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
Related Stories
It's probably best to get the bad news out of the way first. The so-called scientific method is a myth. That is not to say that scientists don't do things that can be described and are unique to their fields of study. But to squeeze a diverse set of practices that span cultural anthropology, paleobotany, and theoretical physics into a handful of steps is an inevitable distortion and, to be blunt, displays a serious poverty of imagination. Easy to grasp, pocket-guide versions of the scientific method usually reduce to critical thinking, checking facts, or letting "nature speak for itself," none of which is really all that uniquely scientific. If typical formulations were accurate, the only location true science would be taking place in would be grade-school classrooms.
Scratch the surface of the scientific method and the messiness spills out. Even simplistic versions vary from three steps to eleven. Some start with hypothesis, others with observation. Some include imagination. Others confine themselves to facts. Question a simple linear recipe and the real fun begins. A website called Understanding Science offers an "interactive representation" of the scientific method that at first looks familiar. It includes circles labeled "Exploration and Discovery" and "Testing Ideas." But there are others named "Benefits and Outcomes" and "Community Analysis and Feedback," both rare birds in the world of the scientific method. To make matters worse, arrows point every which way. Mouse over each circle and you find another flowchart with multiple categories and a tangle of additional arrows.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2015/10/28/scientific-method-myth/
Excerpted from NEWTON'S APPLE AND OTHER MYTHS ABOUT SCIENCE, edited by Ronald L. Numbers and Kostas Kampourakis, published by Harvard University Press.
[See our earlier discussion: Have Some Physicists Abandoned the Empirical Method? - Ed.]
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Saturday June 06 2015, @10:27PM
https://www.youtube.com/@ProfSteveKeen https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by fritsd on Sunday June 07 2015, @04:24PM
LOL
I prefer this one: http://xkcd.com/1489/ [xkcd.com] (especialy the tooltip comment is priceless)
(Score: 2) by fritsd on Sunday June 07 2015, @04:53PM
btw I know at least the buzz words for the strong force: quantumchromodynamics, and Yukawa potential. Hope this helps anyone (you never know).
Note that quantumchromodynamics is a theory that has been developed since the 1930s and has yielded good results so far. But, if you read the Wikipedia article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_chromodynamics [wikipedia.org], you'd have to consider:
- you'd need at least a PhD in something related to begin to understand the mathematical toolkit that you'd have to be familiar with to begin to do actual calculations related to real physical phenomena.
- and be wicked good in linear algebra, group theory, and reading 80 year old Russian scientific articles.
- and get time on a humongous supercomputer.
- and not make any errors in your 300000+ line FORTRAN program to do the actual calculation on the supercomputer. If you swap a + and - sign then, when your 2 month test calculation finishes with the wrong results, you'll have to request budget to start over again.
At least in these modern times students don't have to learn JCL scripting language [wikipedia.org] anymore.. I hope!
It can be really illuminating to see the big discrepancy between reading light popular-scientific articles in e.g. Scientific American (and feeling that you understand it, a little bit), and trying to derive the integral equations to do actual calculations on actual atoms. A bit like the gap between the South Park Underpants Gnomes' business plan steps.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 06 2015, @11:15PM
we're finally waking up
quick... need a false flag to distract again
(Score: 4, Interesting) by CRCulver on Saturday June 06 2015, @11:16PM
(Score: 3, Interesting) by frojack on Sunday June 07 2015, @02:43AM
then I don't see the problem with the inability to confirm these models at present.
The story suggests that there is no actual attempt to design tests, let alone build anything to prove or disprove these theories.
Instead more math is applied to tweak every element. Sometimes entirely imaginary constructs are called into being just to
balance some equation.
That may be a little different than waiting for someone to build a machine capable of proving or disproving a theory.
You have to admire those scientists that go to the trouble of raising enough money to dig holes deep into the earth and under the ice to detect particles they may only suspect might exist.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Sunday June 07 2015, @03:45AM
Sometimes entirely imaginary constructs are called into being just to balance some equation.
Which isn't a bad thing since the entirely imaginary doesn't necessarily stay that way. That approach lead to complex numbers, anti-electrons (depending on context, could be positrons or electron holes), and vibration modes/harmonics (eg, the harmonics of spherical shells which led to theoretical validation of the periodic table).
(Score: 3, Insightful) by VLM on Sunday June 07 2015, @11:50AM
But its faith based.
Last time we were in the same pickle, luckily, theory developed the idea that waving copper coils thru a magnetic field would result in all kinds of WTF and it was trivially easy to build and they were correct and all kinds of fun developed.
We're stuck the same way so we'll charge on in blind faith that surely, something ridiculously obscure at this time will drop out of the equations and we can test it. Someday. And it'll be buildable at our level of technology and economy. Because otherwise the narrative would suck and those stories are no fun.
However, reality is under no obligation to trigger the famous human meme/bug of religious faith. This time around throwing virgins into the volcano might not work because the volcano is, and never really was, under any obligation to care.
There's a side dish of self fulfilling prophesy where historical progress obviously happened and the next step was always in reach. Reality is under no obligation to keep providing next steps or next steps that are in reach. Blind religious faith requires those steps exist and are in reach. What can't go on forever eventually stops. Therefore at some point the blind religious faith will be disappointed. There seems no reason they can't be disappointed today rather than in the unspecified future.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday June 07 2015, @02:17PM
We're stuck the same way so we'll charge on in blind faith that surely, something ridiculously obscure at this time will drop out of the equations and we can test it.
Faith is a lot less faith-based when it's based on a process that has worked before.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by hendrikboom on Saturday June 06 2015, @11:27PM
The so-called multiple-worlds theory is a straighforward attachment of words to the math -- the very math whose predictions have been validated experimentally many times over. It also predicts that we'll never never see those other worlds. This also seems to conform with experiment. It's consistent, elegant, and has the same experimental predictions as the traditional so-called Copenhagen interpretation. Indeed, it's the same math.
I see nothing controversial about this one, anyway.
-- hendrik
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 07 2015, @01:10AM
If those other worlds have any connection with the observable world, then we are observing them indirectly. If there is no connection, then they are superfluous rubbish.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 07 2015, @07:48PM
The problem with that sort of theory is that there are plausibly many other mutually exclusive theories that exist in the same space. Thought becomes meaningless when everything could be correct. We could all be on a holodeck. This all could be a collective dream. It could only be that you exist but everything else doesn't. And so on until theories, math, and the whole pile becomes meaningless speculation without any power or purpose of its own beyond an intellectual's version of Keeping Up with the Kardashians.
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Saturday June 06 2015, @11:37PM
This is nothing less than the attempt to morph Science into a total philosophy, i.e. one capable of answering Life, the Universe and Everything. Or in short, a religion. And it gets there basically the same way, by requiring a leap of Faith into the irrational.
Everything in the last couple of decades to corrupt the Scientific Method has been leading up to this moment, the day the Priesthood casts off the last vestiges of the bonds of evidence and fact to boldly Proclaim a new Gospel.
Screw em. If you can't propose a way to falsify a theory, it is half baked and needs to spend some more time aborning. If it can't make predictions about observations not yet made it probably isn't useful either. And if it can't at least explain existing observed facts better than an existing theory there is no need of it. Their problem is purely that they can't sweep away all competing philosophical systems (i.e. religions) until they propose a total theory of everything. Tired of waiting they are just going to run with whatever they have and get on with the pogram and not just hope their descendants succeed where they have failed.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 06 2015, @11:42PM
and get on with the pogram
Nazi!!!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 06 2015, @11:58PM
I've often thought it would be fun to create a parody religion called "scientonomy" where you have an F-meter that looks like a dildo, and a slogan that goes something like, "Give us all your money, dumbass" and/or "Scientonomy. Because everybody knows the one that ends with -onomy is the real one". This could be our chance. Come on, physicists. Scientonomy. I want it, and you're here to give it to me. Why? Because give me all your money, dumbass. That's my philosophy.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 06 2015, @11:55PM
...and therefore climate change is not real... The End... (you know it's coming).
(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.
(Score: 2, Disagree) by tibman on Sunday June 07 2015, @12:35AM
I don't remember Einstein proving his theories with experiments.
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 07 2015, @01:02AM
Uhhhhh, the atomic bomb wasn't enough of a experiment for you?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by jmorris on Sunday June 07 2015, @01:13AM
Just because you are ignorant doesn't change reality. Einstein made specific predictions based on his theory to explain observed oddities in the orbit of Mercury. An expedition was mounted, more careful measurements taken and he was proven correct; this was seen as a major confirmation of the theory. There are other examples, but why should I have all the fun with you.
More to the point, unlike these proposals where they admit there is no possible test they can imagine that could falsify the theory, Relativity is now proven daily. Things you use every day, such as the GPS in your phone, rely on the Theory of Relativity to return the correct results. It may not be the final answer but it has to be fairly close, much like Newton's Laws were pretty close to the truth. And in reality we flew to the Moon purely on Newton's laws, they work very well until you get moving at a fair fraction of C.
(Score: 2) by tibman on Sunday June 07 2015, @09:30PM
You didn't even read my post! It directly relates to the article saying that some scientists don't create experiments to prove their theories. Einstein didn't do anything you talked about in your post.
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 07 2015, @01:53AM
And I now know you are science-illiterate.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 07 2015, @10:28AM
He is jmorris! You are like the buzzing of flies to him! Bow before his climate-denying greatness, all you who think the science is settled and won't listen to his great and glorious refutation of the AGW!
(Score: 2) by kurenai.tsubasa on Sunday June 07 2015, @04:05PM
Wat? jmorris refuted GGP's assertation.
Disclaimer: I do disagree with his position on AGW, although I haven't done enough research on the latest “Hay guise! There was no warming pause!” to be able to go along with that. It turns out there is some good reasoning behind adjusting measurements (i.e. whoops, we moved the instrument under a shade tree due to construction in the lab but didn't tell you and just kept sending the numbers), but I do find it a bit odd that there's a preponderance of marine buoys that were calibrated incorrectly. Like I said, I need to do more research into the matter before reaching a conclusion, but I am tempted to trust the experts. If it's false, other experts will chime in. This is how we do science.
That being said, I think the consequences of AGW have been overstated. A sea level rise of a few feet isn't going to wipe out coastal cities. Even if New York flooded, I would think that taxis would just be replaced by gondolas. IANAStructural Engineer, but Waterworld simply isn't happening. Over here in flyover country, I'm about 500 feet above sea level, so I probably won't even notice.
Men come and go, but Earth abides; the only concern is whether this species can get through the great filter [wikipedia.org] or not.
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Sunday June 07 2015, @05:22AM
He explicitly devised experiments to test his theory.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 2) by tibman on Sunday June 07 2015, @09:29PM
He didn't.
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 07 2015, @06:24AM
Yeah, well he sort of won his Nobel doing that. And if you don't know what he won his Nobel for, then you don't know how close he worked to experiment.
(Score: 2) by boristhespider on Sunday June 07 2015, @05:35PM
Einstein didn't get a Nobel for general relativity. He got a Nobel for the photoelectric effect, and for contributions to theoretical physics. He never explicitly received a Nobel for relativity. http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1921/ [nobelprize.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 08 2015, @02:06AM
Exactly my point. His Nobel was intimately tied to experiment. And don't forget his Brownian motion paper which essentially experimentally demonstrated that stuff was made of atoms.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 07 2015, @02:29PM
He didn't do the experiments himself, no, but his theories were proven by the experiments of others. His theories made specific predictions, including many that he didn't like or agree with, and none of those predictions have been shown wrong yet.
(Score: 2) by tibman on Sunday June 07 2015, @09:31PM
But this is exactly what the article is talking about. Einstein was exactly the person describe here who created theories but did not experimentally prove them.
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 2) by Gravis on Sunday June 07 2015, @12:46AM
it seems like the LHC has exposed that reality that do not align with any of our theories which results in extravagant offshoot theories. at the risk being lambasted, i think the currently accepted theory of Quantum Mechanics is flawed when it claims that the quantum world is probabilistic and thus cannot be known for a certainty. this seems like just saying it's magic and we'll never know how it works when in reality there is a perfectly reasonable explanation for what we accept as uncertainty. it seems far more probable that when we find the right solution, it will be surprisingly simple and it will scale, exposing us as fools in the process. by accepting current dogma as truth, we run the risk of stagnating which could set hold physics back a century or more.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 07 2015, @02:03AM
QM is not a dogma - the math works out (mostly) and it is repeatedly verified experimentally (in the scale where it works).
Einstein didn't like that QM only gave probability distribution so he spent the latter part of his life chasing alternative theory in vain. That doesn't mean we won't find a better theory that does better than QM someday.
We are not "fools" for knowing only that we know. We would be fool if we pretend to know what we don't know.
(Score: 2) by Gravis on Sunday June 07 2015, @07:17PM
Einstein didn't like that QM only gave probability distribution so he spent the latter part of his life chasing alternative theory in vain
well at least i'm in good company. :)
(Score: 3, Informative) by VLM on Sunday June 07 2015, @12:12PM
the currently accepted theory of Quantum Mechanics is flawed when it claims that the quantum world is probabilistic and thus cannot be known for a certainty.
The phrase you're describing in a very long non-technical manner is a variant of "Hidden Variable Theory". If you google for it you'll find tons of technical stuff on that topic over the last eighty or so years when it was first "invented" such as:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidden_variable_theory [wikipedia.org]
The really bad news is after thinking it over for about thirty years, the physicists came up with some elegant experiments that would prove if it exists indirectly without knowing the details of how they work but merely if they exist at all. And the results from those experiments started about half a century ago are no, there are no hidden variables in any form we currently know how to measure.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_test_experiments [wikipedia.org]
Its possible there is a loophole in a way we haven't figured out how to measure for half a century, although its increasingly unlikely over time and endless papers have been written over the decades each making the area of possible loopholes smaller over time.
A really bad SN automotive analogy for hidden variable theory would be if you had no idea what a car was, or a parking lot, and you didn't even have very good tools to F around with cars, none the less, if you planted a microphone in the only car in the world which happened to be in a parking lot and randomly pushed buttons and turned levers and pushed pedals eventually you'd hear things that would result in certain conclusions about the existence of other automobiles. If there were "hidden variable cars" you'd inevitably eventually hear other car engines or crash into them or hear echos of exhaust noise bouncing off hidden cars or "something". But it seems theres just nothing out there no matter what they try.
It has VERY unfortunate analogies with things like christian creation science vs evolution. Well there could have been a miracle between that known species from 200Myr and that known species from 150 Myr ago. A decade later someone digs up something 175Myr old that fits evolutionary theory, and the evolutionists assume the creationists will finally go away, meanwhile the creationists are having a celebration party because they've just gone from one opportunity between 200 and 150 years for sweet baby jesus to perform a miracle to two opportunities from 200 to 175 and from 175 to 150, which means they are twice as likely to be proven true now, at least in their minds, at least until some dude digs up bones at 190 and 160 years at which time they'll have four reasons to celebrate. I'm not sure the hidden variable followers are quite that bad so the comparison is somewhat unfair, yet there are disturbing analogies in behavior over many decades.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by VortexCortex on Sunday June 07 2015, @01:46AM
I thought we already had a non-empirical theoretical field, it's called philosophy. Add a heaping helping of mathematics, thermodynamics and cybernetics to epistemology and you can get information theory. Add a smidgen of test cases to sociology and you get, well, mostly debunked conjecture but what's left is behavioral science. Add some Darwinian selection to psychology to explain how emergence of brain parts influence action and reaction and you get evolutionary psychology -- which still lacks some empiricism, but is a step in the right direction since its predictions can be tested via neurology.
The really troubling thing is the politicization of science. I'm not anti-AGW, but the way that things like Climate Change are being argued, as if there can be no counter claims -- labeling skeptics as "deniers", and even going so far as to suggest such people are guilty of treasonous acts (seriously, Coast Guard cadets were actually told if they questioned Climate Change it was Dereliction of Duty); It all seems like a step backward into sensational scaremongering. The foundation of Science is that it can be challenged openly -- Often by people who support the thing they're challenging -- without fear of politics or feelings getting in the way. E.g., Newton sought to disprove Gravity and was deeply troubled by his discovery for all his days.
In the areas where we have no reliable way of testing the purely theoretical will thrive. However, as soon as we have a means of testing or contrary evidence to entrenched belief, science must be ready to accept the changes, not reject them based on "97% of climate scientists agree". Furthermore, when one does some fact checking one realizes that there's much more uncertainty and speculation than consensus, but the media has politicized science (perhaps to support a Carbon Credit cash grab, just saying).
An AC above posts:
...and therefore climate change is not real... The End... (you know it's coming).
Which is the opposite of what TFA would suggest. It's very difficult to test climate change empirically since we don't have a control-group Earth. IMO, we should at least try influencing global climate to see if we can or not and get some hard evidence one way or the other, esp. since Cloud Seeding (and other Chemtrails) have proven effective for short-term weather manipulation, e.g., in Beijing for the Olympics. [independent.co.uk] TFA suggests that if this trend continues that empirically untestable theories such as climate change would be given more consideration than less.
TFA suggests that unevidenced theories that build upon other (perhaps evidence backed) theories would hold more sway. That's fine, IMO, so long as it doesn't devolve into the dearth of rationality found in social sciences due to the whole "hard sciences aren't the only way to do studies" bullocks. Such practices lead to stronger belief in things like Microsoft / Bilderberg's "Misogyny in STEM" manufactured crisis -- well, their argument was "sound", it can be argued that equal opportunity should yield equal outcome [youtube.com] (but only if you ignore all evidence to the contrary [wikipedia.org] and imagine that the brain, one of the largest and most expensive organs, is immune to the sexual dimorphism which greatly affects all other organs [youtube.com]). That is the danger of non empirical theories being accepted: Politicization and Censure of Science (seriously, that last link discusses censorship in medical science due to social sciences considered to be on equal (or greater) standing compared to empirical studies).
More to the point: "How are we to determine whether a theory is true if it cannot be validated experimentally?" Well, how is such a theory even useful if it can't make accurate / testable predictions? What does it matter if your theory isn't any less valid or useful than an understanding of the universe as a cybernetic feedback loop emerging within the meta-verse from the mind of a cosmic autistic child? If a theory can make good predictions then we've verified it experimentally. If it can't then it's just a new branch of philosophy or religion. That's not to say all unevidenced theories should be discounted, sometimes it takes decades and development in other fields before a theory becomes testable. My point is to be aware of those who seek to politicize science and promote pseudoscience as being as valid as theories backed by empirical evidence. Willingness of physicists to abandon reliance on the empirical method will be cited by these ideological zealots to further their agenda.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by melikamp on Sunday June 07 2015, @09:52AM
Are you sure?
Strawman [wikipedia.org]
Skeptic: someone who habitually doubts beliefs and claims presented as accepted by others, requiring strong evidence before accepting any belief or claim. Those whore ignore all of our best evidence can and should be properly labeled as deniers rather than skeptics.
Can you please point us in the direction of recent scientific papers which challenge the basics of anthropogenic contribution to the current global warming? As in, studies which show that the human factor is insignificant to the point that cutting carbon emissions won't help? Or studies which show that the past carbon emissions due to humans did not actually make much of a difference? Or studies which show that the planet is not warming? I honestly want to see some of these, as it would let me sleep better at night, but to the best of my knowledge, there ain't fucking any.
I am no climate scientist, but I smell a turd of an argument nonetheless. Should we doubt the age of the Earth too? Should we doubt the age of the observable universe because we don't have means to test the big bang or check the control group universes? You don't seem to understand how the AGW argument works. I tell you right now: I don't either, because it seems to be a rather complicated argument, but notice how I am not rushing to concluding it's all politics. I don't dismiss scientific results just because I don't understand them; in fact, I only dismiss them when I do understand them well enough to see they are trash.
Why? We already influenced the global climate, and did so without even trying, which is exactly the conclusion of extremely conservative IPCC reports. Here's some trivia: we destroyed half [wikipedia.org] of the Earth's mature tropical forests since 1852. Do you think the climate was not affected? I mean, does it seem plausible to you?
(Score: 2) by melikamp on Sunday June 07 2015, @09:56AM
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Sunday June 07 2015, @10:36AM
I think that whole "whoosh" theory of quantum relativity is just wrong because it brings out people who deny they are climate-change deniers, and everyone knows there is no empirical way to proof either a double negative or a "whoosh" that occurs "at a large fraction of C". Einstein, infinity: here, gentlepersons, we at long last have proof. I would like to name this the "Quadruple Whoosh Test of the Infinity of Human Ignorance, and proof of Anthropogenic Global Warming". Credit Melikamp.
(Score: 2) by tibman on Sunday June 07 2015, @09:27PM
Lots of angry people but so far nobody has proved me wrong. Einstein performed thought experiments at best. Other scientists performing experiments on his theories does not change my original post. This directly relates to the article saying that some scientists explicitly set aside the need for experimental confirmation. That perfectly describes Einstein.
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 2) by darkfeline on Sunday June 07 2015, @10:45PM
Just a bunch of FUD, nothing more.
The summary makes a reference to epicycles; what's wrong with epicycles?
Quick summary for those who don't know about epicycles: ancient astronomers were obsessed with circles, so they tried to explain the motion of the planets using only circles. Of course, that's impossible since the planets move along an elliptical orbit, so the astronomers used a system where you had one circle that went around the Sun (or the Earth), a pivot point moved along that circle, that point was the center of another circle, and the planet moved along that circle. Except instead of two circles use six or more.
Those are epicycles and quite frankly it was a huge ugly piece of crap. The motions of the planets explained using dozens of wheels turning in the sky? Bah!
It wasn't a very "realistic" theory, but epicycles WORKED. They worked well enough to be used to calculate celestial charts accurate enough for seafaring and predict events like eclipses down to the week or even day. No one in their right mind actually believed that there were dozens of epicycle wheels turning in the heavens, hell, even the Church didn't actually believe that, but the system WORKED (well enough) and until someone could come up with a better theory people kept using it. That's how science works and how it always has worked.
Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!