Skunk Power!

[markhudson6 13]

Hi guys, I think this discussion is getting a little bogged down in semantics. 

 

It reminds me of the problem were you have the scientific definition of ‘Theory’ and the general English language usage of the word.  Nothing is as bad as that awful phrase you come across from time to time, “It’s just a theory” when discussing science.  The two definitions could not be more different.

 

I think this is happening when we are attempting to differentiate between sceptic as a scientific term and it’s use in general English.  

 

The way I think about it is this.  In science every good scientist is sceptical of everything 100% of the time, irrespective of whether a Theory has formed a consensus or not.  A good scientist must always remain objective, or sceptical of everything.  I don’t recognise terms like “permanent” or “initial” scepticism Martin, but I can see where you got that impression.

 

A good example is the time when physicists collected data that appeared to show they had detected neutrinos travelling faster than light.  I’m sure everybody involved in the research knew something was probably wrong.  The head of the research team also advised “caution’, but they were good scientists.  They published because they needed the scientific community to check their work as they couldn’t find a problem.  We know what happened next, but those scientists should be applauded for maintaining their objectivity.  They never let their personal bias cloud their work, they were open to new information possibly overturning the current consensus of special relativity and were prepared to be sniggered at, they still published despite of this.

 

Scientists must always remain sceptical irrespective of personal belief.  They must always be prepared to change their mind on a theory as new information comes to light no matter how passionate they may be personally.  There is no room in science for emotion or personal prejudice.  If evidence comes to light tomorrow that overturns the current thinking they will flip to the other side in a heartbeat, accept they are wrong and move on.

 

So a scientist must always remain a sceptic.  A scientist not convinced by the current consensus should probably be termed an ‘unconvinced sceptic’, (rubbish term I know, feel free to come up with something better) someone who is waiting on more or better data to form their own personal opinion.  This, however, should never be an emotional decision, objectivity is crucial.

 

This is the major problem when it comes to some scientists involved in climate change research.  They allowed emotions to cloud their work.  They believed in the problem of MMGW so much that they justified exaggerating/hiding some of the work in order to sway policy thinkers.  This has caused damage to the underlying message, which currently is sound.  This emotive approach however has provided ammunition for denialists and rightly caused concern amongst ‘unconvinced sceptics’ that the actual science doesn’t currently warrant.

 

This is where the IPCC committee and the reports have become tainted.  The IPCC reports are NOT scientific papers.  This has allowed the emotive language to seep into the science and distract from it’s core message.  The report is in essence a overview of the current science distilled down for politicians and policy makers.  Some scientist have wrongly believed that this is a good opportunity to drop their objectivity for the ‘greater good’, very bad.  

 

This is why, in my opinion, the fact Prof. Toll walked out of the IPCC is totally irrelevant to the core science of MMGW.  He is an economist.  He had opinions on the economics of MMGW that were different to his peers, he accused them of over inflating the economic impact of climate change, not the current Theory itself.  He may have a point, especially due to the IPCC’s history in respect to sensationalism but as economics is not a Science it’s just one mans opinion and he was out voted.  I hope Kasper will throw more light on this matter, I'm interested in what Toll's work had to say and exactly what he believes his colleagues were exaggerating, the IPCC do have a track record for this after all.   

 

As for a denialist,  they have no place in the debate.  They are cranks that have formed an opinion irrespective of facts based purely on their own world view and can be ignored and safely binned as a denialists stance will never change.

 

Kindest Regards,

 

M.

 

I have my own views on climate change. .... but I am buggered if I am going to air them here    

It seems like too much hard work!

 

 

 

Come on John, don’t be shy.  

 

[J G 927]

Not shy, just lazy, and besides, Brett has said it all.

[markhudson6 13]

  I agree with you John.  This subject is defiantly not everybody’s cup of tea, but some people find it interesting and everybody is free to have an opinion or ignore it as they see fit.  As long as it stays civil and nobody gets upset it's good to chip in.  Brett's post was very timely, the last thing anybody wants is a slanging match.

[MartinW 0]

The way I think about it is this. In science every good scientist is sceptical of everything 100% of the time, irrespective of whether a Theory has formed a consensus or not. A good scientist must always remain objective, or sceptical of everything. I don’t recognise terms like “permanent” or “initial” scepticism Martin, but I can see where you got that impression.

 

I'm not sure I agree totally to be honest Mark, 100% of the time no. Remain objective, yes I agree, 100% of the time. 

 

Scientific scepticism is a way of thinking that is embodied in the scientific method.

 

Scientific scepticism:

Scientific scepticism, is the practice of questioning whether claims are supported by empirical research and have reproducibility, as part of a methodological norm pursuing "the extension of certified knowledge".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_scepticism

 

 

According to the definition above, once a claim is supported by empirical research and reproducible, and a consensus formed, scepticism no longer applies. The scientists in question wouldn't be questioning it.  New research, yes, scepticism should apply. Old previously accepted research, yes, if new information comes to light, casting it in doubt.

 

 

 

Scientific skeptics believe that empirical investigation of reality leads to the truth, and that the scientific method is best suited to this purpose. Considering the rigor of the scientific method, science itself may simply be thought of as an organized form of skepticism. This does not mean that the scientific skeptic is necessarily a scientist who conducts live experiments (though this may be the case), but that the skeptic generally accepts claims that are in his/her view likely to be true based on testable hypotheses and critical thinking.

Scientific skeptics attempt to evaluate claims based on verifiability and falsifiability and discourage accepting claims on faith or anecdotal evidence. Skeptics often focus their criticism on claims they consider to be implausible, dubious or clearly contradictory to generally accepted science. Scientific skeptics do not assert that unusual claims should be automatically rejected out of hand on a priori grounds - rather they argue that claims of paranormal or anomalous phenomena should be critically examined and that extraordinary claims would require extraordinary evidence in their favor before they could be accepted as having validity.

 

 

according to the above, claims are "accepted" once  they are likely to be true based on testable hypothesis and critical thinking. Clearly you wouldn't be sceptical if it was accepted.

 

Thus my use of the term "initial" scepticism. I meant of course, the application of the scientific method, of which scepticism is a part, until supported by empirical research and reproducible.

 

So given that the above applies to the 1000 peer reviewed papers on climate change, they should be accepted as having validity... unless new data casts them in doubt.

 

Probably what you mean is... a good scientist should always be ready to reapply the scientific method, of which scepticism is embodied in, if new information casts doubt on their old research.

 

 

The above definition of sceptical, is of course completely different to the definition of the word by the man in the street. Any online dictionary would define it as "a person who often doubts things". And they often do so of course, whether they have a valid reason to or not. I would say to the man in the street, fine, apply the layman's definition of scepticism, "initially" until the research is replicated, and verified.

 

 

 

[J G 927]

[MartinW 0]

Mark and I never fight. We love each other.

[markhudson6 13]

Martin damed you Sir, I challenge you to a duel. 

 

Bloody Wikipedia, I hold my hands up and admit I’ve got that wrong but it still feels right to me even though it’s not, defeated by my own semantics. 

 

Kindest Regards,

 

M.

 

  

[MartinW 0]

I got my revenge there for my Lorentz contraction balls up a while back Mark.

It's now 1 - 1 Mark.

Hehe.

[Kasper 14]

Mark, you can say the things I want to say much more eloquent than I can.

The discussion of Tol's opinions is something I try very hard to stay clear of. The leaving of a lead writer of an IPCC chapter in itself is cause for pause.

If I get into the argument of Tol's opinions I stand a good chance to be seen as his defender (which I am not) and to spend a lot of time (which I don't really have available at the moment).

 

Sorry Martin but I have to disagree ..

I was trained in the spirit of Karl Popper. The only real science is based on falsification and there is no real truth other than truths that have been falsified (thus negative true). Everything else is a hypothesis which we accept as apparently true - for now, and while we still try to falsify it.

Unfortunately the Wikipedia version of scepticism is now more popular, even in the scientific community. This will probably lead to less progress since challenging the obvious is no longer supported as a scientific endeavor. .

As you state "once a claim is supported by empirical research and reproducible, and a consensus formed, scepticism no longer applies.". Where this apparently is seen as a good thing it actually scares me.

 

 

[markhudson6 13]

I got my revenge there for my Lorentz contraction balls up a while back Mark.

 

 

 

 

Kasper, The philosophy of science.  That came from left field tonight.    

 

Hi Kasper, I never thought I would hear Karl Popper’s name ‘pop’ up on this thread or any other forum for that matter, we must have shared the same Prof's at Uni.  His idea of ‘Critical Rationalism’ came up from time to time in class, I guess i’m more intrenched in that way of thinking than I realised despite the beer diet. 

 

I agree with Martin and held my hands up in defeat because modern science has shied away from Popper’s way of thinking.  Technically Martin is right,  but I don’t know why.   I personally believe Popper’s method is the right method but for what ever reason, and I am not very knowledgeable about philosophy, modern science on the whole disagrees with us. (don’t loose heart, read on) 

 

I agree with you that irrespective of a consensus nothing can be truly proven, nothing in scientific theory is 100% true.  It’s an ongoing, evolving development of knowledge that is only ever over when we know ‘everything’ and we are a long way off from that.  Crucially, if their is no current way a scientific theory can be disproven then scepticism is the ultimate guide and the theory must be held in high suspicion, but not necessarily dismissed.  Let's face it, I could claim anything as a theory, a mathematical paradigm that you would have no chance in hell of disproving using current technology, string theory for example.  

 

I concede their is a balance that can be struck between the two ideologies as long as it’s NOT a financial one.  (Personal Opinion Alert!!!) - I have the suspicion that the alternative is just more cost effective, not necessarily better.  Think about it, don't spend too much money on that research, it's pretty much sorted.  That type of thinking will bite you on the bum one day.  Remember, science research isn't just about MMGW or cosmology, it's about aircraft design, Virgin space planes and chemicals that are released into our environment. (My Job)

 

To be honest I would not let the situation scare or worry you too much.  There are more of us out there than you realise.  Two quick examples are Dr Lawrence Krauss.  He is a theoretical physicist who routinely lambasts his good friend Prof. Brian Greene by declaring M theory as NOT a theory on the basis that it cannot be falsified no matter how enticing it’s predictions are.  He just refers to it as ‘fancy math’.  And the UK physicist Prof. Brian Cox who, even though he is a humanist and claims he can scientifically prove the non existence of an after life (with a fridge freezer and a thermometer, I would love to see that lecture) calls atheists arrogant, as science is currently unable to prove the non existence of god.  I know he doesn’t believe in god himself but he is in no position to dismiss the idea scientifically and is dismayed when scientist claim they know better e.g. Prof. Richard Dawkins. (big fan of his btw)  Their are positive signs that scientists out there think like we do.  

 

In reality I think their are prominent scientists on both sides of the fence, and the science, despite the conflicting philosophies (and let's be honest here, the differences are pretty marginal in the grand scheme of things) is balancing out.  (I really bloody hope so).

 

Don't worry about Toll, he doesn't matter.    

 

Kindest Regards,

 

M.

 

   

[ddavid 149]

Thanks for that, Mark. It's funny how a thread about fusion containment can shoot off into climate change, sk/cepticism, character assassination, statistical interpretation and forecasting, so forth, and end up discussing the philosophy of science. My rather pragmatic education (engineering) missed Popper completely - I'm only now realising that his arguments are close to my heart. If only today's scientific received wisdom included some acceptance of the need for testability and, potential falsification.

Cheers - Dai.

[MartinW 0]

 Technically Martin is right,  but I don’t know why.  

That's because he's a genius mark.    

And he's right, because if a scientist remained "permanently" sceptical of his own research, then he would never move on. He would be stuck in an endless cycle, a groundhog day where he was obliged to be constantly questioning whether his research was valid. So he accepts that it's supported by empirical research and has reproducibility and he moves on. However, a good scientist is always ready to reapply the scientific method and apply the necessary scientific scepticism if new evidence casts doubt on previous research. Same applies to the 1000 peer reviewed papers that suggest we "are" making a "significant" contribution to MMGW. The scientific community "on the whole" accepts the consensus and scepticism is no longer required. However, if new evidence comes to light, casting doubt on the premise, then you can be sure the previous body of research will be subjected to the scientific method, which embodies scepticism.

A perfectly suitable approach I would say.

 

I agree with you that irrespective of a consensus nothing can be truly proven, nothing in scientific theory is 100% true.

 

 

Correct! we may not even be composed of atoms, gravity may not exist, the immutable laws of physics may not be immutable at all, in fact vastly different then we believe. We may all be living in an artificial reality created by godlike aliens who constructed our artificial realm to fool us.

 

So no, science can never be 100% certain. However, what we can do is be sensible, realistic and consider "plausibility". If the chances of us being wrong are not very plausible, highly unlikely, then we have to move on, or we would never achieve anything. So no, we don't remain 100% sceptical "all the time", but we are ready to reapply our scientific scepticism if required.

 

Plausibility is vital in my view. We may not be 100% sure our understanding is 100% correct, but if a theory is plausible, testable, repeatable, then that's really all we need to move forward.

 

 

Dr Lawrence Krauss.  He is a theoretical physicist who routinely lambasts his good friend Prof. Brian Greene by declaring M theory as NOT a theory on the basis that it cannot be falsified no matter how enticing it’s predictions are.  He just refers to it as ‘fancy math’.

 

 

I'm not sure that's a good example though. M-Theory isn't proven, it's not even [at the moment] testable. So it's not in the same ballpark as testable, repeatable, verifiable research. Krauss is absolutely right to make those comments, but Krauss wouldn't feel the same about research that was "supported by empirical research and reproducible, and subsequently a consensus formed".

 

​It may well be that we find evidence for multiple dimension at the LHC, and it's conceivable that M-Theory will one day no longer be more like philosophy than science, and be supported by empirical research and reproducible. When that day comes, Krauss, and me, will jump up and down for joy.

 

 

calls atheists arrogant, as science is currently unable to prove the non existence of god.  I know he doesn’t believe in god himself but he is in no position to dismiss the idea scientifically and is dismayed when scientist claim they know better e.g. Prof. Richard Dawkins. (big fan of his btw)  Their are positive signs that scientists out there think like we do.   

 

 

Sorry Mark, I'm disagreeing again.       There aren't many [intelligent] atheists that claim 100% definitively that god doesn't exist. And no, Dawkins doesn't either. You are doing Dawkins a disservice there. You may remember our debates on religion over at JF, and recall that I made the comment that I'm 90% atheist, the other 10% remains because we can't definitively prove god doesn't exist... well Dawkins has been saying more or less the same for years. Dawkins tells us he is 9/10ths atheist, for the same reason. He has never claimed to be 100% certain that god doesn't exist. Again, it's down to plausibility.

[MartinW 0]

If only today's scientific received wisdom included some acceptance of the need for testability and, potential falsification.

 

 

 

It does. It's fundamental to the scientific method. 

[ddavid 149]

Martin, when did you last see a black hole?

Cheers - Dai.

[MartinW 0]

...when I looked at the speed of the gas orbiting those regions. The motion of the material whirring around that region told me the mass. The blaze of X-ray emissions of course, data that sort of thing, you get the picture. Complying with the predictions of general relativity. Tons of observational evidence in other words.

But don't be fooled into thinking scientists regard black holes as 100% verifiable fact. General relativity predicts such things, and we believe we have found very strong evidence, it's very likely we are right, that as far as it goes... It's the best explanation science currently has.

You don't have to see something to know it's there.

I should add, Professor Laura Mersini-Houghton claims she has proven that black holes don't exist. We know the gravitational effects in the region associated with black holes, so what she does think is there who knows. No doubt her theories will be subjected to the proper scrutiny. She claims she has mathematical proof, whether her maths is garbage remains to be seen.

[ddavid 149]

Which regions, Martin? And how did you measure the rotational velocity?

And, you say: "You don't have to see something to know it's there". So you 'believe' in black holes, then? Is cosmology starting to become more of a belief system for you? That's my point about testability - a hypothesis is nothing more than a guess if there is no way to disprove it.

Cheers - Dai.

[markhudson6 13]

Martin, it was just a little discourse about the philosophy of science.  Just a nice way of thinking about it, nothing more than that.  Do you seriously think i’m suggesting anything else?  

 

Popper’s idea of falsification can be a very powerful approach.  It’s a great way to solidify a theory when you can preform experiments to attack it at it’s core and see if the theory survives.  Some of the most successful theories in science have been tested in this way and it's one of the reasons why they are so successful.

 

As for my examples, I like them so bugger off. 

 

Kindest Regards,

 

M.

[MartinW 0]

Which regions, Martin? And how did you measure the rotational velocity?

Any region where a black hole is believed to exist, the centre of our galaxy if you like. As for how you measure rotational velocity, ask a scientist.

Is cosmology starting to become more of a belief system for you?

You mean like a religious belief, or a belief in god? In that case no, not at all. The belief in a deity is based on zero evidence, zilch. Science is based on objective evidence.

And, you say: "You don't have to see something to know it's there". So you 'believe' in black holes, then?

What I believe, is that there is a lot of good evidence to suggest that they exist. In fact we know black holes exist "figuratively" in terms of there being a region of space that emits no light, sucks in matter etc. We have Chandra images of them. But what you probably mean to ask is if our theories to explain their nature are correct. Well yes, science believes we are on the right track, lots more to learn though. But are scientists prepared to modify their theories based on new evidence, yes of course they are. Could it be we are "totally" wrong, yes we could be, unlikly but possible.

In fact most cosmologists would be utterly thrilled if their theories on black holes were wrong, it would be very exciting.

That's my point about testability - a hypothesis is nothing more than a guess if there is no way to disprove it.

Professor Laura Mersini-Houghton is claiming she has done just that. She will probably fail. But yes, she clearly believes she can disprove the notion.

[MartinW 0]

Martin, it was just a little discourse about the philosophy of science.  Just a nice way of thinking about it, nothing more than that.  Do you seriously think i’m suggesting anything else?  

 

Popper’s idea of falsification can be a very powerful approach.  It’s a great way to solidify a theory when you can preform experiments to attack it at it’s core and see if the theory survives.  Some of the most successful theories in science have been tested in this way and it's one of the reasons why they are so successful.

 

As for my examples, I like them so bugger off. 

 

Kindest Regards,

 

M.

 

 

 

Apologise to Richard Dawkins immediately! For he is the king of the atheists and deserves your servitude. 

[markhudson6 13]

Our Dawkin's, which art in Oxford,

Darwin be thy Name. 

 

 

 

[MartinW 0]

That's more like it Hudson. I'm very pleased.

[Kasper 14]

@Mark,

Much more eloquent like I said before!

The reason the idea scares me is because it is actually how Dutch scientific research now is funded. Universities are run by administrators and managers where once they were run by scientist. The highest goal is deliver as much graduated students as possible instead of deliver high quality science. The last couple of years government funding of scientific research is based on ROI instead of scientific value.

This approach has led to major problems and fraud - but the government and managers don't see that as a system failure because the consensus among the administrators and politicians is that the approach is good and efficient ..

So, very scary indeed of you believe in progress. Madame Curie or Albert Einstein would surely not be seen as a good investment.

 

@Martin,

Falsification is of course not something you keep doing to your own work. BUT it is the basic of your work and you accept something as a "workable truth", for now, until somebody disproves it.

So if I come up with an hypothesis I also try to come up with as many ways to disprove it as I can. Only after I have failed to disprove it I go to others and say: "I have this crazy idea, I can not disprove it but may be you can.".

If others also can not disprove it AND it is the most simple, plausible explanation for a phenomenon (Albert Einstein: "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." or Occam's razor - but I like Einstein better) then can the hypothesis be accepted as a "workable truth".

So I don't continue to try and falsify my own hypothesis (unless I think of something new) - I am going to try and falsify the hypothesis of somebody else. By each failure to disprove the hypothesis the hypothesis grows stronger - but should never be accepted as completely true.

 

If Einstein had accepted the plausible, testable, repeatable theories of the day we would not have had the relativity theory.

 

Correct! we may not even be composed of atoms, gravity may not exist, the immutable laws of physics may not be immutable at all, in fact vastly different then we believe. We may all be living in an artificial reality created by godlike aliens who constructed our artificial realm to fool us.

Now that would fall under Occam's razor and since it is not falsifiable can not be considered to be science.

 

 

 

 

[MartinW 0]

@Martin,

Falsification is of course not something you keep doing to your own work. BUT it is the basic of your work and you accept something as a "workable truth", for now, until somebody disproves it.

So if I come up with an hypothesis I also try to come up with as many ways to disprove it as I can. Only after I have failed to disprove it I go to others and say: "I have this crazy idea, I can not disprove it but may be you can.".

If others also can not disprove it AND it is the most simple, plausible explanation for a phenomenon (Albert Einstein: "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." or Occam's razor - but I like Einstein better) then can the hypothesis be accepted as a "workable truth".

So I don't continue to try and falsify my own hypothesis (unless I think of something new) - I am going to try and falsify the hypothesis of somebody else. By each failure to disprove the hypothesis the hypothesis grows stronger - but should never be accepted as completely true.

 

If Einstein had accepted the plausible, testable, repeatable theories of the day we would not have had the relativity theory.

 

Well yes, I agree in regard to challenging conventional wisdom. As we speak, Professor Laura Mersini-Houghton is challenging black hole theory. That happens all the time, scientists will take it upon themselves, if they can acquire the funding, to challenge conventional beliefs and that is vital, it is right that this occurs. Significant breakthroughs sometimes occur that way. But it’s extremely likely that Mersini-Houghton accepted conventional black hole theory until she one day had a flash of inspiration and was motivated to do the maths. So no, I doubt she was always a black hole theory sceptic. Thus, the scientific community will subject her paper to peer review, and her conclusions checked. Her maths will be scrutinized. If her paper has merit it will open a new line of research. What’s more likely though is that errors will be found and it will be rendered invalid.

You said, "Individual researchers accept their own work, as a workable truth". Well it seems you are confusing that term with a “workable hypothesis” which is defined as “a basis for further research in the hope that a tenable theory will emerge”. So yes, that does apply initially. However,  once a “tenable theory” emerges we have moved beyond a “workable truth/hypothesis. For example, Dawkins himself regards the theory of evolution as “fact”, “fact” because it’s a tenable theory, not a “working hypothesis”.

In regard to what began this debate, climate change, some aspects of climate science are indeed a “working hypothesis”. Other aspects of climate change though fall into the category of a “tenable theory” and are thus regarded as closer to fact, 100% definitively true, as we discussed earlier, is an impossibility in any field or walk of life.

So my opinion is that no, the scientific community as a whole or as an individual does not remain 100% sceptical all the time, in regard to the definition of “sceptical” I posted earlier. And the scientific community as a whole, or as an individual, does not cling to merely a “working hypothesis” all the time, we develop tenable theories that are as close to fact as we can realistically approach.

 

Now that would fall under Occam's razor and since it is not falsifiable can not be considered to be science.

 

 

Occam's Razor states: among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected. Other, more complicated solutions may ultimately prove correct, but—in the absence of certainty—the fewer assumptions that are made, the better.[/size]

 

I've highlighted the important bit in bold. More complicated solution's may ultimately be correct, and all of us living in a super beings artificial reality could be true for all we know. Unlikely perhaps but feasible.

 

No it's not science, we have zero data on it, zero evidence, so no it's not science. But then we had zero evidence for electromagnetic radiation, atoms, everything we take for granted at one time, so can't be dismissed. 

 

 

If Einstein had accepted the plausible, testable, repeatable theories of the day we would not have had the relativity theory.

 

 

He did accept "many" of the plausible testable repeatable theories of the day, it was new ground he bravely trod upon.

[Captain Coffee 2,030]

If we did all live in some super being's simulated reality, guaranteed that a few players would try to find a way to Game the system and steal all the loots.

[Kasper 14]

Martin he did challenge both Newton and Maxwell. No mean feat