Scientific testing (split from goal of science)

[Strange]

Reality is just what's out there. It needn't be anything very sublime or Kantian.

 

Then you should have no problem telling us how we determine if electric fields, for example, are really "out there" or not.

 

The statement "Paris is the capital of France" is true if and only if, in reality, Paris is the capital of France. Hands up who's been there? Welcome to reality.

 

And this is back to your silly attempts to polarise things. The fact that we cannot know if a particular scientific model is true or not, does not mean that we cannot know the truth of any statement.

But with all due respect, that wasn't the point. The point was: surely there can only BE one mechanism used by Mother Geller Nature?

 

Not whether we can know what it is.

 

That is not the point you have been making. I hope you didn't hurt yourself moving those goal posts so far.

"More accurate" as in...um, closer to the target?

 

What target?

 

Dare I say.... the right answer? ... the true value?

 

I just realised that this may be the crux of your failure to understand.

 

Can you tell us how we find "the right answer" or "the true value"? Can you tell us how to find out what this "target" is?

 

I assume you can't. And the point is: neither can science. (And neither can your much vaunted philosophy.)

 

 

But with all due respect, that wasn't the point. The point was: surely there can only BE one mechanism used by Mother Geller Nature?

 

And can you tell us how to find out what The One True Mechanism is? Can philosophy do that?

 

You say yo know more of philosophy than science, so why don't we turn this around. Philosophers are, according to you, concerned with truth. There have been many different explanations of reality by different philosophers over the centuries.

 

Now, as you correctly point out, only one of them can be correct or true. So which one was it?

 

And for bonus points, how do you know that?

[swansont]

 

But with all due respect, that wasn't the point. The point was: surely there can only BE one mechanism used by Mother Geller Nature?

 

Not whether we can know what it is.

 

Yes, there is only one mechanism. But they way you're presented realism is that whatever model we have must represent that one mechanism, and yet you have 100 models that work. How would it be possible to determine which one is real, and which ones are just functionally equivalent, i.e. the instrumentalist version of things. If they are indistinguishable, then it's possible (and likely, in this case) for a model to not represent reality. So realism, as you've presented it in almost all of your posts, is false.

[Reg Prescott]

Ah, dear. The wagons have circled and the pistols are blazing. I suppose I should make myself scarce. A few words before I do, though, friends and lovers, if you'll oblige me for just a few minutes.

Trolling? (Strange asked) No, my name is Colin, I'm 49 years old, I live in Taiwan, qualified in nothing particularly jawdropping, but spend a lot of time studying philosophy, and the philosophy of science in particular. I joined the site because of a supernerdy pathology for learning and a desire to communicate with like-minded people. Haven't met any yet LOL. Anything else you'd like to know?

Why would you ask that anyway? I suspect simply because I may have expressed certain opinions inimical with orthodox party dogma, viz., "We are The Good Guys, and we'll defend each other too, right or wrong; we have a universal Method, yes we do, even though we have great difficulty articulating it; we are the only people who are allowed to speak authoritatively on science (never mind if we've never read a book on scientific realism, or the underdetermination of theories by data, or The Scientific Method, or a hundred other relevant topics in our lives -- be honest with yourselves now, boys and girls. And I get accused of pontificating on matters I know diddly-squat about? Sigh!), and never mind if we conduct scientific studies on, erm... baseball players and then proceed to instruct them on the physics of baseball. "Just don't do it to us, ok?"

When scientists speak science, I invariably suggest to the assembled audience, if there is one, that we'd all be well advised to remain silent and listen very carefully. On the other hand, though, when scientists stop speaking or doing science and begin speaking ABOUT science, I humbly submit that their authority ends then and there. Adandon all hope: Phil. Of Science begins right here. Yes, there are extremely odd people who devote entire careers to the study of what scientists past and present do, how they do it, and the claims they make about what they do. I'm not one of them (just an avid reader of these P.o.S. rascals), but perhaps just a little less hubris and a little more humility might not be inappropriate with respect to their research, doncha think? You wouldn't like it if it happened to you.

"Science, broadly considered, is incomparably the most successful enterprise human beings have ever engaged upon; yet the methodology that had presumably made it so, when propounded by learned laymen, is not attended to by scientists, and when propounded by scientists is a misrepresentation of what they do. Only a minority of scientists have received instruction in scientific methodology, and those that have done seem to be no better off." - Peter Medawar

Anyway, I enjoyed my exchange with ajb earlier today; evidently a very clever chappie and a perfect gentleman to boot. Thank you, sir.

Unfortunately, my unholy communion with other members, to a greater of lesser degree, has been somewhat less edifying. Two of the most vocal, in particular, have repeatedly misunderstood, vilified, and misrepresented me to such a farcical degree -- right down to their very last posts -- that the whole room is no doubt thoroughly discomfuddlulated by now. All the while, I suspect, the staff stood idly by. I am not claiming science does, or should, reveal some ultimate hippie "Truth", man; but I am suggesting that the aim of science, has been, and still is, largely an attempt to produce theories which approximate the way things really are. (yes, yes, we remember about the abstractions in physics, thanks. Are there any NON-physicists in the building?)

Of course, I could be hopelessly and irretrievably wrong about that too -- personal fallibilism appears to be another elite club here of which yours truly remains founding and sole member.

And sorry guys (well, those two odious rotters anyway ), I've lost count of the number of times you've backpedaled, contradicted yourselves, invoked that hoary old lame "strawman" excuse on my behalf, etc., etc., ... while you dismiss poor old Galileo -- "Pfft! He doesn't count!" -- on the grounds that... well, "he was constituting an embarrassment to my argument", and then drag him out again as scientific hero and fighter-for-enlightenment whenever you need his support in a different argument. C'mon now. You can be better than that, chums.

The funny things is, people tend to respect you more when you simply admit you're wrong.

"You claim you want to discuss the subject of scientific testing, but respond in a completely flippant manner when asked for specifics." - etc, studiot

Not exactly, dude. I was in another thread, mentioned a few words about testing, and was diverted here to this new thread for reasons best known to yourselves. But that's fine. I think I've been clear that I know little or nothing about the techniques you mentioned, not once feigning expertise or even basic knowledge in a domain I'm clueless about (which is more than I can say for certain other hairy and smelly contributors ). As for not answering all questions put to me... well, YOU try responding ALONE to as many posts as I have over the last few days. It's been ten-against-one and it's been taking up more time than is probably healthy. Hmm, perhaps another dastardly tactic... Now, seriously though, I also made it clear, I think, that the possibility of a universal method of testing scientific theories (The Scientific Method) is a topic that does interest me enormously and something I have read at quite some length on. And we did discuss it. Finally dude, lighten up a little. Is there a rule against smiling here?

To all: there are issues involving scientism, the dogmatism and fanaticism it inspires among certain of its adherents, that I do find disturbing, but to raise them almost invariably incurs the opprobrium of being labeled "anti-science" and immediate demonization. No social functions for this ignominious iconoclast this week then.

Aye, well, I suppose I've said my piece. You may have your peace back now. Fair thee all well, now. But never forget...

Eppur si muove

Some food for thought :

The Medawar Lecture 2004 The truth about science

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1569498/

Edited October 3, 2015 by Reg Prescott

[swansont]

Trolling? (Strange asked) No, my name is Colin, I'm 49 years old, I live in Taiwan, qualified in nothing particularly jawdropping, but spend a lot of time studying philosophy, and the philosophy of science in particular. I joined the site because of a supernerdy pathology for learning and a desire to communicate with like-minded people. Haven't met any yet LOL. Anything else you'd like to know?

 

Why would you ask that anyway? I suspect simply because I may have expressed certain opinions inimical with orthodox party dogma, viz., "We are The Good Guys, and we'll defend each other too, right or wrong; we have a universal Method, yes we do, even though we have great difficulty articulating it; we are the only people who are allowed to speak authoritatively on science (never mind if we've never read a book on scientific realism, or the underdetermination of theories by data, or The Scientific Method, or a hundred other relevant topics in our lives -- be honest with yourselves now, boys and girls. And I get accused of pontificating on matters I know diddly-squat about? Sigh!), and never mind if we conduct scientific studies on, erm... baseball players and then proceed to instruct them on the physics of baseball. "Just don't do it to us, ok?"

 

"We are The Good Guys, and we'll defend each other too, right or wrong" — you never backed this up with examples

 

"we have a universal Method, yes we do, even though we have great difficulty articulating it" straw-man argument. Nobody claimed this.

 

"we are the only people who are allowed to speak authoritatively on science ..." science ≠ science philosophy, and a straw man. You've been asked to back up claims and confronted with counterexamples, not dismissed outright owing to a lack of credentials

 

Baseball players probably know little about the physics of baseball. I don't see your point.

 

 

When scientists speak science, I invariably suggest to the assembled audience, if there is one, that we'd all be well advised to remain silent and listen very carefully. On the other hand, though, when scientists stop speaking or doing science and begin speaking ABOUT science, I humbly submit that their authority ends then and there. Adandon all hope: Phil. Of Science begins right here. Yes, there are extremely odd people who devote entire careers to the study of what scientists past and present do, how they do it, and the claims they make about what they do. I'm not one of them (just an avid reader of these P.o.S. rascals), but perhaps just a little less hubris and a little more humility might not be inappropriate with respect to their research, doncha think? You wouldn't like it if it happened to you.

Well, no, speaking about science ≠ philosophy of science. That's only a subset of speaking about science.

 

Further, all we have to do is flip the script here — speaking about the philosophy of science when you aren't familiar with doing science? It's like a priest giving marriage or sex advice.

 

 

"Science, broadly considered, is incomparably the most successful enterprise human beings have ever engaged upon; yet the methodology that had presumably made it so, when propounded by learned laymen, is not attended to by scientists, and when propounded by scientists is a misrepresentation of what they do. Only a minority of scientists have received instruction in scientific methodology, and those that have done seem to be no better off." - Peter Medawar

 

Depends on what is meant by methodology. e.g. In chemistry class you do a lab on titration. That's a method of doing chemistry. So using the obvious definition, the claim is bogus. Thus I suspect he meant something else, but what it is is not obvious withe the context surrounding the quote.

 

Anyway, I enjoyed my exchange with ajb earlier today; evidently a very clever chappie and a perfect gentleman to boot. Thank you, sir.

 

Unfortunately, my unholy communion with other members, to a greater of lesser degree, has been somewhat less edifying. Two of the most vocal, in particular, have repeatedly misunderstood, villified, and misrepresented me to such a farcical degree -- right down to their very last posts -- that the whole room is no doubt thoroughly discomfuddlulated by now.

Right. It couldn't possibly be that you have been posting in an unclear and therefore contradictory way. When you were asked questions that would clarify what you meant, you waffled on the answers.

 

All the while, I suspect, the staff stood idly by.

What rules violations occurred that would require staff involvement, and why didn't you report those posts? It's disingenuous to complain about this when you didn't bring any attention to it.

 

I am not claiming science does, or should, reveal some ultimate hippie "Truth", man; but I am suggesting that the aim of science, has been, and still is, largely an attempt to produce theories which approximate the way things really are. (yes, yes, we remember about the abstractions in physics, thanks. Are there any NON-physicists in the building?)

So what's the gist here — you want to assert something is true but then conveniently ignore the situations where it obviously isn't? That's reminiscent of the no true Scotsman fallacy.

 

 

Of course, I could be hopelessly and irretrievably wrong about that too -- personal fallibilism appears to be another elite club here of which yours truly remains founding and sole member.

 

And sorry guys (well, those two odious rotters anyway ), I've lost count of the number of times you've backpedaled, contradicted yourselves, invoked that hoary old lame "strawman" excuse on my behalf, etc., etc., ... while you dismiss poor old Galileo -- "Pfft! He doesn't count!" -- on the grounds that... well, "he was constituting an embarrassment to my argument", and then drag him out again as scientific hero and fighter-for-enlightenment whenever you need his support in a different argument. C'mon now. You can be better than that, chums.

 

The funny things is, people tend to respect you more when you simply admit you're wrong.

I could say back at you, almost verbatim. Though in several cases you didn't backpedal, you just ignored what was said; funny you bring up my objecting to Galileo now — before it was just crickets. And nowhere else was he mentioned except by you, so there is no instance of "drag[ging] him out again". You just made that up. Be better than that. (go ahead and search the thread for "Galileo". You posted, I responded. Other than that, until this last post by you...bupkus)

[ajb]

I am not claiming science does, or should, reveal some ultimate hippie "Truth", man; but I am suggesting that the aim of science, has been, and still is, largely an attempt to produce theories which approximate the way things really are.

Is that not what other people have been saying?

 

You now seem to be contradicting your earlier stance. Or maybe we have just misunderstood you.

[Strange]

Ah, dear. The wagons have circled and the pistols are blazing. I suppose I should make myself scarce.

 

You do like to pretend you are being attacked, don't you. Does this make you feel you are saying something important or controversial?

 

Why would you ask that anyway? I suspect simply because I may have expressed certain opinions inimical with orthodox party dogma

 

No, I explained why. Because you keep changing your position, contradict yourself, ask the same questions repeatedly, ignore answers, etc.

 

Two of the most vocal, in particular, have repeatedly misunderstood, vilified, and misrepresented me to such a farcical degree

 

Or maybe you are unclear in what you say. Or pretend you didn't mean what you wrote. Or constantly change your position.

 

I am not claiming science does, or should, reveal some ultimate hippie "Truth", man; but I am suggesting that the aim of science, has been, and still is, largely an attempt to produce theories which approximate the way things really are.

 

But when asked how we can know how things really are, you refuse to answer, change the subject or are otherwise evasive.

 

It is interesting that you have chosen to run away now, immediately after being confronted by the reality of science; i.e. that multiple theories can explain the same observations. This directly contradicts your belief that science is about "truth" and so you decide to pretend that people are too hostile for you.

[Reg Prescott]

The replies from Strange and Swansont are - predictably - not even worth dignifying with a response, but to one member whom I've grown to respect...

 

Is that not what other people have been saying?

You now seem to be contradicting your earlier stance. Or maybe we have just misunderstood you.

 

No, it's not what other members have been saying. I've spent the last few pages attempting to debunk what I take to be the manifestly false claim that "science has (almost) nothing to do with truth", and similar absurdities. (see post # 66)

 

Just a reminder: ajb in the quote above is replying to, and apparently endorsing, my : "I am not claiming science does, or should, reveal some ultimate hippie "Truth", man; but I am suggesting that the aim of science, has been, and still is, largely an attempt to produce theories which approximate the way things really are."

 

This sentence might, without loss of meaning, I suggest, be rephrased as "...but I am suggesting that the aim of science, has been, and still is, largely an attempt to produce theories which approximate the way things really are.. ; that is, an attempt to produce true or approximately true theories."

 

If you accept this, then it would appear that science has a great deal to do with truth.

Edited October 5, 2015 by Reg Prescott

[Klaynos]

If you cannot test "the way things really are" then how does anyone know?

 

I have to say I'm not impressed with your idea that you can just choose some posts disagree with you too much so you're going to ignore them. Which is what it looks like you're doing.

[Strange]

The replies from Strange and Swansont are - predictably - not even worth dignifying with a response

 

Stop running away from the difficult questions. You sticking to your beliefs about the nature of science (while throwing in jibes about the religious nature of science) despite the fact that your own examples contradict your view.

 

(And, as you are so sensitive about what other say, perhaps you could drop the sarcastic comments and insults.)

 

 

No, it's not what other members have been saying. I've spent the last few pages attempting to debunk what I take to be the manifestly false claim that "science has (almost) nothing to do with truth", and similar absurdities. (see post # 66).

Then please explain how, in your example of two different theories which produce identical results, we decide which is closer to the truth?

 

You won't because your position is untenable.

 

Also, please explain which if the many explanations of the world produced by philosophers over the centuries is closer to the truth. And how you know that.

[Reg Prescott]

If you cannot test "the way things really are" then how does anyone know?

 

I have to say I'm not impressed with your idea that you can just choose some posts disagree with you too much so you're going to ignore them. Which is what it looks like you're doing.

 

How would we know? The scientific realist would likely appeal to the so-called "No Miracles" argument. The following paragraph is copied from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's entry on "Scientific Realism":

"The most powerful intuition motivating realism is an old idea, commonly referred to in recent discussions as the ‘miracle argument’ or ‘no-miracles argument’, after Putnam's (1975, p. 73) claim that realism ‘is the only philosophy that doesn't make the success of science a miracle’. The argument begins with the widely accepted premise that our best theories are extraordinarily successful: they facilitate empirical predictions, retrodictions, and explanations of the subject matters of scientific investigation, often marked by astounding accuracy and intricate causal manipulations of the relevant phenomena. What explains this success? One explanation, favoured by realists, is that our best theories are true (or approximately true, or correctly describe a mind-independent world of entities, properties, laws, structures, or what have you). Indeed, if these theories were far from the truth, so the argument goes, the fact that they are so successful would be miraculous. And given the choice between a straightforward explanation of success and a miraculous explanation, clearly one should prefer the non-miraculous explanation, viz. that our best theories are approximately true (etc.). (For elaborations of the miracle argument, see Brown 1982, Boyd 1989, Lipton 1994, Psillos 1999, ch. 4, Barnes 2002, Lyons 2003, Busch 2008, and Frost-Arnold 2010.)"

UNQUOTE

Now, the antirealist (or instrumentalist) has weapons in her own arsenal too (the pessimistic induction, the underdetermination of theories by data), of course. This is an ongoing debate, and I wouldn't expect a conclusion any time soon. So, for Swansont to claim as he he does at the bottom of post #152 that:

"So realism, as you've presented it in almost all of your posts, is false."

... is just plain silly, unless of course, he's also solved the free will thing and the mind-body problem too without telling the world.

So with regards your impression of me, Klaynos, it's just a wee bit frustrating to be continually spoken down to by certain parties who clearly have not even the vaguest understanding of the issues. I'm all for civilized discussion in a cordial atmosphere. Certain parties here would deny me this. I have no interest in bickering.

Then please explain how, in your example of two different theories which produce identical results, we decide which is closer to the truth?

 

You won't because your position is untenable.

 

Once again, the scientific realist would appeal to non-empirical factors: simplicity, explanatory loveliness, etc ... she might argue that if Hypothesis A is simpler than Hypothesis B, it's more likely to be true; if Hypothesis A provides a better explanation of the data than Hypothesis B, it's more likely to be true...

Edited October 5, 2015 by Reg Prescott

[Klaynos]

You've not answered my question. Just restated your apparent assumption that we can compare to the "truth" until you show that's even possible what's the point of this conversation?

 

It's as useful as asking whether unicorns can funcfidilly in the moon? The definitions are unclear, aspects of it may not exist...

[Reg Prescott]

You've not answered my question. Just restated your apparent assumption that we can compare to the "truth" until you show that's even possible what's the point of this conversation?

 

It's as useful as asking whether unicorns can funcfidilly in the moon? The definitions are unclear, aspects of it may not exist...

 

I thought I did answer your question.

 

As for "compare to the "truth", confused comments like this have been rife throughout the thread. No wonder everyone has a headache. "Truth" is surely a linguistic entity, a property of statements, sentences, propositions, hypotheses, theories, etc... is it not? We might compare our theories against reality, but surely not against truth.

 

I made my definitions clear earlier. Many posters continue not to understand them.

[Klaynos]

 

I thought I did answer your question.

 

As for "compare to the "truth", confused comments like this have been rife throughout the thread. No wonder everyone has a headache. "Truth" is surely a linguistic entity, a property of statements, sentences, propositions, hypotheses, theories, etc... is it not? We might compare our theories against reality, but surely not against truth.

 

I made my definitions clear earlier. Many posters continue not to understand them.

If it's just a word his can you ever tell if a theory is true? And what would that mean in a physical sense?

[Reg Prescott]

If it's just a word his can you ever tell if a theory is true? And what would that mean in a physical sense?

 

I think this is what's confusing so many people. I doubt we can ever be certain of a theory's truth (not even the most rabid realist would make such a bold claim), but certainty is not required to make a claim to knowledge; only a sufficient epistemic warrant.

 

The realist claims we have such a warrant; the antirealist demurs (with respect to individual theories perhaps)

 

Do you agree we can claim knowledge that, say, the Earth orbits the Sun?

 

If yes, do you feel we can enjoy certainty in this? Is it at all possible we could be wrong?

[Strange]

How would we know? The scientific realist would likely appeal to the so-called "No Miracles" argument. .

 

How does that help, when that same argument can be applied equally to both theories?

 

Once again, the scientific realist would appeal to non-empirical factors: simplicity, explanatory loveliness, etc ... she might argue that if Hypothesis A is simpler than Hypothesis B, it's more likely to be true; if Hypothesis A provides a better explanation of the data than Hypothesis B, it's more likely to be true..

 

These are subjective judgements and will, of course, be applied equally by the supporters of each theory.

 

Also, it isn't clear how arbitrary subjective judgements ("loveliness"?) can adjudicate on the accuracy or truth of a scientific theory.

 

But at this point, you have abandoned science. This can only be because, as you have repeatedly been told, science cannot make decisions about the ultimate truth of reality.

 

Your conclusion appears to be that if there are two scientifically indistinguishable theories, it is a mater of personal taste as to which is true.

As for "compare to the "truth", confused comments like this have been rife throughout the thread. No wonder everyone has a headache. "Truth" is surely a linguistic entity, a property of statements, sentences, propositions, hypotheses, theories, etc... is it not? We might compare our theories against reality, but surely not against truth.

 

Moving the goalposts again? (For example, that is not the same defintion of truth you insisted on earlier.)

 

I made my definitions clear earlier. Many posters continue not to understand them.

 

It couldn't possibly be your fault that your definitions (when provided, after much pressing) are confused and variable? But that is the same as most of your arguments.

[Reg Prescott]

Moving the goalposts again? (For example, that is not the same defintion of truth you insisted on earlier.)

 

Piffle. Earlier I suggested the correspondence theory of truth (our intuitive notion of truth). I stand by it. Choose your own if you prefer.

[Strange]

Ignoring the substantial counter-arguments again ... ?

 

I suppose it must be tough when your position is unsupportable.

 

Piffle. Earlier I suggested the correspondence theory of truth (our intuitive notion of truth). I stand by it. Choose your own if you prefer.

 

Is the correspondence theory that "Truth" is a linguistic entity. I didn't know that.

 

 

We might compare our theories against reality, but surely not against truth.

 

Er, hang on. Isn't that what we have been trying to tell you !?

[Reg Prescott]

Ignoring the substantial counter-arguments again ... ?

 

I suppose it must be tough when your position is unsupportable.

 

Just responding to the slur on my integrity about "moving the goalposts". The rest doesn't merit a response.

Edited October 5, 2015 by Reg Prescott

[Strange]

The rest doesn't merit a response.

 

I think you mean, "there is no response".

 

You seem to have moved to a position closer to that of science ("We might compare our theories against reality, but surely not against truth."). That is real progress. I am proud of you.

[Reg Prescott]

We hear a lot from scientists about the dangers of global warming these days.

 

But the wise men tell us "science has (almost) nothing to do with truth"

 

So why be concerned, friends? If the wise men are right, it's not true.

 

Let the cows fart in peace

Edited October 5, 2015 by Reg Prescott

[Klaynos]

 

I think this is what's confusing so many people. I doubt we can ever be certain of a theory's truth (not even the most rabid realist would make such a bold claim), but certainty is not required to make a claim to knowledge; only a sufficient epistemic warrant.

 

The realist claims we have such a warrant; the antirealist demurs (with respect to individual theories perhaps)

 

Do you agree we can claim knowledge that, say, the Earth orbits the Sun?

 

If yes, do you feel we can enjoy certainty in this? Is it at all possible we could be wrong?

I'm not after certainty, I'm after a test to give sine value of his close.

 

The earth orbiting the sun is the most consistent concept with regards to the observations. On this scale Newtonian gravity is consistent with the observations as is general relativity.

We hear a lot from scientists about the dangers of global warming these days.

 

But the wise men tell us "science has (almost) nothing to do with truth"

 

So why be concerned, friends? If the wise men are right, it's not true.

 

Let the cows fart in peace, I say

Ludicrously misguided. The theory is consistent with the evidence.

[Reg Prescott]

Ludicrously misguided. The theory is consistent with the evidence.

 

Then do you recommend that we tell the children it's true? It really is getting warmer and we're the cause? Or, at the very least, we have very good reasons for believing this to be true?

.

.

.

I swear this thread is like a Kafka novel set in a land where the terrified subjects have been warned by the King to use the word true and face instant death LOL.

 

Or if you do you use it, you'd better be darn sure to bracket it in scare quotes.

 

Awww, this is all very silly, chums.

Edited October 5, 2015 by Reg Prescott

[Klaynos]

You're confusing observations and theory.

 

The observations are that it's getting warmer, the precision and details of these observations is a discussion all of itself. The theory that is most consistent with this is human cause climate change. Now you've added in something different, his we should communicate science with non-scientists. That's yet another discussion and not what we've been taking about. This is why people keep saying you're moving the goalposts, your posts are all over the place, keep adding in extra little caveats, never acknowledging when people give you direct answers that disagree with your point of view.

[Strange]

We hear a lot from scientists about the dangers of global warming these days.

 

But the wise men tell us "science has (almost) nothing to do with truth"

 

So why be concerned, friends? If the wise men are right, it's not true.

 

Let the cows fart in peace

 

So when faced with an argument that you can't respond to, you resort to this sort of immature comment (when you don't just ignore them or declare them insulting).

[Reg Prescott]

You're confusing observations and theory.

 

The observations are that it's getting warmer, the precision and details of these observations is a discussion all of itself. The theory that is most consistent with this is human cause climate change. Now you've added in something different, his we should communicate science with non-scientists. That's yet another discussion and not what we've been taking about. This is why people keep saying you're moving the goalposts, your posts are all over the place, keep adding in extra little caveats, never acknowledging when people give you direct answers that disagree with your point of view.

 

Well, pardon my confusion, but here's my recollection of events:

1. The original claims made by Strange were :

(i) "Remember, science is not about "truth" but about models that work;" (post # 5)

(ii) "Science has (almost) nothing to do with "truth", whatever that is". (post #10)

(and similar claims - see post #66 for a selection)

I cried bs. He requested evidence. I produced it. Seeing his position was indefensible, he adjusted his claim (moved the goalposts) to: "Science is not about truth these days". (see posts 52 & 55)

No mention was made of an observation vs theory distinction. Would you now like to adjust the claim (move the goalposts) once more to: "Science is not about truth, at least not in the domain of theory, these days"?

And you talk about ME moving the goalposts? *bangs head*

Now, even if we do grant this latest embarrassing shuffle of position, I still challenge your claim. It's often said, unless I'm badly mistaken, that the cause of global warming is at least partly human. Causes are not observable. So you'd better not catch yourself telling anyone it's true that we're responsible for global warming. Or that there are good reasons to believe that it's true. Or that we have good reasons to believe that smoking causes cancer. Or... ad infinitum.

After all, you guys just deal in models and abstractions. *bangs head again* Ouch!

Edited October 5, 2015 by Reg Prescott