I love pure science because I love the truth

[Michie]

In an age when almost everything has been politicized, pure science is hard to find.

Continued below.
I Love Pure Science Because I Love the Truth

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

In an age when almost everything has been politicized, pure science is hard to find.

Continued below.
I Love Pure Science Because I Love the Truth

But the words used in that article seem to indicate the writer reserves the right to doubt no matter what the evidence.

The idea that global warming, for example, is settled science, seems to be something the writer is especially willing to reject.

And so we go about fulfilling, ourselves, the scripture about our earth being tormented with heat.

Rev 16:8-9 The fourth angel poured out his bowl upon the sun, and it was given to it to scorch men with fire.
Men were scorched with fierce heat; and they blasphemed the name of God who has the power over these plagues, and they did not repent so as to give Him glory.
NASU

 

[MoonlessNight]

My thesis adviser told me that he got into Mathematics because, since he grew up in a communist nation, it was the only place where you could seek what was true and not what the government approved of. Even the sciences were highly politicized, and what the communist party liked meant far more than what your experiments said.

We've gotten to the point in our country were science is being politicized to a more and more similar extent. This partially happened because the methods used in so many disciplines are junk to begin with (statistical methods in particular are often used incorrectly, and there is very little push for repeating of experiments anywhere) which allowed junk political science to share the stage even before it was actively being pushed for. Now that most researchers are aware of how to cheat on their experiments, even if they don't really consider what they are doing cheating, there is very little incentive to actually find truth and lots of incentive to do what will make the people giving you grants happy, or what will give you social standing among your colleagues.

I think about my adviser's words on mathematics more and more. So far that discipline at least has held pretty firm, largely because it is much harder to introduce junk methods and get away with it. But I have also seen initiatives such as "teaching Calculus with a heavy focus on sustainability issues" as well as many variations where "sustainability" is replaced by some other buzzword that has very little to do with mathematics as such (such as "diversity" or "social justice" or "combating racism") and I wonder if even mathematics can stand up in the long run.

 

[MoonlessNight]

But the words used in that article seem to indicate the writer reserves the right to doubt no matter what the evidence.

The idea that global warming, for example, is settled science, seems to be something the writer is especially willing to reject.

In the classical development of science, the idea of "settled science" is contrary to the whole discipline. Philosophers of science have repeatedly noted that it is impossible for science to definitively prove anything, since the same experimental results will always be consistent with a large number of competing theories. Indeed historically we have seen many seemingly certain results overturned by later scientific developments, a famous example being how Newtonian physics breaks down at the subatomic level.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

In the classical development of science, the idea of "settled science" is contrary to the whole discipline. Philosophers of science have repeatedly noted that it is impossible for science to definitively prove anything, since the same experimental results will always be consistent with a large number of competing theories. Indeed historically we have seen many seemingly certain results overturned by later scientific developments, a famous example being how Newtonian physics breaks down at the subatomic level.

So I'm told to watch for the total eclipse on August 21 and the exact time and place to be. How much doubt should I have about that prediction? I'd hate to waste my money on the travel necessary. Of course, it worked out perfectly the one other time I traveled to see the eclipse.

 

[Michie]

Fr. Pope:

"In the past week I've been treated to two sets of marchers, who's signs largely indicated that if you disagree or even question their views, you are "anti-science." Despite its name, the "March for Science" looked and sounded more like a political march. The participants were decidedly partisan and expressed profound unhappiness with our sitting president. The second march was about climate change. The message here was similar: if you disagree with any of the policy demands you are a "denier"; you are rejecting "settled science."

Hmmm..."settled science"....what an odd notion!

 

[MoonlessNight]

So I'm told to watch for the total eclipse on August 21 and the exact time and place to be. How much doubt should I have about that prediction? I'd hate to waste my money on the travel necessary. Of course, it worked out perfectly the one other time I traveled to see the eclipse.

Why do you have such faith in astronomical predictions? Because the models used to predict them have proven accurate in predicting a huge number of past events.

That is, they have been well tested by the method of predicting future data, retesting, and verifying that the prediction worked.

Now, even our astronomical models could be flawed. Indeed, there was nothing that showed the Ptolemaic model to be incorrect until the phases of Venus were discovered, and it too made a huge number of correct predictions over the centuries. We have refined the model since then so we trust it more in at least the areas where it has proved reliable, allowing for future refinements if necessary.

But note that you have chosen a model that is the culmination of literal centuries of revisions. You are using this model to imply that we should put forth the same amount of trust in current climate models. Models which are far newer than the astronomical models, and which have fared far worse in tests. Indeed, every time the predictions of our climate models have been compared to actual data found after the predictions, they have consistently predicted higher temperatures than what has actually occurred. If the models had been revised in response to these failures we might have some more trust in them, but largely they have not. Instead effort has been focused on figuring out what went wrong with the world to make it disagree with the predictions (be that in the form of hidden temperatures, government regulations slowing climate change, or whatever else). Of course, since the models were meant to predict the climate in the very world that we live in, such after the fact arguments do little to shore up confidence.

And that's without even getting into the fact that it's much easier to confirm astronomical predictions in the first place. What I mean is this: if you are told there will be an eclipse, you can simply watch for it, and see if it happens. It either will or it won't. But what can you personally do to verify the current global average temperature? Even if you had access to literally every thermometer in the world, you'd still have a huge part of the Earth's surface unaccounted for, necessitating a model to guess the current temperature. That means that your model's predictions aren't checked against a reality, but rather a second model. But how can we be sure that the second model is accurate?

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Why do you have such faith in astronomical predictions? Because the models used to predict them have proven accurate in predicting a huge number of past events.

That is, they have been well tested by the method of predicting future data, retesting, and verifying that the prediction worked.

Now, even our astronomical models could be flawed. Indeed, there was nothing that showed the Ptolemaic model to be incorrect until the phases of Venus were discovered, and it too made a huge number of correct predictions over the centuries. We have refined the model since then so we trust it more in at least the areas where it has proved reliable, allowing for future refinements if necessary.

But note that you have chosen a model that is the culmination of literal centuries of revisions. You are using this model to imply that we should put forth the same amount of trust in current climate models. Models which are far newer than the astronomical models, and which have fared far worse in tests. Indeed, every time the predictions of our climate models have been compared to actual data found after the predictions, they have consistently predicted higher temperatures than what has actually occurred. If the models had been revised in response to these failures we might have some more trust in them, but largely they have not. Instead effort has been focused on figuring out what went wrong with the world to make it disagree with the predictions (be that in the form of hidden temperatures, government regulations slowing climate change, or whatever else). Of course, since the models were meant to predict the climate in the very world that we live in, such after the fact arguments do little to shore up confidence.

And that's without even getting into the fact that it's much easier to confirm astronomical predictions in the first place. What I mean is this: if you are told there will be an eclipse, you can simply watch for it, and see if it happens. It either will or it won't. But what can you personally do to verify the current global average temperature? Even if you had access to literally every thermometer in the world, you'd still have a huge part of the Earth's surface unaccounted for, necessitating a model to guess the current temperature. That means that your model's predictions aren't checked against a reality, but rather a second model. But how can we be sure that the second model is accurate?

Well, of course, I only read what the scientists are telling me. But they report a definite rise in the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. They report a definite consequence from this in terms of how much heat will be retained. They report the climates are rising in temperature right on schedule. They have pictures of receding glaciers. There is no reason, therefore, to deny their predictions except . . . . wishful thinking.

But just for fun, in your own mind, what are the odds that the scientists predicting drastic global warming in the coming decades are correct? Zero? Only 25%? as much as 50%?

I put the odds they are correct at about 95 to 99 percent. Where do you put the odds they are correct?

 

[MoonlessNight]

Well, of course, I only read what the scientists are telling me. But they report a definite rise in the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. They report a definite consequence from this in terms of how much heat will be retained. They report the climates are rising in temperature right on schedule. They have pictures of receding glaciers. There is no reason, therefore, to deny their predictions except . . . . wishful thinking.

But just for fun, in your own mind, what are the odds that the scientists predicting drastic global warming in the coming decades are correct? Zero? Only 25%? as much as 50%?

I put the odds they are correct at about 95 to 99 percent. Where do you put the odds they are correct?

Considering, as I mentioned, that the models have already failed to accurately predict the temperature (being too warm nearly every time), you'd be a fool to have 99% confidence that they'll suddenly be right all the time in the future.

That is, unless you put a blind faith in scientists.

But even my faith in God is not a blind faith, but a faith based on His promises and actions in this world. I don't know why I'd put that much faith in any human.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Considering, as I mentioned, that the models have already failed to accurately predict the temperature (being too warm nearly every time), you'd be a fool to have 99% confidence that they'll suddenly be right all the time in the future.

That is, unless you put a blind faith in scientists.

But even my faith in God is not a blind faith, but a faith based on His promises and actions in this world. I don't know why I'd put that much faith in any human.

Global warming is right on schedule.

Climate Computer Models Right After All: What Global Warming Hiatus?

 

[MoonlessNight]

Global warming is right on schedule.

Climate Computer Models Right After All: What Global Warming Hiatus?

They fixed the problem by creating new models. It may be that these new models are accurate and finally the predictions will be correct. But we do not know whether they are more accurate at the moment. They are new, and as such the new predictions have not yet been tested.

But, you may say, these new models now fit the data that we already know. True, but it is well known that fitting known data does not guarantee accuracy in future predictions (and indeed, overfitting old data can sometimes lead to worse predictions, most blatantly when an exact polynomial fit is used). Look at it this way: the old models fit the previous data when they were made too, and yet (as the very article you link to notes) they didn't make accurate future predictions.

The only way to know whether these new models are more accurate is to wait and see if they suffer from a "hiatus" as well.

I should note, however, that the title of that article is blatantly false. The researchers made new adjustments to create a new model, so even if the new models are correct, that doesn't somehow make the old models correct. In fact, the data is clear that the old models were wrong after all, the only question is whether our new models can avoid the same mistakes.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

They fixed the problem by creating new models. It may be that these new models are accurate and finally the predictions will be correct. But we do not know whether they are more accurate at the moment. They are new, and as such the new predictions have not yet been tested.

But, you may say, these new models now fit the data that we already know. True, but it is well known that fitting known data does not guarantee accuracy in future predictions (and indeed, overfitting old data can sometimes lead to worse predictions, most blatantly when an exact polynomial fit is used). Look at it this way: the old models fit the previous data when they were made too, and yet (as the very article you link to notes) they didn't make accurate future predictions.

The only way to know whether these new models are more accurate is to wait and see if they suffer from a "hiatus" as well.

I should note, however, that the title of that article is blatantly false. The researchers made new adjustments to create a new model, so even if the new models are correct, that doesn't somehow make the old models correct. In fact, the data is clear that the old models were wrong after all, the only question is whether our new models can avoid the same mistakes.

OK the one thing I asked you for that you have not provided is your estimate of the odds that the scientists are right about global warming. I'm pretty sure you want to give that a low number . . . is it all the way down to zero for you, or would you give it something like 25 or 30 percent chance?

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

OK the one thing I asked you for that you have not provided is your estimate of the odds that the scientists are right about global warming. I'm pretty sure you want to give that a low number . . . is it all the way down to zero for you, or would you give it something like 25 or 30 percent chance?

They fixed the problem by creating new models. It may be that these new models are accurate and finally the predictions will be correct. But we do not know whether they are more accurate at the moment. They are new, and as such the new predictions have not yet been tested.

But, you may say, these new models now fit the data that we already know. True, but it is well known that fitting known data does not guarantee accuracy in future predictions (and indeed, overfitting old data can sometimes lead to worse predictions, most blatantly when an exact polynomial fit is used). Look at it this way: the old models fit the previous data when they were made too, and yet (as the very article you link to notes) they didn't make accurate future predictions.

The only way to know whether these new models are more accurate is to wait and see if they suffer from a "hiatus" as well.

I should note, however, that the title of that article is blatantly false. The researchers made new adjustments to create a new model, so even if the new models are correct, that doesn't somehow make the old models correct. In fact, the data is clear that the old models were wrong after all, the only question is whether our new models can avoid the same mistakes.

Hey, I've asked you to put your estimate of the chances that scientists are correct in asserting global warming is a real problem, and you have not done so. And it seems to me you are acting, effectively, as if the odds that the scientists are correct is properly set at zero.

And this to me is . . . irrational.

 

[MoonlessNight]

Hey, I've asked you to put your estimate of the chances that scientists are correct in asserting global warming is a real problem, and you have not done so. And it seems to me you are acting, effectively, as if the odds that the scientists are correct is properly set at zero.

And this to me is . . . irrational.

I've given you all the reasons why I do not trust certain areas of modern science, and what I would need to see to trust them again.

Because I have not given you an arbitrary number, you conclude that all of that discussion is irrelevant and that I am acting irrationally. Note that my actual reasons have nothing to do with whether you think I am acting irrationally, only the fact that I haven't given you a magical number.

In fact, I could make up a number with absolutely no thought put into it, and then, since you would have a number to work with, I would no longer be "irrational" in your eyes.

Isn't that absurd? What matters are reasons, not numbers. Most things can't be quantified. Even when things can be quantified, the numbers often don't give us much information. They certainly don't get us more information than the logical arguments that led to the numbers themselves.

That's why I haven't given you a number: because doing so would be redundant and pointless since you've seen the exact reasons for my position already. If you have a monomania that prevents you from interacting with an argument unless arbitrary numbers have been assigned, then I can't help you.