Talk-Polywell.org

Josh Cryer wrote:It's theoretical, without an explanation (I don't like that very much), but it's falsifiable, and we'll know within 10-15 years if their trend is true (I like that very much). I like this very much.

RC has a different take on the matter (don't respond to it directly, but discuss "cooling trends"): http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... riability/

IntLibber wrote:DISCLOSURE: as of this evening I am now a moderator on wattsupwiththat.com

Josh Cryer wrote:It's theoretical, without an explanation (I don't like that very much), but it's falsifiable, and we'll know within 10-15 years if their trend is true (I like that very much). I like this very much.

RC has a different take on the matter (don't respond to it directly, but discuss "cooling trends"): http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... riability/

CaptainBeowulf wrote:MSimon, is there a good source for the Russian guys online? I've read a bit about them in print newspapers, but the articles weren't in too much depth. They seemed to have their facts straight, though.

MSimon wrote:This argument Josh:

Josh Cryer wrote:

MSimon wrote:This argument Josh:

You think that I was making an argument? I was stating obvious facts from reading the paper. It is theoretical. It is based on no empirical observation outside of an arbitrarily picked temperature variance. It is a best guess.

I find it appalling how you can question very complex models, but somehow a very simplified statistic approach is somehow going to be accurate at predicting the behavior of a chaotic system.

(Where the models have led to improved data points, meaning that they are at least good enough to cause investigation within the science.)

And yes, it is very easily falsified, which is why I don't have a problem with the paper.

MSimon wrote:I applied the principle:

falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus

FIUFIO is a legal principle, not a scientific or investigative principle. It is primarily used (and makes sense) in the courtroom. That's why lawyers are so aggressive at trying to impeach the credibility of a witness (and lawyers on the other side labor so hard to prevent that from happening). If a witness can be shown to have been mistaken or to have lied about one thing, then by the principle of FIUFIO, it is reasonable to question everything else in that witness' testimony. In a criminal case such questions could easily be enough to cast "reasonable doubt" on the testimony. The problem is, this principle doesn't work in science. Why? The scientific literature literature is littered with papers whose results were later shown to be either incorrect or only partially correct. In most cases, being incorrect doesn't mean the scientists were lying, and it is the totality of the evidence that must be weighed. Moreover, it is not valid to treat all of science as a single source. Science is not a single witness that can be interrogated. Well-accepted scientific theories (like evolution, for example) are supported by many interweaving lines of evidence from many different sources. If you impeach one minor source or piece of data, that does not invalidate the rest of the supporting data. True, there are some pieces of data that, if ever found, would cast serious doubt on the theory of evolution, but that is never the sort of data that ID creationists present.
...
Finally, when scientists find inconsistencies in the data supporting a hypothesis or theory, they do not reject the entire theory out of hand in this manner, as cranks do. Rather, they use such anomalous pieces of data or experimental results as a chance to improve our understanding of a phenomenon. They see if the theory can be modified to account for the observation. They make hypotheses about potential explanations of the anomalous observations and then test them experimentally. If they see if a new theory with better predictive power and utility than the old can be developed that takes account fo the new observations.

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2006/ ... alsu_1.php

alexjrgreen wrote:

MSimon wrote:I applied the principle:

falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus

FIUFIO is a legal principle, not a scientific or investigative principle. It is primarily used (and makes sense) in the courtroom. That's why lawyers are so aggressive at trying to impeach the credibility of a witness (and lawyers on the other side labor so hard to prevent that from happening). If a witness can be shown to have been mistaken or to have lied about one thing, then by the principle of FIUFIO, it is reasonable to question everything else in that witness' testimony. In a criminal case such questions could easily be enough to cast "reasonable doubt" on the testimony. The problem is, this principle doesn't work in science. Why? The scientific literature literature is littered with papers whose results were later shown to be either incorrect or only partially correct. In most cases, being incorrect doesn't mean the scientists were lying, and it is the totality of the evidence that must be weighed. Moreover, it is not valid to treat all of science as a single source. Science is not a single witness that can be interrogated. Well-accepted scientific theories (like evolution, for example) are supported by many interweaving lines of evidence from many different sources. If you impeach one minor source or piece of data, that does not invalidate the rest of the supporting data. True, there are some pieces of data that, if ever found, would cast serious doubt on the theory of evolution, but that is never the sort of data that ID creationists present.
...
Finally, when scientists find inconsistencies in the data supporting a hypothesis or theory, they do not reject the entire theory out of hand in this manner, as cranks do. Rather, they use such anomalous pieces of data or experimental results as a chance to improve our understanding of a phenomenon. They see if the theory can be modified to account for the observation. They make hypotheses about potential explanations of the anomalous observations and then test them experimentally. If they see if a new theory with better predictive power and utility than the old can be developed that takes account fo the new observations.

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2006/ ... alsu_1.php

Even the courts seem to disfavour the principle nowadays: U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals.