NortonH

read above my hard coated friend. BeeCee has already helped me out but i said i will gather some more morsels this evening. I do not feel obliged to jump at your command however so maybe you should learn a bit about what we in the west call 'manners'. i am glad you expect me to provide evidence. Funny you do not demand it from those who actually matter though, eh!

OK Pavel, BeeCee has very helpfully posted a couple of links to PDFs. Please see what I mean about random fudge factors, imprecision for iterative models etc. Thanks BeeCee. It does not 'generate authority'. You really are getting desperate. Just admit that science requires evidence and opinion is worthless. You are only turning yourself into a pretzel.

Nice attempt to reverse the onus of the Scientific Method there Pavel. Actually, no, it was lame. The modellers are obliged to demonstrate that their models do the job and that is why they are also obliged to provide falsification criteria. You knew that already so I really have to wonder what your motive is to carry on like that. I am happy to provide examples. I also note that you still have not explained why you proclaim confidence in models you admit you have never seen. Is that 'faith'? I also find it funny that you want me to prove some claim I make about the models (which I will do this evening) but you do not expect the models whci claim to model the climate of the planet to prove anything! LOL. This is hilarious! Anyway, sit tight. I will give you some of the internal workings of these 'models' (ie spaghetti code). er no. Any reputable scientist will argue against the fallacy of argument from authority because it is contrary to the SM.

OK. So you believe you can read minds. Well why not? It is not as if science seems to matter on this forum. BeeCee - be clear - I am NOT arguing from authority. I am the one opposing that tactic. OK? Not sure which 'agenda' driven conspiracy you are imagining but then, unlike you, I cannot read minds. Really? So the SM is 'unsupported'? Well I guess in this echo chamber maybe. HA HA!!! Yeah. Which ones? MANY!!! Waaahh! I don't need authority. I use the SM.

Sorry but that is not true if you want the theory to be scientific. (Do you want that?) If the theory agrees with all possible outcomes and can never be falsified then it is not science it is faith. Basic SM. So you have no interest in the models and yet you feel confident to tell me I am wrong to doubt them. Why? I have googled for models many times but all I ever find are huge computer simulations devoid of testable criteria. I have investigated the code and found it full of arbitrary assumptions and fudge factors but my main complaint is that all we ever get are models for minor phenomena (eg Amazon river levels, ice cover on some arctic sea etc). Nowhere is there a model which can make credible predictions about the climate of the planet in 100 years time. You know, the mysterious one they are using to justify our reduction CO2 production. Where is that one? Is it in the link you gave or have you just posted more of the ones I mentioned earlier? Without that one there is nothing. The climate is not a separable system, is it?

Beecee, please get hold of a dictionary and look up the word 'inferred'. Unless you are a mind reader you cannot do it. To summarise - yes, I reject all 'advice' based in fallacies and argument from authority is one such fallacy. I have not hidden anything. As I have said half a dozen times, all that matters is what I write here. What 'unsupported claims' have i made? I am not the one arguing from authority, remember? Your links to various videos and IPCC pdfs are not models. My new turtle friend has finally actually delivered something which I will now investigate. There is a difference between an IPCC puff peice about their models and actually seeing the models! IS that a hard concept?? I will give you a brochure or a Mercedes... or a Mercedes. Which do you want? LOL You can rephrase it as often as you like but it still comes down to the question of whether there is evidence or not. Nothing else matters. So far, given the many failed predictions, it seems that there are no reliable models. My seagoing friend found some which I am now investigating so I will get back to you.

I have to admit that made me laugh. All the abuse that I have been getting above and you pick me up for my affectionate greeting and tell me to behave myself! The heading of the topic is clear. I wanted to apply proper SM scrutiny to the subject of climate change. I gave some context but should not have bothered since it seems to have totally distracted everyone. I would have thought that applying the SM to any subject would be the same no matter who asked. Odd eh? Thank you for finally posting a link to some models. I will take a look but at first glance i see no falsification criteria but I will dig around and get back to you.' By the way, have you analysed them at all? I have been up front. The Scientific Method covers more than just the models, does it not? I am happy to discuss ALL aspects of the SM as applied to Climate. The models have just been the subject of most of the posts so far because nobody could produce any. Is your real grudge the fact that I did not give this thread the exact title you wanted? Really?

Pavel, my dear turtle, the 'premise' was just a bit of background. It is irrelevant to what is being discussed. As I have said many times all that matters what I write on this forum. My arguments stand or fall on their own merits, nothing else. The point is that the advice that I have been given is contrary to the scientific method and I find this rather surprising. I have not derailed any debate and I am sorry to say that the advice of studiot and strange contained the common fallacy of argument from authority. I know enough to know that that is NOT valid. Do you disagree? Are you also going to tell me that i should accept argument from authority? And this claim of climate change denial - where have I done that? I have stated several times that the climate changes and has been doing so for billions of years. Please actually read the thread before commenting. I have NOT been given clear examples of climate models. Show me one. I have been given links to articles discussing them. All I have asked for is something to which I can apply sceptical analysis along with its falsification criteria. Have you see any of these recently? If you think that asking relevant questions and applying the SM is 'trickery' then all I can say is that I am surprised. Where have I misdirected anyone? I have been quite open and upfront all the way. Again, I suggest you actually read the entire thread before commenting.

OK well in that case, Essay, I will explain why you are wrong. If the authority is based on EVIDENCE then there needs to be no pronouncement of authority. The evidence speaks for itself. If there is NOT solid evidence to back up the authority then the vague fuzzy concepts of 'accumulated wisdom', 'experience' etc are worth NOTHING. I hope this helps.

You have no idea what I have inferred. You need to look that word up in the dictionary because I do not believe you can read minds. The point is that they have stood for 100 years and have never been falsified. So you are saying that the models we have now are correct! That is a big call. So can you now show me one so that I can scrutinise it because i am very sceptical that anyone can model the climate of the planet, but I am willing to take a look at your model. You claimed that some kind of argument from authority is scientific. It is NOT. You were making stuff up on the fly. Here you go again: . Please tell me where I can find that rule. (Argument from authority is a fallacy.) Really? Most of the forum reject my view? 1. What IS the view I am putting forward? (It is that the SM should be applied) 2. Are you now adding argument from popularity to your list of fallacies? Chasing Ice is a lovely little video, it is not a quantitative model and it does not indicate where i might find one. If you say you are not a scientist I believe you. You have no idea who I am or what I am. You cannot read minds and there is no point speculating about 'agendas' etc. As I have said, all that matters is what argument I write here. The point about the EMS is to give you the concept of a spectrum rather than a discrete divide. I have seen your links they DO NOT show me any models. They discuss models but that is all. Once again you are getting emotional and speculating about irrelevant things. If you cannot deal with the argument I make on this forum then the 'agenda laden crusade' is rather irrelevant, isn't it? I am not placing myself on any pedestal. I am the one arguing AGAINST argument from authority, remember? I get the impression that people are insulted from the fact that you have become so emotional and the fact that YOU YOURSELF have told me that I am insulting and denigrating science by applying the SM. So, am I? Again, all your answers are based on scientific fallacies and so I will always reject them. Why can you not produce an argument which is NOT based on a fallacy? If it is so obvious why can you not make a scientific case? You keep declaring that 'human induced climate change' exists but you cannot even define it. If I move one molecule of gas I change the climate. You need a more precise definition than 'change'. That is why I asked you to define some kind of hypothesis. eg a measurable rate of change which has not been recorded before in history. Something like that. But so far you have not been able to come up with anything! Why don't you watch your own videos? I looked last night and could not find any statement of a hypothesis but maybe i missed it. You have great faith in the videos so perhaps they will help you answer my questions. What is my agenda? I have told you several times - my 'agenda' is to apply the SM to climate science. I have not made any authoritative claims. I am the one arguing AGAINST argument from authority, remember? Is that comment addressed to me or to BeeCee? If it is to BeeCee then I would agree. Otherwise I will just restate - argument based on the word of someone rather than the evidence is a fallacy.

Then perhaps you can refute what I write. It seems odd that a forum called Science Forums is happy to accept argument from authority and other fallacies but not happy with someone applying the scientific method. Until we have a credible model to tell us the effects of actions there is no point undertaking any such actions. It makes as much sense as shuffling an already shuffled deck of cards in the hope of improving it somehow. Show me a credible model and we can discuss the actions we should take.

When was Einsteins equation for relativity last changed? I have agreed that models change but you are still refusing to admit that they are changed when they are shown to have made a false prediction. So are the models we have now correct? If so then there will be no more and so I can see them finally. If not, then why are we trusting predictions made from them? I had not heard that new rule. When was it added to the scientific method? Or are you just making it up as you go? Argument from authority is a fallacy. So far the only counter argument has been from authority and, yes, I reject that. Please show me these models and their falsification criteria. You have not done so. You talk about them but never produce them. Regarding weather and climate- do you plan to give us any quantities to work with or are 'long' and 'short' adequate for you? Real science requires Quantitative Models. In any case both climate and weather are chaotic, non-linear and appear to be stochastic over all time scales so I really do not see any point in your distinction. I guess you consider radio waves, visible light and x-rays to be completely unrelated phenomena. OK. So you admit you cannot propose anything that can be used as a testable hypothesis. Thank you for your honesty. SO we have nothing. YOu cannot even tell me what hypothesis your experts have convinced you to believe! Again we get to the point where you profess your belief in experts and models that you have never seen. That is not science. Subjecting a hypothesis to sceptical scrutiny is not denigration, it is science. If people feel insulted that I do not take their word for something because i want evidence instead then that is their problem. They should study the scientific method. I am doing what is required. I have rejected answers which are contrary to the SM. eg Authority arguments. I have referred back to your posts and there is still the problem that without a usefully accurate model there can be no risk matrix for your 'caution' argument. We (including you) have no way of predicting future climate without reliable models. Until you can produce those your risk matrix is pure speculation and for your it seems very emotional. This is the third time you have said that I am being irresponsible simply because I refuse to accept something that you cannot even state as a hypothesis, let alone prove to any degree of credibility. I am not sure why you think you are doing science. All you have is faith.

Thank you for your reply Ken. I really do not see the point of trying to distinguish between 'trust' and 'faith'. Neither is relevant to science. All you have done is restate the surprisingly popular position that NortonH should just accept argument from authority and stop questioning experts. Sorry. That is not scientific and I am surprised i have to keep pointing this out. I am asking legitimate questions regarding existence and validity of models and i am being told that I have no need to actually scrutinize them or even see them, I should just accept what the 'experts' say. Please tell me exactly what scientific method I am NOT accepting. Can you do that? I do not ask you to. I am NOT the one who is arguing from authority, remember.

What 'speudoscience'? Anyway, thank you for your answers. I find it odd that on a forum named "Science Forums" some people advocate for junking the scientific method and accepting the fallacy of argument from authority but that is your prerogative. Sorry. Not clear what you are referring to. My goal is to present an argument and debate it. I do not care what people accept. I only care what counter arguments are made. I believe in the scientific method. Is that what you mean? I am still unsure what it is you are referring to. Can you please be a bit more specific? YOu have not explained what you mean by "weather is not climate". Please explain. What is the relevant difference that you are trying to highlight? I am not confused about that so I think you are misunderstading something. Which two points do you mean? You are being rather vague and ambiguous. I will repeat that it is odd that you are happy to junk the SM over the question of argument from authority so I do not think that I am the one who misunderstands the SM. A bit less vague but still lacking any useful hypothesis. Can you propose something like a hypothesis that can be tested? At this stage it is clear that everything we do affects the climate. But to what extent? If i but a single Mars Bar I 'affect' the economy. Sorry, but science needs a bit less abiguity to be useful. If you say that climate scientists disagree with my claim that we cannot know the effects of ading CO2 then that brings us right back to the models they are using to 'know' the effects and whether and how they can be assessed. The scrutiny I talk about is the scrutiny that I want to subject the models to when they are made available. Please answer my original question - HOW am I denigrating climate science? Yes. If their predictions fail then their models are wrong. How has it been determined? It cannot be determined without a usefully accurate quantitative model. As i said before, until you have a risk matrix you do not know which side is the side of caution. Your next line is just emotive irrelevance. Why do you not just deal with the logic of the argument rather than emoting? If i am not convinced of a model I cannot know which side is caution. Neither can you.

Thankyou for your reply Koti. I stated above that I will not be commenting on things which are irrelevant to the debate. SO I will not be spending time trying to convince you of anything about myself. We know we have burnt loads of fossil fuels the reason I say that we are 'probably' the cause of the increase in CO2 levels over the past 200 years is because at this stage we have no credible model to tell us precisely how much CO2 is expelled and absorbed by the oceans. It is quite possible that under different circumstances if the oceans were in an absorbing phase they could have disolved all our CO2 emissions. It is also possible that they could expel CO2 and add to the current increase. On balance I am reasonable sure that our CO2 has raised the levels but since we have no idea what effect that will have it does not really matter. You are welcome to speculate about me and my motives but it is all irrelevant to the debate. As I said, my arguments here stand or fall on their own merits. (sorry for the weird quote problem. I still have not got the hang of it)

'accept'? Please only speak for yourself. I do not accept argument from authority as proof. I am happy to take stuff on balance if it is not something I NEED (or want) to assess but when I decide that I DO want to assess it scientifically then I do not accept authority as evidence. The answers I have been given have been instructions to accept argument from authority. They may be sincere but there are NOT scientifically valid. That is my point. Do YOU accept argument from authority? I guess you have said you do. So really all you are contributing here is to tell me to listen to 'experts'. You do not add any analysis of your own. Once again you attempt to guess my motivations and that is another mistake. Politics, religion, mind reading etc are all irrelevant. My arguments here stand or fall on their own merits. As I have said, if i am given a scientifically valid argument I am happy to accept it but that is NOT what is happening. I am being encouraged to accept argument from authority by being told to just accept what 'experts' allegedly claim. Sorry. Not scientific. I am sure that models are improved upon. But that is because they have been shown to have failed is it not? SO do you agree that a failed prediction means a failed model? It seems you are reluctant to concede any point, no matter how obviously true it is. (Has this now become a personal debate or something??) Yes we know that GHG trap heat but that is about it. How do people really pretend that this little mechanism is a model for a planets climate?! It is a model for one tiny component. That is all. "there are many other variables such as the amount of ice." Yes! MANY! Hundreds at least. How do you really think that these can all be included in model that can accurately predict future climate. Personally, I do not believe it is even remotely possible but I am happy to be proven wrong. "Also I learnt a long time ago, that weather is not the same as climate. " I know. I have heard that many times. It is like a mantra but what is the point? Are you implying that weather is the only thing that cannot be modelled so anything that is not weather can?? Of course not. So what exactly is the point you are trying to make with that quip? I am not sensitive, I am honest. I really do not care what personal insults and sneers people throw at me, I just point out that such things are irrelevant to science and mere distractions in a debate. The motivation behind such sneers is a topic for another thread, not this one. I do not deny that climate change is happening. I doubt anybody does given that it has been happening for four billion years. Do you perhaps have a more precise question you would like to ask? Perhaps one that could be used as the basis for a hypothesis. I believe that we probably have added to the CO2 and other gases in the atmosphere. The effects of these on the climate is, in my opinion, impossible to determine to any useful degree of accuracy. Where do I 'denigrate' the science of climate change? Are you implying that subjecting it to sceptical scrutiny is denigration and somehow wrong? You finish up again with the precautionary principle (and an emotive appeal for 'the children'). Once again I will point out that if you cannot accurately determine the risk matrix then you do not even know which side is the side of caution. That is not climate science, that is basic logic.

Please explain what that glib comment is supposed to mean. It tells me nothing. My point was that a prediction was made and it was wrong. That means a model failed. Which model? Was snow a falsification criterion for the model? That is what is implied and yet, as I said, the models and their falsification criteria always seem to be kept secret when they are supposed to be made public. I will clarify - they have been asked to apply the scientific method in the sense that they have to address the points I first listed. ie describe the hypothesis, null hypothesis, model, falsification criteria etc. They are not expected to test models etc, just discuss what should be happening. For high school that is enough. It has however gotten me interested and i am trying to apply the SM as far as i can and it has made me realise that a case I had assumed was closed is not closed. I have not seen a credible model and I have seen predictions falsified. That is why I am investigating further. I have NOT seen the SM applied rigorously and so I am attempting to do so. I believe that what I am doing is correct but if I am doing something wrong or making any false assumptions then I am happy to be corrected. I am NOT going to be fobbed off, however, with vague claims that "the models have been proven by experts". That may well be true but until I see the evidence then I have to be sceptical otherwise I am just accepting argument from authority and that is not scientific. I ask again - why do you introduce politics and religion into what should be a scientific debate? You have ignored a couple of my questions now. Are you reluctant to back up your assertions?

Essay, Thankyou for your response. The ShinyLayers link is now getting a bit closer to what I expect to see. Of course, as you say, these are just basic models for small components of the system. None of these models is the description of the climate of the planet and so no matter how accurate these individual models are they do not get us to a model of the planet. (This is what I have to keep reminding people when they tell me for the hundredth time about Arrhenius and IR absorption etc) This raises the question - is it possible to model the entire system with any degree of confidence over any significant time span? If it is not possible (and I have seen no evidence that it is possible) then what exactly is being used to make predictions? This also leads to the question of assessing the accuracy of the models by assessing the veracity of their predictions. It seems that they are usually wrong if i compare what was predicted with what actually happened. eg Dr Viner tells us there will be no more snow in Europe south of England and yet today Rome is under snow. etc I am happy with your suggestion for the Null Hypothesis being based on the rate of change for an ever changing climate but i have yet to see any evidence that the null hypothesis does not still stand. Roamer - Applying the Scientific Method does not mean that he has to come to a conclusion. All they have been asked to do is discuss the matter in terms of hypotheses, models, testing predictions etc The topic is purely extra-curricula and is only for those who want to participate. It gets the kids no extra marks but, in my opinion, is a very good assignment. I do not feel i am in over my head. I have correctly stated the scientific method and all I am doing at the moment is battling to get people to accept that it applies to climate science. There seems to be a mindset that climate science should be somehow exempt from serious sceptical analysis. Beecee - I will accept an answer if it appears logical and correct. I do not just accept anything I am told without honest sceptical analysis. I have not mentioned any politics so why do you bring that up? It is irrelevant to science. The fact that you choose to quote opinion from the IPCC rather than compare the predictions with the results shows that you are happy to accept argument from authority. I am not. I have seen a lot of predictions which have turned out false. These failed predictions immediately invalidate whichever models were used to make them. For some reason the models are kept anonymous after each failed prediction. One example above was Dr Viners dramatic prediction of no snow. It was obviously wrong but which model do we now trace it back to? We never hear. Thankyou for your suggestion about the quote function. I will try to master it.

Are you saying that the equations cannot be used to calculate the height of a geostationary satellite or just that NortonH cannot use them to do that? If you mean me then please be content to wait a week. From your next remark are you conceding that Einsteins equations have never been falsified or are you saying that you think that maybe they have? I contend that they have NOT. Your description of weather modelling is pretty much as I understand it. You neglected to stress that errors built up in a non-linear fashion and so after a week the models are junk and if we have 1,000,000 times the computer power that only buys another 36 hours. Your description of climate modelling is rather weak. You seem to miss the fact that they are also iterative models and suffer the same problems as weather models on longer scales. I am rather surprised that someone who is so sure that models don't exist, if they do exist aren't tested, and if they are tested are still wrong, doesn't actually know anything about how these models work. Well if they do not exist how can I be expected to know how they work? You just fell into your own logic trap there. In reality I know that some things exist that are claimed to be models and my point is that they are not offerred for scrutiny because, in the words of the great Phil Jones "Why should we show then to you when all you are going to do is try to find something wrong with them?" The onus is on the scientists to produce their models for examination and testing, not to hide them away. When you did all that "research" to find out about climate models, what did you actually do? Ask you pastor? Read some blogs by Republican investors in the oil industry? So now you try to drag in religion, politics and industry. Why? What place have any of those got in a scientific debate? None. So why the comment? Sorry. I am sceptical (as I should be on a science site, don't you agree?) Without evidence, I think this very unlikely. But feel free to prove me wrong by working through an example. (If you copy it from the web, it will be obvious.) Yes. You are right to be sceptical. But since this is not a point we need to determine one way or the other it does not matter. I do not care whether you believe me and neither do you care whether what I am saying is true or not. It is irrelevant to the matter in question. It would speed things up if all personal sneers were abstained from and from now on I will ignore anything which is not relevant to the topic. So, just to clarify, am I right in assuming that you have never seen or tested a model but are happy to just take other people word for it when they say that they are fine? ...and do I get an answer to the question about the 'dishonest strawman'? How?

This is my original mention of weather: I have do disagree about weather models. I have compared forecasts with results a week later and the accuracy is not good. YOUR RESPONSE: That may deserve a separate thread. But in summary: you are wrong. MY REPLY: If i am wrong about weather predictions then are you saying that are always right even after a week? YOUR RESPONSE: And what a surprise: a dishonest straw man argument So how is that a straw man argument? Can you please tell me why and how climate is easier than weather to model and what measure you use. "So if I gave you a scenario, you could use the Einstein Field Equations to come up with a solution?" If the scenario is tractable then yes but if the scenario is complex then it might be hard to apply the equations. But the fact remains that the equation has been tested and NEVER falsified. Is that a surprise? So you have not personally checked that the EFE are not falsified; you haven't done the math, run the models to check it. How do you know? You do not know who I am or what I have done. Why can you not argue in a scientific way? I have seen the maths, compared the model predictions with the measured results. I note that nobody has ever falsified the model despite thousands of attempts. Am I wrong? Why are you willing to trust the experts in other fields of science and technology who rely on models, but not in this field? When did I ever say that I take expert opinion as scientific evidence? I do not. Most stuff I do not have to make a decision one way or another. When I am specifically asked or decide to assess the scientific merits of something I do so using the SM. He's not a troll. He is at least making an attempt to discuss the matter, even if he gets a bit tetchy.

Strange Thankyou for your response. If i am wrong about weather predictions then are you saying that are always right even after a week? If you are saying that the only models exist as millions of lines of Fortran code then my question to you is - what convinced you that they were correct? Your links to models appear to be links to discussion about the models. I want to see the model so that I can test it. I have seen this sort of goose chase before. Have YOU ever seen a model? If not then what supports your belief in the predictions? My questions are perfectly legitimate. It is clear that you are unhappy and defensve about me asking them and yet the fact remains that they have not been answered. If you want a model of relativity I can give you one line equation of Einsteins tensor equation which has never been falsified. When I ask the same for Climate Science you tell me basically that it cannot be produced other than as a million lines of fortran. Do you see the problem? Please explain how asking legitimate scientific questions is 'offensive'. The climate is simpler than weather forcasting? Really? How do you know that? I am very sceptical of that claim. I am sure a vast amount of work does go into models - but does that mean that they are now exempt from scrutiny?? OK the teacher is attempting to manoeuvre people into applying the SM and not be caught out by fallacies. OK? According to you, teacher is asking the impossible (for the students to create or find something like a few millions lines of Fortran code, and then run and test the results) and then using the fact that the students can't do this to claim that climate science is a fraud. I never used the word 'fraud'. But I want to be clear about what you are saying here. Are you saying that since the models only exist as millions of lines of code it is not possible for us to test the models? You / the teacher seem quite happy to ignore the fact that the models do exist, and are tested and reviewed. By professional scientists. Nobody is ignoring anything, I just point out that I have not seen the models and so I cannot assess them. Have you? Or are you just taking the word of others? Are you not curious to see them and test them?

Thankyou for your response, ken. I think that the SM I have outlined DOES have to adhere to those points so I am surprised to hear otherwise. I know about Tyndall and CO2 but the point is that CO2 is one minor component and the IR absorption laws are NOT a model for an entire climate. So no matter how solid the GHG theory is it does not cover things like clouds or convection etc. No matter how dedicated scientists are surely they still have to abide by the SM. No? Documentation and discussion - I totally agree. But they are for applying the rules of the SM. The teacher is asking students to apply the SM to climate science. He is not manoeuvring anything. Why do you have a sinister intepretation of what is standard science? If climate science cannot fit within the SM then that is a problem is it not? If the science is solid then surely it will stand up to sceptical scrutiny, will it not? That is the SM as I understand it. CO2 absorbs IR and warms up. That science is not in dispute. What happens after that is the complicated bit which requires a solid model before any predictions can be made. No? The climate is indeed a complex and complicated system - why are we so sure we can model it? I have seen a list of some of the parameters that go into the system and i do not believe it can be modeled to any useful level of precision. It is non-linear and chaotic as well as being huge. The onus is on the modelers is it not?

Thanks but none of those deal with the questions i have raised - Do we need a model? How do we verify it? Is it science if it is not verified? On top of that an interesting question might be - why are people so uncomfortable with me daring to ask these questions?

I think beecee, above, is correct. Faith and religion is outside the reach of science and so cannot be tackled. If I say I believe in some entity beyond the universe how do you prove me wrong? You cannot.

Science cannot defeat something which is an axiom of faith.