignore actual science and just make up your own unqualified mind. gotcha! The rest of your post is ignored accordingly.
https://www.aaas.org/origin-and-popular-use-occams-razor#:~:text=Occam's razor is used as,when distinguishing between two theories. See the above? That is known as a "reference". Can you say "reference"? I know you can't, because you never use one. BTW, my reference comes from the "American Association for the Advancement of Science". Where does yours come from, other than out of your arse? You see, this is exactly what I mean, and what I believe Polydectes is commenting on. That most of those trying to sound "authoritative" are actually "anti-science". You spin a lot of BS, but never give any references. You never give any facts, you just spin a line of bullshit and scream "believe me or you are a moron:" This is completely against what science is. And please tell me, what of the facts that I presented are wrong. Was the planet CO2 levels not over three times higher than they are in the Carboniferous Period? That the planet was not that much warmer than it is now? Hell, I even say that things are going to get a hell of a lot warmer, is that wrong? Please, oh please please please please please, refute what I just said. And give real references that can be verified. Here, let me say it loud and clear. THE EARTH IS GOING TO GET A HELL OF A LOT WAMER IN THE COMING THOUSANDS OF YEARS. Is that a lie?
The vast majority of climate scientists today do not agree with what you are claiming here concerning the relationship between CO2 concentration and average temperature of Earth.
I can understand to some extent the motivation on the part of Giere to turn to philosophy after having studied physics to an advanced level. Subatomic particle physics basically seems to raise more questions than answers and the holy grail of a grand unification theory or a theory of everything is hard work requiring vast mathematical knowledge and skill. It seems to me that there is evidence from high energy particle physics and quantum mechanics that it is our system of mathematics that may be limiting our ability to understand. However or whatever may be the case with respect to this one highly specialized set of stuff properly for-the-most-part belonging well within the stuff I think of as science, it is but a subset of a vast number of phenomena that have proven to be highly susceptible to explanations under the framework of the scientific method. And there are a vast number of phenomena that have not been adequately explained by this approach - human behavior perhaps being among them. Let me try to apply a bit of editorial discipline and see if I might have some luck eliciting a response from you that helps me understand a bit better what exactly it is you mean when you refer to "science." Just one question to start, assuming you have an interest in having a discussion on this topic: what role does math play in what science means to you?
I can understand to some extent the motivation on the part of Giere to turn to philosophy after having studied physics to an advanced level. Subatomic particle physics basically seems to raise more questions than answers and the holy grail of a grand unification theory or a theory of everything is hard work requiring vast mathematical knowledge and skill. It seems to me that there is evidence from high energy particle physics and quantum mechanics that it is our system of mathematics that may be limiting our ability to understand. However or whatever may be the case with respect to this one highly specialized set of stuff properly for-the-most-part belonging well within the stuff I think of as science, it is but a subset of a vast number of phenomena that have proven to be highly susceptible to explanations under the framework of the scientific method. And there are a vast number of phenomena that have not been adequately explained by this approach - human behavior perhaps being among them. Let me try to apply a bit of editorial discipline and see if I might have some luck eliciting a response from you that helps me understand a bit better what exactly it is you mean when you refer to "science." Just one question to start, assuming you have an interest in having a discussion on this topic: what role does math play in what science means to you?
More of your BS. What you mean to say is "The vast majority of climate scientists that I agree with and agree with me do not agree..." And we have gone over that before. Go back a few hundred years, and most astronomers believed the sun went around the Earth, and that disease was caused by bad air. Oh, and all meat had maggots in it. So your repeating that statement ad nauseum means absolutely nothing.
Oh, and I am even old enough to remember the first theories that most geologists simply could not believe. Back in the 1970's when some first proposed that not only was Yellowstone over a "supervolcano", but it was still active and had been on the move for tens of millions of years and likely started near California. I remember discussing it back then, and most simply could not believe it. Or that rhino fossils in Eastern Nebraska were from an earlier eruption of the same volcano, when it was located along the Oregon-Idaho-Nevada border area. This is the thing, real scientists know that theory is only that. Hell, even "plate tectonics" is only about 100 years old as a theory, and was only "proven" in the last 60 or so years. It was so "new and revolutionary" that a lot of the textbooks I used did not even discuss it. Not unlike some of my mother, one of which I still chuckle at because it had a photograph of the "Andromeda Nebula" prominently on the cover. And yes, it was written before the works of Hubble were accepted and most believed there was only one "galaxy". But those are examples of "real science". And not one real example can I think of was conducted like some kind of poll. And apparently taking in the "consensus" of all kinds of "scientists", but only if they agree with the findings. And if one does not agree, then what they say does not matter.
I suppose I am. As I stated already, your science is not my science and I am interested in having a discussion that demolishes your position. The philosophy of science has nothing at all to do with the practice of science as it applies to any branch of natural science. There are no prerequisites for any class from the philosophy department to attend a math, physics, chemistry, biology, geology, or meteorology class. Looks to me like you know you'll lose the argument. You're not talking about my science. There have been changes about the way we think about my science. One of the biggest changes has been in our ability to understand the behavior of dynamic systems, but you wouldn't know anything about that apparently. You probably don't want to discuss what math means to science because you don't know much about math. You apparently were unaware that Newton discovered the fascinating and sublime relationship between derivatives and integrals that we generally call calculus. There would be no text for you to read on this webpage without the framework built by mathematics on your array of finite elements that is whatever screen it is you're reading this on. You likely have no education whatsoever in any of the actual sciences and propose to assert to those who do what science is. I am fortunate enough to have been fairly well-educated in several areas of natural science, including chemistry, math, physics and even a decent dose of computer science. The primary thing that makes something scientific is that there is an observation of an event or of a characteristic component of an object and an explanation of that event or characteristic is desired. This explanation is called a hypothesis and it must contain a minimal amount of content to predict aspects of the event or characteristic that were not present in the initial observation. I've seen some folks here that, from my point of view, completely miss the value of this method by claiming that it is simply a set of falsifiable premises or assertions. These people's science is not my science. These explanations are not necessarily immutable, but they are not constructed as an abstract set of falsifiable assertions alone. They have to explain how, and to some extent why, stuff is the way it is or acts the way it does. And what makes me fortunate in particular is that I have a job that lends itself to the application of the scientific method on a fairly regular basis. Troubleshooting stuff for example is just about impossible without having been disciplined in following rigorous methods that allow for the determination of cause and effect relationships. Sometimes this stuff can be very simple. Troubleshooting programming code for example offers an almost metaphysical instruction on the importance of initializing variables to zero. The analogy carries over to circumstances when life sometimes offers extremely challenging situations: start at zero; forget everything you thought you knew. I never knew how much I didn't know until I was fortunate enough to have the opportunity to attend college and take on a degree that taught me that what I thought I knew about some stuff was just plain wrong. And it was interesting to have had the opportunity to learn about some of the missing pieces in our knowledge of chemistry. For example, well, let's save that bit for someone that might actually be interested in learning something about my science. Your science as best I can tell seems to be more of what at best I might classify as metaphysics. And in that case then what I stated previously does apply to you. You didn't even take the time to quote the full sentence: What's more is that it seems to me that there is an intentional effort to blur the facts in these discussions by simultaneously asserting that science is simply whatever one wants it to be, and then asserting that it proves something about something. When you responded with, 4) If you're talking about me again, then no. But the answer is yes, because you're talking about what I call metaphysics when you talk about about what I call science. The only piece that may not apply is that you might not be aware of this fact, so you may be doing it unintentionally. You can't simultaneously assert that science proves the Earth is warming because of burning fossil fuels while asserting that science is no more a reliable method of relating causes and effects than is any other discussion that involves human observation, interpretation and perspective.
As I thought. Not what i said, but this is not exactly the first time I've seen the 60s/70s show back up, we're both doing metaphysics at the moment, you know.. But, you're writing is superb.
The book I have by Giere is one of his earlier works, Explaining Science. I never suggest it because he's an intellectual show off. But you should be able to handle it, and the first part of the book he goes into depth on the things you want me to talk about. I've typed sections of the book before, when I was younger, but between your bias and the resulting indifference, you're just looking for excuses to reject it. Not like you haven't tried before. Anyway, good book. You might be able to get it from interlibrary loan, but you can always get it used from Amazon. https://www.amazon.com/Explaining-S...nald+n+giere+explaining+science,aps,82&sr=8-1
Very kind of you, thanks (original)late. About my fishing expedition, yes, I suppose so. I figured it would be best to admit to my intended denouement: however, I am interested in reading and learning more precisely what point it is you're trying to make about what this vintage revolution in science is all about. Based on your frequent posts here it seems you have the time available to elaborate your ideas on the subject should you choose to do so. Metaphysics has more interesting stuff available to discuss than this kinda stuff. You're references to the 60s and 70s..., I doubt very much that I am alone in failing to grasp whatever point it is you are making with absolutely no attempt to explain it further. What was the phrase you condescendingly used in the quote above? That was disappointing is what you wrote, and I suppose it is applicable to my response regarding your participation in this thread. You've not said anything here, and neither has anyone else. But you have written some stuff and what you've written isn't a complete description of your position from my point of view. You've referred to Giere and simply left it at that. Whatever the case may be, it comes across as a bit arrogant, almost as though you are too good to deign to share your secret knowledge with the common folk. Probably you just aren't interested in putting any serious effort to sharing your thoughts on the matter. I'm not about to go read through his books without you proving there is something of value in doing so. You've made no attempt to clarify what it is about science that in your view has changed since Led Zeppelin smashed its way onto the surface of the Earth. Your complaints about the Koch brothers are noted and to a large extent agreed with, on my part anyway. So there's that for what little it's worth with respect to the subject of this thread. But regarding your tidbits of comments about science in the other thread then there is simply no other conclusion that can be drawn than that you consider science to be nothing more than the perspective of a community of scientists. Nothing more then opinions then. Preferences. Might as well be arguing over the artistic value of a Pollock painting, eh?
Yet we are talking actual hard facts, and you are the one over and over going over the writings of a "Science Philosopher".
Funny thing is, when a movie came out a while back I was one of the few in the audience that laughed at a reference.
You're argument is NOTHING more than suggesting that all experts must be ignored. And, that's just plain worship of ignorance.
My view is that math is a language used by scientists to describe what is observed in our natural world.
I'd like you to NOT claim I said stuff I absolutely did NOT say. Got it? You need to be truthful as per board rules. Today, the vast majority of scientists studying climate related issues state that the Earth is warming and the primary reason is human emissions of greenhouse gasses. You've got NOTHING to counter that.
