Scientific Method in climate science

[NortonH]

Just now, DrP said:

Yes it is. It is when you say 'my Uncle Geoff recons that dogs cant run backwards'...   or, Dr XYZ said that broccoli cures cancer' or Reverend Smith said 'Jesus is Alive!'.    When you say..  '99% of the worlds experts say...blah'  and presuming you aren't lying and 99% of them HAVE said 'blah' after studying the topic in close detail using scientific methods to draw their conclusions -  this isn't an argument from authority surely? This is just relaying what science has discovered.

Hi Dr P , thankyou for your response. It does not matter whether it is 1% or 99%. It does not matter whether it is claimed by professors of a subject or by someone in a pub. Argument from authority is of zero scientific value. Science only deals with evidence.

What I find off is that in this thread there are at least half a dozen people who know this and have always known it and yet they are prepared to argue AGAINST it simply because they feel some misguided obligation to argue against me. It demonstrates that for some people being in the right group and agreeing with the right groupthink is more important than the truth.

Some utterly absurd statements have been made by some of these people on this thread but they will turn a blind eye to each others zany claims because they feel an allegiance to each other. I think that makes climate 'science' almost unique.

[StringJunky]

22 minutes ago, NortonH said:

So please tell me how you measure and judge that. How do you measure and area of expertise? Is there an objective measure? etc Too ridiculous to bother pursuing. As I said above - if there is evidence then argument from authority is not needed and if there is no evidence then argument from authority carries no weight anyway.

If a person has a PhD  (usually) relevant to the paper they have written and it has passed the peer review process, it is not an argument from authority, it's an argument from evidence... it's the best there is available. Swansont has defined correctly what it means. You don't get to redefine  the consensus meaning of things. Consensus is important because then everybody knows when another scientist uses specific terms, others know exactly what those terms mean, in the context used.

Edited February 27, 2018 by StringJunky

[Strange]

23 minutes ago, NortonH said:

Argument from authority is a fallacy.

So when you read the specs of the processor in your new computer and it says that it will run at 1.6 GHz as long as the core voltage is between 1.2V and 1.6V, and the temperature is less than 35ºC you refuse to accept that until Intel release the simulations and you can run them yourself. Because otherwise, you would be taking the word of an authority.

Ditto, previous example with airplanes.

And (as you liked the GR example so much) when you read a report that Hafele and Keating have confirmed the predictions of GR you refuse to accept it until you have bought your won atomic clocks, hired a jet plane and done the experiment yourself. After all, believing what is in a scientific journal would just be an argument from authority.

27 minutes ago, NortonH said:

A simple Yes or No would clarify that for me.

No it wouldn't because you have moved the goalposts.

But I must congratulate you on your mastery of rhetorical tricks and logical fallacies. 

29 minutes ago, NortonH said:

It is funny to see people trashing their own credibility like this. A science forum where the senior members argue AGAINST the scientific method because they feel that they have to oppose some guy who is saying stuff they don't like but cannot refute.

Gosh. That's an original line. Haven't heard that before.

[et pet]

It appears that what seemed to begin as an effort to engage in a discussion about "Scientific Method in climate science", has been derailed.

For whatever reason, some Members (whether by choice or the simple inability to participate in real scientific discussions?) seem to NOT want THAT discussion to take place.

As for this "Argument from Authority" issue - in relation to Science - I present the following Quote : 

"One of the great commandments of science is, 'Mistrust arguments from authority'. (Scientists, being primates, and thus given to dominance hierarchies, of course do not always follow this commandment.) Too many such arguments have proved too painfully wrong. Authorities must prove their contentions like everybody else. This independence of science, its occasional unwillingness to accept conventional wisdom, makes it dangerous to doctrines less self-critical, or with pretensions to certitude."

The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark

By Carl Sagan

[NortonH]

11 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

If a person has a PhD  (usually) relevant to the paper they have written and it has passed the peer review process, it is not an argument from authority, it's an argument from evidence... it's the best there is available. Swansont has defined correctly what it means. You don't get to redefine  the consensus meaning of things. Consensus is important because then everybody knows when another scientist uses specific terms, others know exactly what those terms mean, in the context used.

So just to clarify, if a person with a PhD says that Event X causes Event Y then to you that constites a scientifically sound argument does it?
If the person does not have a PhD? Or the PhD is from a related discipline? Or an unrelated discipline? Or later turns out to be fake?
In all of those situations does the truth of the assertion change?
Of course not. The person stating the law is irrelevant to science. All that matters is what evidence can be produced. Do the observations fit the model? Are there any counter examples? etc
I cannot believe that I am having to debate this, to be honest.

Consensus is nothing to do with science. You don't get to redefine what the scientific method is.
 

[DrP]

9 minutes ago, NortonH said:

Argument from authority is of zero scientific value. Science only deals with evidence.

Quite - I agree.

9 minutes ago, NortonH said:

It does not matter whether it is 1% or 99%. It does not matter whether it is claimed by professors of a subject or by someone in a pub.

Of course it matters. If that 99% runs into thousands and thousands. If they are quoting the results that they found using scientific methods that they then publish in peer reviewed papers, then it isn't an argument from authority - it is a statement of know fact (or at least the best of our knowledge).   Are you saying you'd believe the 1% over the 99%? Especially if the 99% are impartial experts that have spent years researching the subjects and the 1% are blokes from the pub employed by people that have invested interests in the outcome. Come on! Are you seriously going to stick to that argument? 

Sorry - I haven't read the thread fully and have just been dipping in and out of it - this has probably all been said already much better by someone else.

[Strange]

8 minutes ago, NortonH said:

Argument from authority is of zero scientific value.

So all text books are of zero value.

I should not believe that atlas I just bought. I must go out and survey the world myself.

9 minutes ago, NortonH said:

I think that makes climate 'science' almost unique.

Not really. We hear exactly the same arguments from people arguing against the theory of evolution, or the Big Bang, or GR, or just proposing their own favourite crackpot theory. Even the people who claim Shakespeare didn't write his plays make exactly the same arguments. 

By the way, what is your alternative if all climate science is wrong? There is no climate change? (False, based on the evidence.) There is but it is no different from what has happened before? (Also false, based on the evidence.) Or that it is as dramatic as the evidence shows but the case is different? (No evidence of other influences of sufficient magnitude have been found.)

2 minutes ago, et pet said:

I present the following Quote : 

"One of the great commandments of science is, 'Mistrust arguments from authority'. (Scientists, being primates, and thus given to dominance hierarchies, of course do not always follow this commandment.) Too many such arguments have proved too painfully wrong. Authorities must prove their contentions like everybody else. This independence of science, its occasional unwillingness to accept conventional wisdom, makes it dangerous to doctrines less self-critical, or with pretensions to certitude."

The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark

By Carl Sagan

That is pretty much what people have been trying to tell NortonH.

[NortonH]

6 minutes ago, Strange said:

So when you read the specs of the processor in your new computer and it says that it will run at 1.6 GHz as long as the core voltage is between 1.2V and 1.6V, and the temperature is less than 35ºC you refuse to accept that until Intel release the simulations and you can run them yourself.

It does not matter what I accept. All that matters is whether it is true or not.
The truth is determined by a measurement. If it measures at 1.6GHz then that is evidence it does not matter who the messenger is. If it is not 1.6GHz then it does not matter who says that it is, it is false because the evidence disproves the claim.
It is bizarre that this basic high school level of science has to be debated on this forum. Did anyone apart from me actually study science ever???
 

[Strange]

3 minutes ago, NortonH said:

All that matters is what evidence can be produced.

True. But at some point, you are going to have to trust the person providing the evidence. Unless you want to recreate every single scientific result yourself.

[NortonH]

6 minutes ago, Strange said:

you refuse to accept that until Intel release the simulations and you can run them yourself. Because otherwise, you would be taking the word of an authority.

Now that is just being childish. I suggest you look at basic set theory to answer that one. I have not said I refuse to believe anything told to me, I just point out that for PROOF of something I need evidence, not the word of some authority. The fact that you are still pushing this line shows that really you have no argument against the topic of this thread and are now just bickering for the sake of it. Sad.

5 minutes ago, Strange said:

Not really. We hear exactly the same arguments from people arguing against the theory of evolution, or the Big Bang, or GR, or just proposing their own favourite crackpot theory. Even the people who claim Shakespeare didn't write his plays make exactly the same arguments

Yes. I guess when a religious belief is under threat the 'believers' become irrational. That is certainly what i am finding when I dare to even question climate change claims.

[Strange]

Just now, NortonH said:

It does not matter what I accept. 

It is exactly about what YOU accept. That is the only reason for discussing an argument from authority.

Obviously, when my engineers come to me and say, "yes the design works to spec" I don't just say "OK" and sign off millions of dollars for manufacturing. I ask to see the data. But ... and this is the key point you seem to be missing ... BUT when I then tell the marketing people, who in turn tell YOU that the device works according to spec, YOU accept it because I am an authority with the relevant expertise and access to the evidence. 

I am not going to release the simulation data to YOU so YOU can check for yourself. YOU have to take my word for it. YOU accept my (or my company's) authority in the matter.

The same is true in medicine; if your doctor suggests some medicine or intervention, you don't demand that a full double-blind trial is run in your presence. I doubt you even ask to see the published papers on the proposed treatment. You will accept the expertise and authority of the doctor and his sources.

And so on and so on in every area of science and technology.

Except, of course, climate science which for some reason you hold to higher standards. Or, at least, view with greater scepticism.

[NortonH]

10 minutes ago, Strange said:

By the way, what is your alternative if all climate science is wrong? There is no climate change? (False, based on the evidence.) There is but it is no different from what has happened before? (Also false, based on the evidence.) Or that it is as dramatic as the evidence shows but the case is different? (No evidence of other influences of sufficient magnitude have been found.)

That just indicates that you have ignored or failed to read what I wrote. Nowhere on this thread have I said that the climate does not change. Please stop with the strawman stuff.

There is but it is no different from what has happened before? (Also false, based on the evidence.) 
Please first define what you mean by 'different'. Every change is different in some way from previous changes. I see no evidence that there is anything happening today that is 'significantly different' from the past. By that I mean that measurable parameters are similar to what they were in the past. 

[Strange]

4 minutes ago, NortonH said:

Now that is just being childish. I suggest you look at basic set theory to answer that one. I have not said I refuse to believe anything told to me, I just point out that for PROOF of something I need evidence, not the word of some authority.

And no one is denying that. I am just pointing out that you appear willing to accept the word of an authority that the evidence exists for every field of human endeavour except climate change.

(Not sure what set theory has to do with it, but never mind.)

[NortonH]

3 minutes ago, Strange said:

Except, of course, climate science which for some reason you hold to higher standards. Or, at least, view with greater scepticism

I dealt with this entire post much earlier. I will repeat myself for those too lazy to read.

If I find some claim to be credible and have no reason to seriously doubt then I am happy to accept that it is probably true and act accordingly. That does NOT mean that I have verified it, it just means that i am content to accept the probable truth. eg someone says they saw a blue car today.

Occasionally it is critical that I establish the truth of something, eg someone says they saw my husband murder someone.

Then, in that case, I decide that i will not just take someone word for it, I will seek evidence.

As I have said, ALL of what I have said here is basic high school science and it is getting tedious having to repeat it to someone who clearly knows it already.

5 minutes ago, Strange said:

(Not sure what set theory has to do with it, but never mind.)

If i do not refuse to accept something because it lacks evidence that does not mean that i refuse to accept anything because it lacks evidence (see my note above). I do not accept authority as evidence that does not mean that i refuse to accept evidence just because someone has also claimed authority. Look at your basic set theory, specifically intersections of sets etc. It will become clear.

[Strange]

Just now, NortonH said:

That just indicates that you have ignored or failed to read what I wrote. Nowhere on this thread have I said that the climate does not change. Please stop with the strawman stuff.

It is not a straw man because I was asking a question (did you miss the "IF" in there?)

But if you accept that climate change is happening, you are willing to accept some of the statements made by climate scientists about their evidence. But you are not willing to accept their statements about the models they use?

Quote

 I see no evidence that there is anything happening today that is 'significantly different' from the past. By that I mean that measurable parameters are similar to what they were in the past. 

It is the scale and rate of change that is different from any period in the past that we have data for.

[NortonH]

13 minutes ago, Strange said:

Except, of course, climate science which for some reason you hold to higher standards. Or, at least, view with greater scepticism.

That is because climate 'science' is making lots of wild claims which impact my life.

Many of these claims are absurd and have been shown to be baseless. eg no snow in Europe. no rain in Australia etc.

HENCE I decide I want investigate further.

I also not the bizarre, near religious fervor with which I am attacked by people unable to mount scientific arguments but who prefer to call me names rather than debate in a scientific way.

[Strange]

Just now, NortonH said:

HENCE I decide I want investigate further.

OK. So not because of some "denier" teacher at your son's school.

[NortonH]

1 minute ago, Strange said:

But if you accept that climate change is happening, you are willing to accept some of the statements made by climate scientists about their evidence. But you are not willing to accept their statements about the models they use?

This goes back to what I said about set theory. Just because i accept some does not mean that I accept all.

2 minutes ago, Strange said:

It is the scale and rate of change that is different from any period in the past that we have data for.

That is something that requires some evidence. Up to you to produce. My null hypothesis says that everything is natural so please overturn my null hypothesis.

1 minute ago, Strange said:

OK. So not because of some "denier" teacher at your son's school.

I covered that above at least twice when the mods decided to ask me (but not bother to read the answers I gave the first one)

:Let me repeat for about the third or fourth time. My sons teacher gave him a project which sparked my interest and got me investigating which led me to the conclusion that what we have been sold and a closed case 'science is settled' is anything but a closed case and so I am now following my own interests because my sons project has been sufficiently addressed and pretty much put to bed and jeez i hope you grasp all this so that I don't have to keep repeating stuff to people who are quite capable of grasping these rather tangential and irrelevant details but choose to quibble because the fact is they cannot actually deal with what we both know is the main topic of this thread.

I hope that helps.

[swansont]

50 minutes ago, NortonH said:

Argument from authority is a fallacy.

And at least two people have explained what argument from authority actually is. 

What it is not is someone explaining the conclusions and implications of research in their field of study. If I tell you F=ma, that is not argument from authority. If I explain how an atomic clock works, that is not argument from authority.
 

Quote

 

Science requires evidence. So I really do not care how many moderators and 'senior' members of this forum pile on and try to tell me otherwise, it is not going to change the fact. 

Nobody has suggested that science doesn't require evidence. But you're here, rather than looking at the journals or engaging directly with the scientists doing the research. What we can do is tell you what we know, i.e. what you will find if you looked at the literature. But don't expect too much in regard to doing your homework for you.

Quote

 

50 minutes ago, NortonH said:

 What claims are you referring to? My claim that argumen from authority is a fallacy? Or my claim that I have yet to find anywhere a usefully accurate model of the planets climate?

You did more than claim that you could not find them. You have suggested that reliable models do not exist. Since you seem to be keen on logical fallacies, you should recognize that as argument from incredulity. That you have yet to find such a model is not evidence that the models don't exist, or that your expectations of what "usefully accurate" means is reasonable.

50 minutes ago, NortonH said:

I have been provided with links to models but so far nothing has fulfilled the criteria I just mentioned.
I will keep looking but the fact remains that if predictions are being made about the planet there needs to be a global model and the onus is on the modellers to provide, not on me to seek it out.

I'm not sure exactly what criteria you are referring to, but you don't actually get to set the criteria. And you have no reasonable expectation that this information will be delivered to you. You do actually have to seek it out.

10 minutes ago, NortonH said:

That is because climate 'science' is making lots of wild claims which impact my life.

Many of these claims are absurd and have been shown to be baseless. eg no snow in Europe. no rain in Australia etc.

You are chastising others for not supporting claims (i.e. argument from authority), then you should be practicing what you preach. Who is claiming no snow in Europe, or no rain in Australia? And what is the context of such claims?

10 minutes ago, NortonH said:

I also not the bizarre, near religious fervor with which I am attacked by people unable to mount scientific arguments but who prefer to call me names rather than debate in a scientific way.

Perhaps you could break this down into smaller pieces, rather than make such a broad claim. What specific areas  do you have questions about?

[NortonH]

2 minutes ago, swansont said:

What it is not is someone explaining the conclusions and implications of research in their field of study. If I tell you F=ma, that is not argument from authority. If I explain how an atomic clock works, that is not argument from authority.

I quite agree. So tell the people on this thread who have been telling me that I have to accept an argument because a phD says it is true rather than produces evidence. Do you grasp it yet?! I know you are a tight little community but when someone tells me that i should believe what I am told and NOT demand evidence then that IS an attempt to get me to fall for an argument from authority so rather than keep repeating the uncontested obvious to me I suggest you actually deal with those misguided people who really do think that argument from authority is valid. Up to you. I don't care what you do if you are not going to adhere to the SM. If you say F=ma that does not mean it is true. If you provide EVIDENCE then you have a case. Without evidence you have no case. I am happy to draw a picture if you really need it.

I have not gotten to the point of discussing individual journals yet because I am still trying to establish how the SM works. So far most people here do not think that a quantitative model is even necessary for a scientific theory. Until we establish that factor there is no point going further.

12 minutes ago, swansont said:

You did more than claim that you could not find them. You have suggested that reliable models do not exist. Since you seem to be keen on logical fallacies, you should recognize that as argument from incredulity. That you have yet to find such a model is not evidence that the models don't exist, or that your expectations of what "usefully accurate" means is reasonable.

I claimed that I have not been able to find a model which can make usefully accurate predicitons of future climate and i suspected that it was because it does not exist. I cannot prove the non-existence of unicorns either. Given that such a model would be the first thing that was needed it is odd that, if it does exist, it is being kept hidden. As I said I cannot prove it does not exist but the onus is not on me to do so. Anyone making claims about future climate is obliged to show the model used as a basis for the claims.

[swansont]

29 minutes ago, NortonH said:

 I see no evidence that there is anything happening today that is 'significantly different' from the past. By that I mean that measurable parameters are similar to what they were in the past. 

Statements like this are seen as denial of the science, because they are trivially wrong. Nobody can believe that you have not seen, for example, a graph of the last century or so of recorded temperature, or arctic sea ice measurements, or a graph of temperature over longer periods of time. 

"Similar to what they were in the past" is a ridiculous claim.

 

[NortonH]

24 minutes ago, swansont said:

I'm not sure exactly what criteria you are referring to, but you don't actually get to set the criteria. And you have no reasonable expectation that this information will be delivered to you. You do actually have to seek it out.

No. Those who make claims about future climate are obliged to show their model and provide the falsification criteria. That is the SM.

8 minutes ago, swansont said:

Statements like this are seen as denial of the science, because they are trivially wrong. Nobody can believe that you have not seen, for example, a graph of the last century or so of recorded temperature, or arctic sea ice measurements, or a graph of temperature over longer periods of time. 

"Similar to what they were in the past" is a ridiculous claim.

Oh I have seen those. 

But I have also seen a bit more context as well. By that I mean temperature reconstructions for the past 300, 1000, 10,000, 100,000 years etc. 

So my claim is not 'trivially wrong' at all. If you think that my null hypothesis is wrong then, as i asked before, please show it has been overturned. Demonstrate some evidence that what has happened over the past 100 years is new or unique. Propose a theory along with a quantitaive model and faslification criteria etc.

Surely this must be easy for you to do. It has been done hasn't it?

Edited February 27, 2018 by NortonH

[swansont]

Just now, NortonH said:

I quite agree. So tell the people on this thread who have been telling me that I have to accept an argument because a phD says it is true rather than produces evidence. Do you grasp it yet?!

Apparently not because you say you agree and then proceed to disagree.

Just now, NortonH said:

I know you are a tight little community but when someone tells me that i should believe what I am told and NOT demand evidence then that IS an attempt to get me to fall for an argument from authority so rather than keep repeating the uncontested obvious to me I suggest you actually deal with those misguided people who really do think that argument from authority is valid. Up to you. I don't care what you do if you are not going to adhere to the SM. If you say F=ma that does not mean it is true. If you provide EVIDENCE then you have a case. Without evidence you have no case. I am happy to draw a picture if you really need it.

Then you have rejected the process of science. You are demanding that you be given evidence each step of the way, basically demanding that we reinvent the wheel, until YOU are satisfied, rather than accept any bit of information that is not within your personal experience or review.

Sorry, no. That's not how science works. It's not a reasonable demand. There would be no progress if every scientist had to have personal knowledge of every experiment. There is simply too much to do.

Just now, NortonH said:

I have not gotten to the point of discussing individual journals yet because I am still trying to establish how the SM works. So far most people here do not think that a quantitative model is even necessary for a scientific theory. Until we establish that factor there is no point going further.

You are rejecting the SM in your efforts to learn how it works. And I see no evidence for your claim that a quantitative model is not necessary for a scientific theory. Who, exactly, is disagreeing with this?

Just now, NortonH said:

I claimed that I have not been able to find a model which can make usefully accurate predicitons of future climate and i suspected that it was because it does not exist. I cannot prove the non-existence of unicorns either. Given that such a model would be the first thing that was needed it is odd that, if it does exist, it is being kept hidden. As I said I cannot prove it does not exist but the onus is not on me to do so. Anyone making claims about future climate is obliged to show the model used as a basis for the claims.

The thing is, everyone else in this conversation knows the models exist. You are not claiming unicorns don't exist, you are claiming horses don't exist, but have not yet visited the countryside.

Whether you are going to be able to see the entire model that people work on is unknown to me. These are computer programs, and I'm not sure how they are shared amongst scientists. But here is NASA's effort being described

https://www.giss.nasa.gov/projects/gcm/

You want the actual model, you need to talk to NASA

 

 

[NortonH]

By the way, that graph above is from the WattsUpWithThat site. Is that a problem for you?

 

[swansont]

14 minutes ago, NortonH said:

No. Those who make claims about future climate are obliged to show their model and provide the falsification criteria. That is the SM.

They are published in the journals you haven't read yet.

5 minutes ago, NortonH said:

By the way, that graph above is from the WattsUpWithThat site. Is that a problem for you?

If it was created there, yes. There is a large credibility gap involved. Note, for example, that that is Greenland, not worldwide, temperature. If it's offered up as anything but a local measurement, then it is deceptive. And I thought we were talking global.