et pet Posted February 27, 2018 Posted February 27, 2018 39 minutes ago, Strange 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. My apologies then, I was under the impression that NortonH did NOT accept argument from authority as proof : "Please only speak for yourself. I do not accept argument from authority as proof." - NortonH "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." - NortonH. "BeeCee - be clear - I am NOT arguing from authority. I am the one opposing that tactic. OK? - NortonH. "Final attempt - argument from authority has no value ever." - NortonH. "er no. Any reputable scientist will argue against the fallacy of argument from authority because it is contrary to the SM." - NortonH. Again, my apologies, I may have misread or misunderstood these Posts by NortonH.
NortonH Posted February 27, 2018 Author Posted February 27, 2018 Quote Apparently not because you say you agree and then proceed to disagree. What?? I think you are confused. I suggest you actually read what I have written. Being told to believe something simply because someone tells you to and without evidence being produced as argument from authority. Not sure how much clearer I can make it. I have not rejected the process of science. For about the tenth time i am happy to accept things if they are not contradicted by evidence. I DO NOT accept things where there is clearly evidence LACKING. Actually science DOES demand evidence at every step. In reality the evidence is usually available and understood. Sometimes we reach a step where there is NOT evidence. That is where we are now. That is when people try to bluff with arguement from authority instead of evidence. Newton showed F=ma and it is easily demonstrated and never countered with contrary evidence. But here is the point - if I DO happen to ask for proof then evidence can be produced. If however the ONLY answer I get is that Newton said so then that is NOT a scientifically credible answer because that is argument from authority. Do you get it yet?? If you bother to read the thread you will see that someone above ( I lost track of who,probably beecee) tried to tell me that a quantitative model was not required. So i am not rejecting the SM. I seem to be the only person here who understands and adheres to it. Quote The thing is, everyone else in this conversation knows the models exist. Really? SO why is it that the best I can get is a link to a bunch of models for some minor components of the global climate? Why no global model? Are you saying the climate is a separable system? I asked a couple of people whether they had ever seen the models and I was told that they were happy to 'know' they exist but not interested in seeing them. So if you are so sure that the global model exist then give me a link . Quote Whether you are going to be able to see the entire model that people work on is unknown to me. Well that is rather telling! You have obviously not seen it. The fact that you are happy with it being secret or semi-secret is odd. Totally contrary to the SM, by the way. Quote But here is NASA's effort being described. Great. Let me describe my pet unicorn. 18 minutes ago, swansont said: They are published in the journals you haven't read yet. So you claim. But produce no evidence of that. Have you ever seen one? I knew that you would be bothered by WUWT. It is funny that you put up links to a global warming opinion site but get uncomfortable with a graph simply because the messenger is WUWT. I guess if the WUWT reports a fact then that fact immediately becomes wrong. LOL Yes that graph was Greenland. The reason is that ice cores have not survived so long on the african plains.' Plenty of other reconstructions of temperature indicate that your theory, that our current climate is unique in some way, is quite absurd. I cannot imagine how you can believe something in the face of so much historic counter-evidence. Yet at the same time you get upset because i refuse to take seriously your unverifiable computer predictions!! 1 hour ago, Strange said: 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. It is amazing how obtuse people can get when they really do not want to concede that they are wrong. A text book is a way of propagating knowledge. A fact does not become true because it is in a textbook. Unless there has been an error, a fact is in a textbook because it is true. Because I refuse to accept a claim without evidence as proven that does not mean that any claim without evidence is definitely wrong. Once again, if people cannot do basic set theory then they get confused about these things. Things can be true despite no evidence being produced. When evidence is produced then things are not false. Honestly strange, it is clear that you understand quite clearly what the situation is but choose to waste my time. Obviously I am new to this forum and naively fell for your ploy. All part of the fun but it is a trick that only works once. -2
beecee Posted February 27, 2018 Posted February 27, 2018 (edited) 2 hours ago, NortonH said: What?? I think you are confused. Confusion and deft side stepping seems to actually be your modus operandi Quote I have not rejected the process of science. As I showed yesterday you certainly have at worst, at best maybe just ignorant of the process. Quote It is amazing how obtuse people can get when they really do not want to concede that they are wrong. The evidence, and denial of evidence actually points to your own obtuseness and childish refusal to admit you are wrong. Your position and religious like fervour in continuing to deny reality, can be summed up as follows....a blanket denial of any authority and existing climate change models that does not align with your preconceived position, and the usual "conspiracy" type accusation that the science community, and this forum is out to get you. That has been evident from day one, when you strangely accused others of insulting you just by showing you are wrong. One must wonder with your obvious agenda, that when you finally accept the futility and errors in your mission here, when you will direct your zealous agenda to other areas of science, like the BB for instance, or the theory of evolution, or Abiogenesis. Edited February 27, 2018 by beecee 1
Strange Posted February 27, 2018 Posted February 27, 2018 4 hours ago, NortonH said: A text book is a way of propagating knowledge. A fact does not become true because it is in a textbook. Unless there has been an error, a fact is in a textbook because it is true. As you are being obtuse, I will try and explain more slowly. You reject "argument from authority". Not an entirely unreasonable. One should, as the quote from et pet says, be sceptical of authority (note that Sagan does not say that authorities should be rejected, however). So here is the problem I was trying to capture: 1) In the case of climate change, in particular, you insist on seeing the evidence for yourself. You will not accept the statements of climate scientists that there is evidence, that they have models, and that these models are tested. You regard these statements from climate scientists as "argument from authority" and therefore not acceptable. (Even though, as in all good science, the models, data, evidence, tests etc have been reviewed by other [often rival] scientists. But it seems you think they all form a single authority that is not to be trusted.) 2) The facts in a textbook are (hopefully) based on evidence. You accept the statements in the textbooks as being accurate because they say that there is evidence for these facts. However, this reporting of facts is accepted even though it appears indistinguishable from "argument from authority". You are being told that there is evidence for Einstein's theory or for continental drift or evolution. And that is accepted because ... is isn't climate change. These two positions seem inconsistent, if not hypocritical. Your justification was: "That is because climate 'science' is making lots of wild claims which impact my life." But the safety of an aeroplane or car has the potential to have an even greater impact on your life. And yet you are happy to accept the authority of the car manufacturers that they have models, that they have tested those models and that therefore the car is safe. If you are really sceptical of argument from authority, would it not be more important to investigate the safety of automobiles before worrying about the longer term risk of climate change?
pavelcherepan Posted February 27, 2018 Posted February 27, 2018 5 hours ago, NortonH said: I asked a couple of people whether they had ever seen the models and I was told that they were happy to 'know' they exist but not interested in seeing them. So if you are so sure that the global model exist then give me a link . Other people and I personally have provided you with links to global climate models and you promised to show some evidence those models contain "fudge factors". If or when I would be interested in studying those models, trust me, I would be reading supporting scientific papers rather than demanding people to do all the ground work for me.
Strange Posted February 27, 2018 Posted February 27, 2018 5 hours ago, NortonH said: 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. You are back to straw man arguments. No one says that. 5 hours ago, NortonH said: So far most people here do not think that a quantitative model is even necessary for a scientific theory. And another straw man. 5 hours ago, 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. Your rejection of the information about models provided previously is an example of the No True Scotsman fallacy. Obviously, you should not take our word that models exist, we are not authorities in the subject and don't even claim to be. But your inability to find evidence for the existence of climate models is surprising. It took me a matter of seconds find 3 million references among which there are several descriptions of models, their testing and results. For example: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.3402/tellusa.v28i6.11316 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.3402/tellusa.v29i4.11362 https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/JCLI3629.1 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-006-9211-6 https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/BAMS-89-3-303 https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI3884.1 http://elib.dlr.de/95697/ http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2007JD008972/full https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2009JCLI3361.1 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00382-001-0200-1 And so on and so on. Many of these are about comparing or testing multiple models so this would appear to be evidence that the models do exist and are tested. If you want to get more details, and possibly the source code, of any of these models I would suggest contacting the researchers directly. You will certainly have more chance than asking random people on a science forum. (I know another science forum where at least one person working in climate science posts occasionally but I am not aware of anyone working in the field on this forum.) But maybe finding descriptions of models in peer reviewed journals is just an argument from authority. 5 hours ago, NortonH said: Because I refuse to accept a claim without evidence as proven that does not mean that any claim without evidence is definitely wrong. And yet another straw man. Do you have to work on these or do they come naturally. 1
hypervalent_iodine Posted February 27, 2018 Posted February 27, 2018 ! Moderator Note Strange, we have asked members very clearly in this thread to stop with the jabs. That means you too. Kindly stick to the content and leave out the superfluous, hostile commentary.
hypervalent_iodine Posted February 28, 2018 Posted February 28, 2018 ! Moderator Note This is going no where. I am closing the thread pending further staff review. In the meantime, this thread is not permitted to be reopened.
ydoaPs Posted February 28, 2018 Posted February 28, 2018 ! Moderator Note Upon staff review, this thread will remain closed.
Recommended Posts