| Previous :: Next Topic |
| Author |
Message |
Randito
Snarky Member
Joined: 27 Jul 2008
Posts: 9513 | TRs | Pics
Location: Bellevue at the moment. |
|
Randito
Snarky Member
|
 Wed Sep 06, 2017 12:21 pm |
|
|
Seems that
A) The goat is never mistaken.
B) The goat doesn't understand what scientific consensus means.
|
| Back to top |
  
|
|
MtnGoat
Member
Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11992 | TRs | Pics
Location: Lyle, WA |
|
MtnGoat
Member
|
Wed Sep 06, 2017 12:29 pm |
|
|
Seems that :
1) Randy hiker cannot present a single statement from me making claim #1
2) He cannot admit what 'consensus' is intentionally abused for.
Consensus is not evidence. It doesn't increase the likely hood that any particular claim is correct. In fact it's history is one of near total failure when its examined closely. The need to even attempt to use it as any kind of argument or factor shows how weak the larger claims are.
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Randito
Snarky Member
Joined: 27 Jul 2008
Posts: 9513 | TRs | Pics
Location: Bellevue at the moment. |
|
Randito
Snarky Member
|
Wed Sep 06, 2017 12:57 pm |
|
|
| MtnGoat wrote: | | Seems that :
1) Randy hiker cannot present a single statement from me making claim #1
2) He cannot admit what 'consensus' is intentionally abused for.
Consensus is not evidence. It doesn't increase the likely hood that any particular claim is correct. In fact it's history is one of near total failure when its examined closely. The need to even attempt to use it as any kind of argument or factor shows how weak the larger claims are. |
I believe you just proved my point B.
Scientific consensus is almost always "wrong" or inconplete in the long run. For example for centuries the scientific consensus was that the solar system was earth centric, until Copernicus came up with his heliocentric circular model that provided a better model for performing calculation that fit the observational data. However later more precise observations lead to Kepler's elliptical model of planitory mechanics. Which worked really well for every planet, except Mercury. Einstein's general relativity allows for a model that very precisely predicts Mercury's orbit.
So scientific consensus is sometimes quite wrong and almost always isn't the complete picture.
However the scientific method is to use the best available model/theory -- until someone comes up with a newer model that provides better predictions to fit the observational data.
The current scientific consensus is very strongly with human greenhouse gas emissions are affecting the climate in ways that will have negative effects on the community of life and on the economy.
The scientific consensus might be incorrect and it certainty is an incomplete picture, but its is up to those with an alternate theory to present evidence for their model that makes better predictions in order to shift the scientific consensus.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MtnGoat
Member
Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11992 | TRs | Pics
Location: Lyle, WA |
|
MtnGoat
Member
|
Wed Sep 06, 2017 1:48 pm |
|
|
| RandyHiker wrote: | | I believe you just proved my point B.
Scientific consensus is almost always "wrong" or inconplete in the long run. For example for centuries the scientific consensus was that the solar system was earth centric, until Copernicus came up with his heliocentric circular model that provided a better model for performing calculation that fit the observational data. However later more precise observations lead to Kepler's elliptical model of planitory mechanics. Which worked really well for every planet, except Mercury. Einstein's general relativity allows for a model that very precisely predicts Mercury's orbit.
So scientific consensus is sometimes quite wrong and almost always isn't the complete picture.
However the scientific method is to use the best available model/theory -- until someone comes up with a newer model that provides better predictions to fit the observational data.
The current scientific consensus is very strongly with human greenhouse gas emissions are affecting the climate in ways that will have negative effects on the community of life and on the economy.
The scientific consensus might be incorrect and it certainty is an incomplete picture, but its is up to those with an alternate theory to present evidence for their model that makes better predictions in order to shift the scientific consensus. |
I don't see how that's possible, since little you've posted conflicts with arguments I've made.
Until noting how consensus is wrong you then 'however' it into acting as evidence regardless of what you've admitted about all it's failures. And these are of course the reasons that consensus is not evidence.
There is no requirement in science to present an alternative theory in order to argue an existing one is wrong. And we can know an existing one is wrong on it's arguments alone...such as using models as 'evidence' and having nothing other than correlation = causation as more 'evidence'.
Noting these facts is actual evidence of the epistemological type..when science is abused in order to create arguments, those arguments are flawed. No need for a replacement theory.
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Randito
Snarky Member
Joined: 27 Jul 2008
Posts: 9513 | TRs | Pics
Location: Bellevue at the moment. |
|
Randito
Snarky Member
|
Wed Sep 06, 2017 2:37 pm |
|
|
| MtnGoat wrote: | | There is no requirement in science to present an alternative theory in order to argue an existing one is wrong |
Good confirmation that the Goat doesn't understand the scientific method.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MtnGoat
Member
Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11992 | TRs | Pics
Location: Lyle, WA |
|
MtnGoat
Member
|
Wed Sep 06, 2017 2:49 pm |
|
|
| RandyHiker wrote: | | Good confirmation that the Goat doesn't understand the scientific method. |
Where does the method *require* an alternate theory to show another one to be false? It does not. Your theory is wrong for X reason is perfectly sufficient. Your 'theory Y must replace theory X' argument is a strawman.
For example, numerous experiments set up to measure the existence of the luminiferous aether through which light 'waved' (a medium for travel of the waves) failed to show it's presence.
There was no alternate theory required to show the aether theory was false. It was shown to be false anyway.
You're arguing a fake metric be applied, which presents insupportable barriers to finding problems with AGW arguments. No alternate is required, any more than I must have an alternate answer (other than *wrong*) when I find a math error in a colleagues work.
Tell us again who doesn't understand the scientific method. It's very illuminating, but not in a way which favors your arguments.
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gb
Member
Joined: 01 Jul 2010
Posts: 6310 | TRs | Pics
|
|
gb
Member
|
Wed Sep 06, 2017 3:00 pm |
|
|
| MtnGoat wrote: | | There is no requirement in science to present an alternative theory in order to argue an existing one is wrong. |
Don't pretend to be a scientist. Science is not on your side.
It is not possible or productive to take your pointless comments seriously. They reflect no knowledge of science; just an argumentative nature and an uniformed opinion.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MtnGoat
Member
Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11992 | TRs | Pics
Location: Lyle, WA |
|
MtnGoat
Member
|
Wed Sep 06, 2017 3:08 pm |
|
|
| gb wrote: | | Don't pretend to be a scientist. Science is not on your side.
It is not possible or productive to take your pointless comments seriously. They reflect no knowledge of science. |
I don't need to pretend to have the white robes of inscrutable post modern pseudo religion, in which only the anointed can read the holy runes and translate them for the masses.
I merely need to apply arguments which are testable.
Which should make it easy to show the factual errors in them. But of course, that's beneath you or too much trouble, or not productive, right?
In my experience with the pseudoscience of AGW, any time a skeptic *can* be shown in error it occurs instantly and very loudly, and when they cannot actually be shown to be in error, the claims that it's not worth it to do so take over, just as vehemently.
Make your claims, sure. But making excuses for how wrong I am when you can't show it, that's just fun. I really enjoy the kind of critiques you're coming up with. "You're wrong but it's not worth it to prove it".
Fact is, you can't. IF you could, you'd find it worthwhile.
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Randito
Snarky Member
Joined: 27 Jul 2008
Posts: 9513 | TRs | Pics
Location: Bellevue at the moment. |
|
Randito
Snarky Member
|
Wed Sep 06, 2017 3:40 pm |
|
|
| MtnGoat wrote: | | For example, numerous experiments set up to measure the existence of the luminiferous aether through which light 'waved' (a medium for travel of the waves) failed to show it's presence.
There was no alternate theory required to show the aether theory was false. It was shown to be false anyway. |
An excellent example that supports my point, because the luminiferous aether didn't really fall out of serious consideration until Einstein published his Special Relativity paper and provided a theory/model that better explained/predicted observational data without using the concept luminiferous aether.
Many experiments failed to confirm the presence luminiferous aether prior to that, but the idea didn't completely lose scientific interest until a better theory came along.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
trestle
Member
Joined: 17 Aug 2008
Posts: 2093 | TRs | Pics
Location: the Oly Pen |
|
trestle
Member
|
Wed Sep 06, 2017 3:54 pm |
|
|
| MtnGoat wrote: | | There is no requirement in science to present an alternative theory in order to argue an existing one is wrong. |
The wording in this statement might be a little awkward and unspecific but it's not incorrect, as written.
"Life favors the prepared." - Edna Mode
"Life favors the prepared." - Edna Mode
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Randito
Snarky Member
Joined: 27 Jul 2008
Posts: 9513 | TRs | Pics
Location: Bellevue at the moment. |
|
Randito
Snarky Member
|
Wed Sep 06, 2017 4:46 pm |
|
|
| trestle wrote: | | MtnGoat wrote: | | There is no requirement in science to present an alternative theory in order to argue an existing one is wrong. |
The wording in this statement might be a little awkward and unspecific but it's not incorrect, as written. |
Yes, however there is a wide gulf between "not incorrect" and "useful" or "persuasive".
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gb
Member
Joined: 01 Jul 2010
Posts: 6310 | TRs | Pics
|
|
gb
Member
|
Wed Sep 06, 2017 6:39 pm |
|
|
| MtnGoat wrote: | | I really enjoy the kind of critiques you're coming up with. "You're wrong but it's not worth it to prove it". |
Exactly, you've hit the nail on the head for once. Your pseudoscience - it's a stretch to call it that - it's all BS - it's not worth engaging with your track of erroneous statements.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
drm
Member
Joined: 24 Feb 2007
Posts: 1376 | TRs | Pics
Location: The Dalles, OR |
|
drm
Member
|
Wed Sep 06, 2017 7:51 pm |
|
|
A scientific consensus is evidence of evidence. The consensus exists because enough scientists were convinced by the underlying evidence. We live in a world almost defined by specialization. Most of us trust experts of one type or another on a regular basis. We may choose to get second or third opinions, but we are still trusting experts. Although it is great for an individual to choose to dive into something and learn about it, talk to any doctor about people who have decided what their diagnosis is, or what the treatment needs to be, by reading on their own.
Note that I didn't say a consensus is absolute proof of accuracy, it is evidence of evidence, enough evidence. While doubters like to point to cases where a consensus ended up being wrong, sometimes centuries ago, most scientifically-based consensi (I had to look up the plural of consensus!) are solid and will not be overturned.
And the bottom line is that where public policy is involved, what else should we use? Should policy-makers ignore that consensus for some reason? And trust what instead? Do you really want policy-makers replacing a scientific consensus by spending some time reading on their own? Some guy on the internet who says he read it all? Are bureaucrats and politicians more qualified to decide than scientists on such issues? Lots of public policy needs to be made with less than perfect information. It's one thing to debate some abstraction of cosmology or black holes that has no effect on anybody or anything. But where the issue does affect people and policy, I can't see any better alternative than using scientific consensus where it exists and is relevant. The US National Academy of Sciences was signed into law by Abraham Lincoln to provide just such utility to Federal policy-makers, and the consensus of the NAS panels that have studied this, and of scientific academies the world over on this issue, let alone of individual climate scientists, is about as solid as consensus gets for such an issue.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
drm
Member
Joined: 24 Feb 2007
Posts: 1376 | TRs | Pics
Location: The Dalles, OR |
|
drm
Member
|
Wed Sep 06, 2017 8:01 pm |
|
|
| trestle wrote: | | MtnGoat wrote: | | There is no requirement in science to present an alternative theory in order to argue an existing one is wrong. |
The wording in this statement might be a little awkward and unspecific but it's not incorrect, as written. |
While it isn't required, in cases where the cause of some phenomenon, in this case a changing climate, is involved, it certainly can help. As far as we know, the current interglacial should be ending and we should be starting the very, very slow cooling process for the next glaciation, not getting into a hyper warming phase.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thunderhead
Member
Joined: 14 Oct 2015
Posts: 1519 | TRs | Pics
|
Funny how some people claim to love evidence until they run away when the evidence disagrees with them. Evidence that the planet is warming, of course, is not evidence that the world will end tomorrow, or that every weather event, no matter how normal, is tied to global warming.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
