Posted on 01/31/2006 5:46:36 PM PST by KevinDavis
That's a very poor assumption. But even if it weren't, it would, on its own, be insufficient to justify the practice.
An issue with that is, often they don't know what they don't know. A general attitude of humility would be a better strategy.
And, in fact, that's often the case. Perhaps you've not visited many science threads here, but often a properly hedged report will be ridiculed by our unfortunately large Luddite population.
I quite frequently see scientists directly quoted in news reports as saying that man-made global warming is "established scientific fact". Very rarely do they ever strike me as being interested in debating the issue and very rarely do I ever hear them say things such as "I believe it's a fact, but it's possible that I'm wrong."
There are skeptics on the subject to be sure, but you have to admit that they usually tend to be ridiculed.
"The reader is assumed to be an intelligent rational agent. That's a very poor assumption. But even if it weren't, it would, on its own, be insufficient to justify the practice."
It's not a poor assumption. It's a good assuption. In fact, prior training in the matter is necessary in order to read and comprehend the material. the practice is entirely justified, because to do otherwise would over complicate any work with an extreme amount of redundant, unwarranted comment. Where appropriate, footnotes are given.
The mechanics of global warming do occur. The differences all amount to the significance of the effects and what should be done. The warmists overstate the significance of the effects and often invent effects.
"The differences all amount to the significance of the effects and what should be done."
I should have said, the values of the effects and their significance.
Haven't yet seen a physics theory that would make one want to change his life except possibly change major either to or from physics.
No it isn't. Yes people can be intelligent and rational but also unintelligent and irrational. Further, the target audience of popular science writing very often don't have the necessary training or knowledge to distinguish claims that are well supported from those that aren't.
What is given in those publications is well supported. The only place you'll find something else is in junk science sources. For common texts and reputable publications, the inclusion of such terms as "may be", or "maybe wrong" for well supported and held results and theory is unwarranted and only serves the interests of those desiring to push nonscientific claims in contradiction to the real science presented.
Me either. For the third time I'm not a Luddite. My point is that the strength or weakness of certain scientific theories can be logically ascertained by looking at how quantifiable the evidence is supporting it (not just the lack of counter-evidence) and the ability to test it with predictable results.
Yes, and I'm not expecting scientists to start every sentence with, "I don't really know, but...". By definition you can't know the specifics of what you don't know, and often you can't even know if there is more to be revealed. But sometimes, as in climatology, you can be most certain that there is a great deal you don't know. When the heat retention of a body of water cannot be forecast 180 days in advance with any certainty, no one should be making forecasts of 1 degree increases over 100 years. Lectures on how it could happen, or what could cause it? Yes, that's exploration. But a forecast? No.
Yes, unless they are being assimilated into the cult of Scientology.
Or single again.... :o)
The only "solid" one you gave was Newton's theory, which survives in the limiting case of low energy density space, where the space is flat. Notice that the old theory survives as a limiting case, as I said.
You admit you don't know and then you immediately tell me I'm wrong. Perhaps when you don't know you should read up instead of sticking your foot in it. Pre-atomic chemistry had a multitude of theories on why elements bonded. These theories worked and were testable, except as time passed special cases arose where they did not, for these special theories were then used, which made it work. Much like Einstein's theories fixed Newton's problems. It turned out however, that the theories on why and how the elements were bonding were wrong. Likewise pre-DNA biology had many theories on cell reproduction. What do you think went on in biology between the discovery of the cell and the discovery of DNA? Do you think biologists were just happy sitting around waiting for DNA? Again, there were multiple theories on cell replacation and how growth was road-mapped. To a greater or lesser extent these theories worked, until new knowledge pushed them aside. Like pre-atomic physics, they were NOT simply built upon.
Concerning not being able to validate climatological theories:
Wrong. The theories involved are well validated.
Absolute hog wash. Climatologists don't know why the last ice age occurred, or why we came out of it. Yet you think they can validate their theories. Which one has been validated? The only possible testing they have is computer modeling, which isn't shown to work on any observable time period even for much smaller areas. I doubt that you would fly in an airplane that had never been flown, never had a systems check, never been put in a wind tunnel, but had passed computer modeling. And that's not even a fair comparison, because the data points in mechanical, electrical, and aeronautical science are rock solid compared to climatology.
I said I didn't know what you were talking about. That's it. Where I did say you were wrong, you were.
"Pre-atomic chemistry had a multitude of theories on why elements bonded."
They're not theory, they were erroneous hypothesis.
"These theories worked and were testable"
None did.
"It turned out however, that the theories on why and how the elements were bonding were wrong."
You wrote this after I told you what a theory was. You still have failed to grasp what the word means, because you're still using the word improperly.
"Likewise pre-DNA biology had many theories on cell reproduction. "
Ditto, improperly!
" Absolute hog wash. Climatologists don't know why the last ice age occurred, or why we came out of it."
Irrelevant. The theories regard the physics, not a model of an event, or the details of any particular event at all.
"Which one has been validated?"
Thermodynamics, statistical mechanics, those in fluid mechanics... ect.
"the data points in mechanical, electrical, and aeronautical science are rock solid compared to climatology."
data points? The physical theories are the same!
Its hard to find the older forecasts. You can find them on the Internet in residual articles, but you have to be careful because they always keep updating their forecasts throughout the season. Also they like to model previous seasons in attempt to find a model that will appear to have a track record. So the pre-season forecasts are the ones I'm talking about.
My nineteen years of experience in Florida has been that they are wrong as much as they are right and I'm just talking about being in the ball park (above average, average, below average number of storms).
You claim to be a master of scientific definitions, but show no sense that you are misapplying them.
Tell you what, as you are so certain of climatology, take your money and go to Vegas when the December forecast for the next Hurricane season comes out. Place all your money on them being correct within a 10% margin of error.
I have a theory that you'll be walking home, and at least my theory is testable.
If that was the case, then you could show how that was so.
"Tell you what, as you are so certain of climatology, take your money and go to Vegas when the December forecast for the next Hurricane season comes out. Place all your money on them being correct within a 10% margin of error."
You understand the theories behind the models, what the models are capable of, or statistical nature of the processes involved.
" I have a theory that you'll be walking home, and at least my theory is testable."
You still don't know what the word theory means.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.