SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Adam Frank and Marcelo Gleiser write in the NYT that two leading researchers, George Ellis and Joseph Silk, recently published a controversial piece called "Scientific Method: Defend the Integrity of Physics" that criticized a newfound willingness among some scientists to explicitly set aside the need for experimental confirmation of today's most ambitious cosmic theories — so long as those theories are "sufficiently elegant and explanatory." Whether or not you agree with them, Ellis and Silk have identified a mounting concern in fundamental physics: Today, our most ambitious science can seem at odds with the empirical methodology that has historically given physics its credibility:
Chief among the 'elegance will suffice' advocates are some string theorists. Because string theory is supposedly the 'only game in town' capable of unifying the four fundamental forces, they believe that it must contain a grain of truth even though it relies on extra dimensions that we can never observe. Some cosmologists, too, are seeking to abandon experimental verification of grand hypotheses that invoke imperceptible domains such as the kaleidoscopic multiverse (comprising myriad universes), the 'many worlds' version of quantum reality (in which observations spawn parallel branches of reality) and pre-Big Bang concepts. These unprovable hypotheses are quite different from those that relate directly to the real world and that are testable through observations — such as the standard model of particle physics and the existence of dark matter and dark energy. As we see it, theoretical physics risks becoming a no-man's-land between mathematics, physics and philosophy that does not truly meet the requirements of any.
Richard Dawid argues that physics, or at least parts of it, are about to enter an era of post-empirical science. "How are we to determine whether a theory is true if it cannot be validated experimentally?" ask Frank and Gleiser. "Are superstrings and the multiverse, painstakingly theorized by hundreds of brilliant scientists, anything more than modern-day epicycles?"
Original Submission
(Score: 3, Interesting) by jmorris on Sunday June 07 2015, @01:03AM
Of course. If Science is officially admitting it is no longer a fact based thing but is now a Faith based system complete with official orthodoxy, it is a no brainer to see how AGW theory is a product of the new Scientism.
AGW isn't falsifiable. Go ahead, prove me wrong. Propose a way to falsify the theory and odds are I won't even have to rebut it because the Faithful will spring into action and shout you down as a DENIER too fast. Might as well debate falsifying transubstantiation with the Pope; one simply does not subject articles of Faith to test.
AGW makes no testable predictions. Or it did make one, was proven wrong and the whole thing is now in the memory hole and discussion of the failure gets DENIER thrown about until conversation isn't possible. The only real testable prediction it can make is global temps will go up, which was done twenty years ago. None of those predictions are still inside the error bars which in precise scientific terms means they were -WRONG-. So instead of admitting defeat and going back to the Bunsen burners and supercomputers to give it another go they just pretend it never happened while quietly adjusting the historical temp records until they can claim they were right all along.
But even worse they claim the mantle of Science not only for their flawed theory of what is supposedly happening, they try to conflate their proposed political program as being Science too and equally off limits for debate... the Science being settled and all. But of course it is obvious that they are in error; accepting the premise of warming many solutions are possible. We could simply decide that the probable costs of adapting to the warmer climate is less expensive in both dollars (Euros, Yen, etc) and liberty than the massive world government required to implement the Warmer's proposal. And a little though could add another dozen equally viable proposals.
The worst part of it is the loss of prestige they are causing Science in general, people see they are lying and acting like politicians (which they basically are now) and are adjusting their thinking accordingly. The world does have many problems, many of which Science could offer answers to. But if they aren't trusted any better than politicians, good luck with that.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 07 2015, @01:49AM
AGW is the theory that people cause global warming by being the cause of most greenhouse gas emissions, which in turn are the largest forcing factor. So, you can falsify it by showing that humans are not the largest source of greenhouse gasses or by illustrating that something else has a larger forcing effect.
(Score: 1, Redundant) by tftp on Sunday June 07 2015, @07:14AM
So, you can falsify it by showing that humans are not the largest source of greenhouse gasses or by illustrating that something else has a larger forcing effect.
You cannot do that if the opposition is not interested in hearing you. The science is settled. There are no more discoveries to be made in that area. The AGW proponents are winning - if not in the laboratories of science, then in backrooms of Parliaments. AGW is a very convenient theory for a politician because it manufactures a crisis that the said politician is willing to bravely fight using your money and your freedom. To make it even better, the battle requires enormous resources, but there won't be any measurable results for many decades. What is not to like here?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 08 2015, @03:47AM
The "opposition" as you call it is only not interested in hearing you if you're spewing the same recycled bullshit that's been thoroughly debunked. They will readily listen to facts and evidence showing the contrary if you can produce any.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 07 2015, @06:37PM
Venus did this. Temperatures are approximately the same at the same pressure regardless of what constitutes the atmosphere. They just call it a "coincidence" and dismiss it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 08 2015, @03:44AM
Its called "thermal equilibrium". Even if some areas of the atmosphere have lower concentrations of CO2 than others, they're still constantly moving towards thermal equilibrium with the areas where the CO2 concentrations are higher. The areas with higher concentrations will generally have a higher temperature than areas with lower, but its not like heat will stay neatly trapped only in those areas without transferring to other areas. In reality, heat moves from hotter areas to colder areas until both areas have the same temperature.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 08 2015, @10:19AM
I don't think that explains what I am talking about. Calculate the ratio of blackbody temps for Venus and Earth (due to intensity of sunlight) and then compare the real ratio of temperatures for the same pressures and they are very close.
Luckily, Venus has a very uniform temperature so we can see this from a few probes, e.g. Magellan:
http://theendofthemystery.blogspot.com/2010/11/venus-no-greenhouse-effect.html [blogspot.com]
It works for troposphere pressures (all tropopauses occur at around 200 mbar), so comparing to Mars doesn't work. I disagree with that link in that we can conclude "No greenhouse effect" from this. I think there is some kind of equilibrium being maintained but your explanation is not complete.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 07 2015, @02:18AM
Reminds me of linux and systemd.
But linux started late and got there a little earlier.
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Sunday June 07 2015, @05:51PM
People deny that systemd exists? Or is it just that they deny it's man-made?
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 07 2015, @02:45AM
Hardly a cogent thought here.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday June 07 2015, @03:51AM
Propose a way to falsify the theory
Wait a century. If the predictions are correct, then it'll be significantly warming in a way that corresponds to the higher CO2 content of that future time. Other effects like sea level rise and a supposed drying of interiors of continents will also be observable.
The only real testable prediction it can make is global temps will go up, which was done twenty years ago. None of those predictions are still inside the error bars which in precise scientific terms means they were -WRONG-.
Global temperatures are up. The rate is just slower than predicted.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 07 2015, @06:26AM
Funny I was just talking to Science in the break room the other day and he didn't say anything about this.