Science is Real. - Page 6

Thanks for sharing.

I don't know.

I really don't have any thought or belief about it. Sorry that frustrates you. Perhaps you need a hobby.

No I wasn't. I have not viewed or read them.

Peak Farmland

Maybe all that nonorganic farming is actually good for mother earth?

So BR, how do you explain the following except by accepting Muhammad was God? 

This is an interesting attempt to quantify, in a reasonably defensible and definitive manner, the current state of opinion of within the field of climatology.

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

This is an interesting attempt to quantify, in a reasonably defensible and definitive manner, the current state of opinion of within the field of climatology.

 

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article

Thanks for the link, good balanced rational material. However, its not sexy media fodder, like a handful of leaked emails between frustrated climate scientists regarding the opinions of some of their lay critics.....

It's telling, I think, that the two areas of scientific research that conservatives seem to believe are deeply flawed-- evolution and climate change-- happen to coincide with conservative shibboleths: the free market and Christianity.

Now we're told that the reason these particular fields of study are built on a house of cards is that they are obliged to rely on "models" and "proxies" and "speculation" and "theory" to fill in the unobservable-- the distant past and, in the case of climate science, the future.

But of course a great deal of science works this way.  One wonders why we don't hear a lot of bellyaching about "bad science" when it comes to things like particle physics or cosmology?  Could it be because they don't intersect with any sacred cows on the right?  And that by extending the logic of "can't prove it if you can't make direct observation" such people would be obliged to admit that they don't actually object to the particular practice of science in particular cases, but science itself?  Particularly the science of the very large and very small?

Because that's what is happening, over and over again.  The arguments being made against the techniques, practices and conclusions of evolutionary biology and climate science are not, in fact, uniquely applicable to these fields (despite being told, repeatedly, that the skeptics have no problem with "good science", just the debased science that reaches conclusions that run counter to the world view of the skeptic).

So what about, say, the Higgs Boson?  It was predicted by a model, has been part of that model for decades without anyone having the experimental apparatus to confirm or deny its existence, indeed arose out of a model comprised of a mathematical framework of incredible complexity that even now has several nagging unanswered questions.  Yet this model has been astoundingly successful in organizing, explaining and predicting phenomena.  The confirmation of the Higgs is just the latest success of what, by the standards being brought to bear on climate science and evolution, is a hopelessly theoretical construct based in speculation and inference and made up ideas about matter and energy with a ton of "gotchas" that could be marshaled to belittle it.  No one has ever "seen" a quark, or a neutrino, or the Higgs boson.  The best we can do is obliterate atoms at increasingly high energies and track the energy signatures of the results. 

So nonsense, right?  Some kind of conspiracy?  Yet, strangely, not a source of debate. 

And what of cosmology?  Black holes were predicted by theory before there was ever any observable phenomena to correlate with same.  Even now, we hardly have "direct evidence" that they exist, have never sent a probe to take pictures.  They are simply far too far away.  We have, again, energy signatures.  Powerful streams of particles that closely match the theoretical parameters of what a black hole "should" be doing.  Could be something else, that just happens to match our speculative idea about what's out there.  But that speculation is part of a large framework of theory that has been very successful in describing the universe in ways that are congruent with those observations we can make, even allowing for limitations of what we can observe directly over vast distances.  Just as the Standard Model of subatomic physics is congruent with those phenomena we can observe, even allowing for the limits of our experimental apparatus, which would require energies orders of magnitude greater than the output of the suns of our galaxy to probe down to the Plank length-- the current theoretical "grain size" of the universe.

So that's all right out, yes?  Bullshit?  Some kind of mass hallucination?  Soros funded something something not sure why?

If not, why not?  Why evolution and climate science, and not the rest of science?  I think people claiming that those two areas are somehow a hotbed of malfeasance and error and corruption should explain why they aren't similarly put-off by everything else that science has to tell us about the world. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by signal1 

It's telling, I think, that the two areas of scientific research that conservatives seem to believe are deeply flawed-- evolution and climate change-- happen to coincide with conservative shibboleths: the free market and Christianity.

 

Now we're told that the reason these particular fields of study are built on a house of cards is that they are obliged to rely on "models" and "proxies" and "speculation" and "theory" to fill in the unobservable-- the distant past and, in the case of climate science, the future.

 

But of course a great deal of science works this way.  One wonders why we don't hear a lot of bellyaching about "bad science" when it comes to things like particle physics or cosmology?  Could it be because they don't intersect with any sacred cows on the right?  And that by extending the logic of "can't prove it if you can't make direct observation" such people would be obliged to admit that they don't actually object to the particular practice of science in particular cases, but science itself?  Particularly the science of the very large and very small?

 

Because that's what is happening, over and over again.  The arguments being made against the techniques, practices and conclusions of evolutionary biology and climate science are not, in fact, uniquely applicable to these fields (despite being told, repeatedly, that the skeptics have no problem with "good science", just the debased science that reaches conclusions that run counter to the world view of the skeptic).

 

So what about, say, the Higgs Boson?  It was predicted by a model, has been part of that model for decades without anyone having the experimental apparatus to confirm or deny its existence, indeed arose out of a model comprised of a mathematical framework of incredible complexity that even now has several nagging unanswered questions.  Yet this model has been astoundingly successful in organizing, explaining and predicting phenomena.  The confirmation of the Higgs is just the latest success of what, by the standards being brought to bear on climate science and evolution, is a hopelessly theoretical construct based in speculation and inference and made up ideas about matter and energy with a ton of "gotchas" that could be marshaled to belittle it.  No one has ever "seen" a quark, or a neutrino, or the Higgs boson.  The best we can do is obliterate atoms at increasingly high energies and track the energy signatures of the results. 

 

So nonsense, right?  Some kind of conspiracy?  Yet, strangely, not a source of debate. 

 

And what of cosmology?  Black holes were predicted by theory before there was ever any observable phenomena to correlate with same.  Even now, we hardly have "direct evidence" that they exist, have never sent a probe to take pictures.  They are simply far too far away.  We have, again, energy signatures.  Powerful streams of particles that closely match the theoretical parameters of what a black hole "should" be doing.  Could be something else, that just happens to match our speculative idea about what's out there.  But that speculation is part of a large framework of theory that has been very successful in describing the universe in ways that are congruent with those observations we can make, even allowing for limitations of what we can observe directly over vast distances.  Just as the Standard Model of subatomic physics is congruent with those phenomena we can observe, even allowing for the limits of our experimental apparatus, which would require energies orders of magnitude greater than the output of the suns of our galaxy to probe down to the Plank length-- the current theoretical "grain size" of the universe.

 

So that's all right out, yes?  Bullshit?  Some kind of mass hallucination?  Soros funded something something not sure why?

 

If not, why not?  Why evolution and climate science, and not the rest of science?  I think people claiming that those two areas are somehow a hotbed of malfeasance and error and corruption should explain why they aren't similarly put-off by everything else that science has to tell us about the world. 

I think that your first observation is close to the truth, but that one could actually extend it more generally beyond science. Any kind of reasoning that leads to a suggestion of action that conflicts with deeply held beliefs, whether religious, political or philosophical, tends to be attacked, and attacked most vociferously by those who understand it least. The debates on various aspects of science in this thread alone illustrate the almost non-existent understanding of the scientific method by most non-scientists, and many posts on this forum are examples of such a reaction. 

The other cases that you consider, probably, with varying degrees of irony, do not evoke the same type of response because the implications for those beliefs are seen as insignificant, either through actual irrelevance or, as you also see here frequently, a lack of understanding of the field so complete as to render it totally incomprehensible. No one is offended by that which they entirely fail to comprehend.

Right, certainly the lack of outrage at, well, physics is predicated on either a lack of a given discipline's interaction with social constructs or utter obliviousness of that discipline.

However, that doesn't change the fact that the science of physics is conducted in precisely the same manner as these so called "junk sciences" that attract the ire of conservative commentators. In fact, in the cases of climate science and evolution, there is in fact far less appeal to esoteric, unprovable theory than in generally accepted models of matter and energy.

To dismiss climate science and evolution as deeply flawed paradigms is to dismiss science, or at least any science that rises past a sort of quotidian cataloging of the immediately discernible (which is to say, science).

Quote:

Originally Posted by signal1 

It's telling, I think, that the two areas of scientific research that conservatives seem to believe are deeply flawed-- evolution and climate change-- happen to coincide with conservative shibboleths: the free market and Christianity.

Do they really coincide with them or is it the fact that some people try to take aspects of these fields and use them to discredit and attempt to take away the human rights of other groups?

See, where I'm going to take issue with you is we do have past attempts to deal with human behavior and human society via "science" and they didn't work out very well. It is estimated over 120 million people have been killed in the name of "science." We have had entire world wars predicated on eugenics as an example.

If anything it is proto or pseudo science that we have to be most aware of because when some idiot determines a half finished understanding ought to apply to all of humanity, without humanity having any choice in the matter, that is where the results have been the ugliest.

Yes but the same people in these fields aren't just declaring a particle will exist, that an object tossed will end up at X location or even that Y element will combine with Z element and exhibit the W properties. They are declaring that the efforts and lifestyles of billions of people must change and conform to their prediction. With such high stakes, skepticism is completely warranted and when the models have failed to be predictive, the tools and theories of the field should be revised, not hardened into dogma to help along the social engineering. There is clearly an ulterior social motive not related to science here.

I'm sure you would hear plenty of "bellyaching" if someone was using the work within those fields to try to control or determine aspects of your life. If I claimed that because I know how the universe began, and because I believe I know how it will end that I should be able to deny you air conditioning or limit the size of your daily protein intake, or mandate you walk to your job rather than drive, you'd probably suddenly see the matter a bit differently. Many of these areas are pure science and no attempt is being undertaken to apply their understanding to micromanage human behavior or human society.

It isn't a conspiracy. All branches of science have started off as protoscience. The process of moving from that state to an established science involves, as you note the equivalent of sausage making. The argument, especially with climate science, is that it hasn't moved pass the protoscience stage yet, and rather than progressing and improving on it, the advocates of it have hardened the current flawed beliefs into an unquestionable dogma which they are then using to carry out political and social goals rather than improving the science.

As an example lets look at James Hansen. I could see your point if we were trying to burn him at a stake or even defund his research and exile him somewhere. However that isn't what has happened. He has given up science to become a political activist. For him, no additional work needs to be done. The answer is here and now society must adopt it.

So to flash back to a prior example. Someone can do research in genetics, DNA and evolution. However if they quit science, become an activist and politician and declare that based on the very limited understand that we have in that field that all black people and Jews must be exterminated, people just shouldn't and hopefully aren't going to go there.

Does confirmation of Higgs mean you can't take the carpool lane? Does it mean your kid can't have meat with their lunch? Does it mean that if your house is over 800 sq ft you are a climate sinner? No one is attempting to use Higgs to control or determine aspects of your life. That is why no one is attacking or questioning it.

I'm skipping a bit since I feel like I've made my point and don't need to hit every example, though thanks for providing them. First there is indeed the concept, even if it is debatable or inexact of hard and soft sciences. Likewise in new fields some folks instantly want their protoscience to be given the exact same level of authority that an established science has been given. Regardless of that though, the issue becomes very different when someone is taking a conclusion and attempting to enforce it on all of humanity and the world. The history there has been terrible. Do some Christians refuse to believe in evolution? Of course. Do some of these same Christians then go buy prize breeding animals to improve the line of their cows, sheep, horses and dogs? Sure they do. Do some people who believe in evolution use it to justify racist, sexist and eugenic beliefs and practices? Yes they do as well. The point is to realize that science is a tool and not the sole answer with regard to determining how humans control their lives and exercise their rights. Indeed a strict scientific model might not even recognize or accord such rights so that is something to ponder as well.

Quote:

Originally Posted by signal1 

Right, certainly the lack of outrage at, well, physics is predicated on either a lack of a given discipline's interaction with social constructs or utter obliviousness of that discipline.

 

However, that doesn't change the fact that the science of physics is conducted in precisely the same manner as these so called "junk sciences" that attract the ire of conservative commentators. In fact, in the cases of climate science and evolution, there is in fact far less appeal to esoteric, unprovable theory than in generally accepted models of matter and energy.

 

To dismiss climate science and evolution as deeply flawed paradigms is to dismiss science, or at least any science that rises past a sort of quotidian cataloging of the immediately discernible (which is to say, science).

Yes - my point was that you are correct - neither the soundness nor rigor of the discipline have any correlation with the criticism. It appears to be entirely dependent on whether they perceive the conclusions to impact negatively their religious or political dogmas.

Your comparison of climate and evolution sciences to physics does raise some interesting points. Both the former are strongly empirical and less restricted by a well-defined theoretical framework, by which I mean that candidate theories are generally based on statistical approximations of complex systems, and have many variables to play with. Much of physics, on the other hand, is highly constrained by fundamental laws, and while its more arcane realms may seem somewhat fanciful they are, in fact, very rigorous.

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

 

Yes - my point was that you are correct - neither the soundness nor rigor of the discipline have any correlation with the criticism. It appears to be entirely dependent on whether they perceive the conclusions to impact negatively their religious or political dogmas.

 

Your comparison of climate and evolution sciences to physics does raise some interesting points. Both the former are strongly empirical and less restricted by a well-defined theoretical framework, by which I mean that candidate theories are generally based on statistical approximations of complex systems, and have many variables to play with. Much of physics, on the other hand, is highly constrained by fundamental laws, and while its more arcane realms may seem somewhat fanciful they are, in fact, very rigorous.

Of course. There are perception issues however, regardless of the inviolate nature of physical laws. For instance - when the findings of even multiple peer reviewed studies or analyses have implications that are too politically controversial or damaging to the status quo to be aired with fair and balanced reportage, even the laws of classical physics, as proven for centuries, are subject to being thrown onto the trash heap of tabloidism and mass psychological comfort-zone driven "ostrichness". The laws of nature survive of course, it is just that our comprehension of them can be distorted or bent a little on occasions when politically or otherwise expedient.  Miracles cannot happen in the real world - a miracle is by definition "an effect or extraordinary event in the physical world that surpasses all known human or natural power", for example "walking on water", turning "water into wine" and "raising the dead", or any other claimed event that is impossible according to these proven laws.