What global warming?

[cjd]

Do you really not understand the difference between belief and science?

 

[Cornish Steve]

That's a new low Steve; what a pile of un-evidenced drivel.

Don't complain at me. These are the words of Michael Crichton.

 

[jncc]

Do you really not understand the difference between belief and science?

Could you tell us?

 

[Cornish Steve]

There's no longer any such thing as objective science. This was predicted over 50 years ago in the retirement speech of a president of the Royal Astronomical Society (I have a copy of the paper somewhere at home). One of his predictions was that the desire for fame or reputation or funding or recognition, in an age of increasing mass communication, would turn the scientific method on its head. Science should be a wild adventure where we set sail looking for new facts and discoveries and build models, hypotheses, and theories upon them. Instead, too many people start with their ideas and look only for facts that fit those preconceived ideas. When I was doing my own research degree, I came across a vivid example of this in one journal. The conclusion fit the author's idea and contradicted the data. How it got through peer review I shall never know.

This phenomenon is now very prevalent. Climatology groups who set out to look for man-made weather effects are often funded by organizations with a vested interest in finding such effects. This puts pressure on those scientists to steer their research to topics that meet that goal. If initial data contradicts their brief, they'll often ignore it and go look for different data.

We're all human. We all come at science with preconceived ideas. There is no such thing as an unbiased scientist. Yes, we strive to be unbiased. Yes, we conduct peer reviews. But it's tough for someone to publish results that are against established consensus or the current political climate or the goals of those who finance science research in the first place.

In the end, it has become very political.

 

[cjd]

There's no longer any such thing as objective science. .....In the end, it has become very political.

Sometimes I could just cry........

 

[jncc]

cjd - I'd still be interested to hear your explanation of the difference between "belief" and "science", as you put it. It's something I'd find very hard to describe, so I'd like to see what someone else says about it.

 

[cjd]

It's been answered about 50 time in the 'Knowing the Mind of God' thread so I'm not going to do it here too.

In short tho' the answer is EVIDENCE.

Here's a link that serves two purposes.

1. it explains the difference
2. it'll annoy Steve because it was written by Dawkins - long before he became the believer's Satan.

http://www.thehumanist.org/humanist/articles/dawkins.html

 

[jncc]

It's been answered about 50 time in the 'Knowing the Mind of God' thread so I'm not going to do it here too.

In short tho' the answer is EVIDENCE.

http://www.thehumanist.org/humanist/articles/dawkins.html

Surely people interpret the same evidence to mean different things. It's there for anyone to see, and who's to say that Dawkins' brain's particular response to it is more right than [stereotypical religious nut]'s?

 

[cjd]

Can I suggest you repost that here

http://www.ukbusinessforums.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=27105&page=987

Or maybe Steve can move it - otherwise we'll hi-jack this thread

 

[Cornish Steve]

cjd - I'd still be interested to hear your explanation of the difference between "belief" and "science", as you put it. It's something I'd find very hard to describe, so I'd like to see what someone else says about it.

In short, he's avoiding your answer. Like everyone here, CJD has very strong beliefs, and these influence his conclusions as much as the next person's.

Getting back to the issue: I'd venture to suggest that most people accept the AGW argument having no clue about what data supports or contradicts it. To them, it's a way to change everyone's lifestyle for a "better planet." They support it because they want to - simple as. Other reject AGW because they strongly reject the notion of powerful bureaucrats telling them what they can and cannot do. Similarly, most of them have never looked at the data.

Both groups can reel out the arguments from their respective "sides." One group rejoices when we face record high temperatures because it makes AGW clear to all. They rejoice again when we face record lows because it points to dangerous climate change. They ignore the fact that 99% of days are just "normal". They ignore the fact that temperatures have been warming in recent years on Venus and Pluto and the moon of Saturn. They see only what they want to see. The other side, of course, rejoices when we face record snow and ice because it makes AGW sound implausible. They rejoice when Copenhagen falls apart because it makes clear that most politicians are in it just for the money. Leaked emails and Gore the green billionaire reinforce their case that this is all a power play by already powerful individuals with influence.

Lost in all of this are the facts. Even there, though, as CJD knows, we can be guilty of picking and choosing, emphasizing some data at the expense of other data. It's virtually impossible for anyone to come at this topic from a neutral perspective. Worse, in this day and age, to be willing to be teachable and change your mind is seen as a sign of weakness, not of strength. Who wants to admit they were wrong?

 

[cjd]

In short, he's avoiding your answer. Like everyone here, CJD has very strong beliefs, and these influence his conclusions as much as the next person's.

I've answered it Steve. Evidence.

Getting back to the issue: I'd venture to suggest that most people accept the AGW argument having no clue about what data supports or contradicts it.

That's certainly true and they know even less about the science that produces the data. I can't even find anyone who has read even the IPCC summary reports let alone understand them. So how come everyone has an opinion?

They ignore the fact that temperatures have been warming in recent years on Venus and Pluto and the moon of Saturn. They see only what they want to see.

All your so-called facts have been dealt with - every one.

Lost in all of this are the facts. Even there, though, as CJD knows, we can be guilty of picking and choosing, emphasizing some data at the expense of other data. It's virtually impossible for anyone to come at this topic from a neutral perspective. Worse, in this day and age, to be willing to be teachable and change your mind is seen as a sign of weakness, not of strength. Who wants to admit they were wrong?

Science will work out what is right and what is wrong - eventually. It's what it does - and, in this case, thinks it has done. Unfortunately, in the meantime politicians, media and crackpots will make the whole process very messy indeed. It's like the MMR debacle, but with bigger consequences.

 

[cjd]

Surely people interpret the same evidence to mean different things. It's there for anyone to see, and who's to say that Dawkins' brain's particular response to it is more right than [stereotypical religious nut]'s?

Steve doesn't seem to mind his thread being hi-jacked so I'll have a bash at this.

Evidence can be interpreted in different ways, but it's still evidence - real and tangible. Belief has no evidence to be interpreted - it's just a personal feeling that can't be tested or examined objectively.

The evidence of an apple falling downwards is there for all to see - the interpretation of that evidence could give rise to a belief that the the earth sucks or the sun pushes or whatever else you can dream up. Before science a shaman or priest would force his followers to believe something about it which couldn't be tested - or even questioned. You could be burnt at the stake for saying that the earth moved around the sun.

In science you'd call the 'belief' that the earth sucks a hypothesis and it would remain that way ie a best guess - until it could be proven by experimental means that it was in fact the best explanation.

Others could then look at the evidence produced and confirm or deny it. Once significant objective evidence is found the hypothesis is called a theory - eg the Theory of Gravity. The theory is still up for grabs, if anyone can come up with sufficient new evidence to overturn it, it's gone and the genius gets a Nobel Prize.

So it's not what Dawkin's thinks is evidence, it's what the sum total of science thinks. Any and all theories and hypothesis are open to attack all the time.

What's happening in the climate debate is normal - it's equivalent to the fuss made of evolution. Entrenched positions are being attacked on both sides - it will take many years to settle because it's a horribly complicated problem that leaves a lot of room for dissent - most of it from a position of ignorance.

None of us here are entitled to have an opinion but we all do. Why is that?

(For the record, my opinion is that it's crass to have an opinion - so I don't. I'm just forced to accept the scientific consensus until it changes.)

 

[philbanks]

The problem is that there are so many vested interests in GW that its hard to get to the 'good' science now.
On the one hand we have Big Oil with its huge resources, doing 'research' of their own which, oddly enough plays down GW.
On the other hand, I also find it difficult to trust some of the academic GW researchers. If you have built a career around the topic, you have a nice, well funded university research department under you, you're hardly going to conclude that GW isn't a problem after all, are you?

 

[cjd]

The problem is that there are so many vested interests in GW that its hard to get to the 'good' science now.

Maybe you can help me on this one because no-one else seems able to.

Given that every government on the globe has bought into this and that the consequences of them doing so are extremely bad for them politically and financially, and that it is not in the interests of big business of any description to agree, how is it that some powerless academics managed to pull the wool over everyone's eye's for so long?

 

[jncc]

Maybe you can help me on this one because no-one else seems able to.

Given that every government on the globe has bought into this and that the consequences of them doing so are extremely bad for them politically and financially, and that it is not in the interests of big business of any description to agree, how is it that some powerless academics managed to pull the wool over everyone's eye's for so long?

I'm not sure that's actually the case, certainly politically them jumping on the bandwagon is very good for them, because it's what the ignorant masses want to see. Financially? Well we'd have to look at the numbers, but there is plenty of extra tax to be taken from all this, for example. In what ways do you think they will be disadvantaged financially.

And plenty of big businesses will surely do very well from all this, all you need to do is a bit of greenwashing and everyone loves you. Plus all the development and production of "green" technologies and so on. This paragraph in particular links to the next point that...

...really, will anything change from governmental/big business support? Or will things really just continue as they were before, but with a little sign next to it saying "Eco-friendly!"

In political and big-business senses I see it all as just another fashion or trend, which won't inherently advantage or disadvantage anyone, so long as they get on board quickly enough. Some will be left behind and others will be ahead of the pack, but it's all the same in the end.

 

[jncc]

Steve doesn't seem to mind his thread being hi-jacked so I'll have a bash at this.

Evidence can be interpreted in different ways, but it's still evidence - real and tangible. Belief has no evidence to be interpreted - it's just a personal feeling that can't be tested or examined objectively.

I'd imagine everyone with a belief of some sort would cite evidence for it, absurd as it may turn out to be. Or if that renders their "belief" no longer a belief, then in other words there is no such thing as a plain belief (i.e. something with no evidence, no experience or observation that caused it).

The evidence of an apple falling downwards is there for all to see - the interpretation of that evidence could give rise to a belief that the the earth sucks or the sun pushes or whatever else you can dream up. Before science a shaman or priest would force his followers to believe something about it which couldn't be tested - or even questioned. You could be burnt at the stake for saying that the earth moved around the sun.

In science you'd call the 'belief' that the earth sucks a hypothesis and it would remain that way ie a best guess - until it could be proven by experimental means that it was in fact the best explanation.

Others could then look at the evidence produced and confirm or deny it. Once significant objective evidence is found the hypothesis is called a theory - eg the Theory of Gravity. The theory is still up for grabs, if anyone can come up with sufficient new evidence to overturn it, it's gone and the genius gets a Nobel Prize.

Yes

So it's not what Dawkin's thinks is evidence, it's what the sum total of science thinks.

Whose votes are elligible here? Who do we count as being part of science?

What's happening in the climate debate is normal - it's equivalent to the fuss made of evolution. Entrenched positions are being attacked on both sides - it will take many years to settle because it's a horribly complicated problem that leaves a lot of room for dissent - most of it from a position of ignorance.

Yes

None of us here are entitled to have an opinion but we all do. Why is that?

Because it's arbitrary to decide who is above the qualification threshold and who is below it. We scientists (of any discipline) are vastly more 'qualified' to develop opinions on the matter than someone who never even did any science A levels, say.
And then for every one of us there is someone else who has more experience, both in general and in specific fields, and there's someone above them, and so on.

I'm just forced to accept the scientific consensus until it changes.

I don't feel any such pressure.

Nor am I particularly confident that there is a consensus. This kind of issue is analogous to a court case which is all in the newspapers and so on - everyone reckons he's guilty, that's the consensus, but we should pretty much disregard it. And I do believe that a great deal of scientists (as well as mortals, but that goes without saying) who lend their voice to this or any other big scientific issue, are doing so primarily out of camaraderie and a wish to be on the team. That is to say, the way they arrived at the conclusion was not nearly independant enough.
So it's all too murky to really see who believes what, and why. I am from the biological sciences in particular, and this is something you see constantly in issues of health, medicine and nutrition - aspects that are relevant to the general population.

 

[Subbynet]

I'd imagine everyone with a belief of some sort would cite evidence for it, absurd as it may turn out to be. Or if that renders their "belief" no longer a belief, then in other words there is no such thing as a plain belief (i.e. something with no evidence, no experience or observation that caused it).

Just because they say its evidence, doesn't mean it is evidence - that's why we have science to test the idea. Its not a belief if you can prove the issue, its a belief when you can't prove it.

You said, "There is no such thing as a plain belief".... I'd agree with that, those who believe in flying pigs are just as crazy as someone believing in religion. Any belief for the sake of wanting is stupid... Just because we want something to be true, doesn't make it so.

 

[jncc]

Just because they say its evidence, doesn't mean it is evidence - that's why we have science to test the idea.

I don't understand - how do we determine what constitutes "evidence" or not?
I thought a useful way of working with these terms was to consider literally anything as being evidence of some sort or another, the evidence then being or not being for some particular theory would be decided by the individual upon consideration etc.

Its not a belief if you can prove the issue, its a belief when you can't prove it.

How does one prove something, what does that even mean?

 

[Subbynet]

I don't understand - how do we determine what constitutes "evidence" or not?

The method in which the evidence was gathered. We as humans over the years have developed a number of ways to test different things. Speed, Heat, Size etc... All have been peer-reviewed to such a level that you'd have to pull out something very special to disprove it. (Newer things are not so tried and tested)

Nothing that I know of proves itself within itself. No claim stands alone.

For example, you don't measure the speed of a car by what is written as the max speed on the speedometer in the dash, because you don't trust "itself to prove itself". Instead the claim a new car can travel 150 miles per hour is checked with a timed test using external testing equipment.

I thought a useful way of working with these terms was to consider literally anything as being evidence of some sort or another, the evidence then being or not being for some particular theory would be decided by the individual upon consideration etc.

The evidence should be considered by the person based on the knowledge of scientific processes which are known and understood by society.

Lets say you ask a student to measure a building, and he goes to the zoo and steals a Giraffe. He then makes this Giraffe stand next to the building and says - the building is roughly 1.5 Giraffes high...

Would you then use this metric? Technically his evidence is correct, but the ability to check it is not possible, not without this Giraffe being used as a new yard stick.

 

[Cornish Steve]

The method in which the evidence was gathered.

You're assuming that scientists are totally objective and search, without bias, for new data. That is no longer the case, and hasn't been for some years now. Scientists look for specific data to back up their ideas and theories. The problem is compounded when research is funded by parties with a strong vested interest. They want to see certain results, and they don't want to hear of conflicting results. This makes scientists their tools, not the independent adventurers we like to make them out to be. It also means that there's pressure to publish some results and not others. The peer review process, for sure, rejects more contrarian papers than conformist ones. (Although hats off to some journals that I've read that are prepared to publish the contrarian and weird and wacky as well as the mainstream.)

Ironically, many of the great discoveries of science have resulted from accidents - because scientists weren't looking for them. This is why "pure research" (as opposed to "applied research") is so important, yet it struggles all the time to secure even basic funding.

 

[Subbynet]

You're assuming that scientists are totally objective and search, without bias, for new data.

And you're not assuming, but blatantly stating they're all crooks.

Your assuming the data gathered wasn't gathered using the method I stated, and then using a generalisation to apply that to all scientists, in all scientific areas, in all countries, all over the world.

You have no proof for this. You're basically saying we can have bad science, and that's true, but that truth will also come out in the explanation for the data they're presenting.

The trouble with your position Steve, is you show more bias than you do proof. You'll quickly shoot down anyone's position, and are also quick to fire general comments at everything, but have very little substance to talk about.

Conformists and contrarians hey... In fact those two words say a lot about how you deal with this subject. At some point those two groups will come to an agreement - of that you can be sure (Like they already do for many subjects), and it will be down to the scientific process, not the argumentative process of the misinformed idiots vs. the clever bunch.

 

[Cornish Steve]

And you're not assuming, but blatantly stating they're all crooks.

No. I'm not suggesting anyone is a crook. I'm just pointing out how science works - from years of first-hand experience.

Your assuming the data gathered wasn't gathered using the method I stated, and then using a generalisation to apply that to all scientists, in all scientific areas, in all countries, all over the world.

You have no proof for this. You're basically saying we can have bad science, and that's true, but that truth will also come out in the explanation for the data they're presenting.

The trouble with your position Steve, is you show more bias than you do proof. You'll quickly shoot down anyone's position, and are also quick to fire general comments at everything, but have very little substance to talk about.

You may remember that I have a PhD in physics, spent several years in science research, and have published about 12 scientific papers - each of which was peer reviewed. I witnessed first-hand how funding is achieved. Much of my work involved computer modeling, so I do understand that aspect too - because I fought with climatologists to get processing time on government computers. Plus, I've maintained contacts and have retained a keen interest since moving into the world of international business. So, I'd challenge your assertion that I'm making unsubstantiated claims. On the contrary, I've quoted various anecdotes from real experience. There are plenty of occasions when my opinions can be criticized because they are not much more than opinions. In this particular case, though, unusual though it may be , I do know what I'm talking about.

Scientists are human beings driven by various goals and external pressures. Plus, we all have our bias, whether we admit to it or not. One look at the circumstances behind many of the world's greatest discoveries ought to convince us of that. We look where we want to look, and we're surprised when big steps forward come from accidental or incidental work. The contrarians and non-conformists are often the ones to shake science out of unintentional bias. In an age of reputation-seeking, it's particularly important not to be unduly influenced by those with a vested interest. And when politicians are involved (and are making big fortunes behind the scenes), a healthy dose of skepticism is in order.

 

[Subbynet]

You can't speak of the data though? That's my problem. The data is science - right or wrong, that will be found out eventually. They can only falsify it for so long - whether done on purpose or by mistake. Instead you speak of human traits, especially in relation to money, but also in relation to things which effect them.

Climate Change whether man-made or not doesn't really matter to many, "Climate Change" is the big collage of many photos, and while we can see many of the smaller photos clearly, the big picture remains hard to understand.

There's many indicators of impending issues, no one is arguing that were going to find more oil, or that (drinkable) water is going to become more abundant, or that land for food isn't reducing, or that the sea levels aren't rising. Further our cities are becoming more smoggy, and waterways and seas are plagued by plastic. We know all these things are going to be big issues very soon.

The contrarians focus too narrowly on the issue of MMGW, looking to disprove this while all the time we have much larger and really implicating issues which do need funding, for things no one is denying (unless some idiot as said the words MMGW alongside it). The only premise I can agree with them on is that this science shouldn't start from the point of MMGW, but GW itself, the cause doesn't matter when its the effect which might kill us. (We all know MM is the emotional tag stuck on this issue)

Your education and experience shouldn't mean you have a sharp wit in shooting down the other side, but the knowledge to explain why certain things are right or wrong to those standing in the middle listening to the crossfire... To those who don't understand.

If you don't or can't you should really remain silent, we already have too much dodgy information polarising the argument.

 

[cjd]

Steve, as always, you confuse science with scientists.

Science is a process that is, in the end, objective and above the subjectivity of individuals. Of course scientists are human and proven over and over again to bring their biases with them into the lab and the funding battles - that's why science used double blind testing whenever it can. But errors can't avoid being spotted by other scientists - real bias can't survive long because the process forces it out.

This current bruhaha over climate science is good for the science because it will force better practice but it may well be bad for the planet because it may take too long. No-one knows.

That said, you talked a lot of cock about evolution not so long ago in the cause of contrarianism and you're talking a lot of cock now too, simply because you think that an opinion is the same as knowledge - it ain't.

 

[cjd]

I'd imagine everyone with a belief of some sort would cite evidence for it, absurd as it may turn out to be. Or if that renders their "belief" no longer a belief, then in other words there is no such thing as a plain belief (i.e. something with no evidence, no experience or observation that caused it).

I suspect that this is your prime issue.

It's a curse of the modern world that any idiot's opinion should be given air time and considered valid. But there really are objectively bad arguments and bad evidences and we all know it.

We don't consider all opinions equal. Dawkins is a geneticist and when he talks about the subject other geneticists listen - even if they disagree. If he started talking about quantum mechanics he would be on much shakier ground because his 'opinion' of QM is as about as valid as mine - ie near worthless.

Modern scientists are forced to talk to each other because their specialism have become so special that the general public can't get near enough to express an opinion that counts for anything. In these circumstances we have to have a degree of trust in the process of science and not get too hung up on the scientists that do it.

It's a great comfort to me that scientists as individuals whilst necessarily being conformists also hanker for the one break through that will turn accepted wisdom on its head and win them global recognition. They're all iconoclasts hoping for their moment.

Belief is exactly the opposite, it's unchanging and unchangeable - the Pope will always be Catholic, regardless.

 

[Gord]

we're surprised when big steps forward come from accidental or incidental work. The contrarians and non-conformists are often the ones to shake science out of unintentional bias.

A view backed up by this fascinating article on how scientists study things , how they fail and how they succeed.
It suggests that the chances of hitting 'Eureka' are strongly increased by bewaring conformity , examining failures and involving outsiders.
The three traits , incidentally, that I don't see in the whole Global warming science. ( But that's an uninformed opinion ).

http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/12/fail_accept_defeat/all/1

 

[leemason]

A view backed up by this fascinating article on how scientists study things , how they fail and how they succeed.
It suggests that the chances of hitting 'Eureka' are strongly increased by bewaring conformity , examining failures and involving outsiders.
The three traits , incidentally, that I don't see in the whole Global warming science. ( But that's an uninformed opinion ).

http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/12/fail_accept_defeat/all/1

That can be true. Einstein was certainly a scientific outsider when he came up with his special theory of relativity followed by the general theory. And these can certainly be counted as 'Eureka' moments in science. And also true of Newton who to a great extent remained an outcast for much of his life having made enemies of people like Hook (who was a more conformist but still great scientist).

However once the 'Eureka' moment has gone it is still the mass of other scientists to extend, provide, and make solid the theory. It look years (in some cases 90 or more) of research, observation, and day to day science to prove (by observation, inference, etc) much of what Einstein had proposed about the Universe around us.

However even Einstein got some major things wrong. He didn't accept Quantum Theory (in is famous and much misquoted comment that "God does not play dice" - there, I've probably misquoted it). And Quantum theory is one of the most successful theories ever (in terms of prediction, and observation of events at the sub-atomic level).

I think science need a mix of both the conformist science community pushing things forward, and the 'Eureka' moments of outsiders. However science is nothing to do with "Belief" or "Opinion". Theories must be proven (or more particularly disproven) by observation and how they fit with the reality of what we observe in the real world. There appears to be some sort of confusion between religion requiring "Blind Faith" and and science which requires peer review and evidence.

I have no direct knowledge of climate research so can't comment on that, or the internal working of any specific University which I have no knowledge of. I could offer my opinions that climate change is a real think (whether influenced by human activity or not) or give my belief that the scientists involved are sincere in what they are doing. But to be honest my opinions or beliefs count for absolutely nothing.

 

[axiaer]

it has started from Australia by Ozone layer and now in USA and all over the world.

 

[jncc]

However science is nothing to do with "Belief" or "Opinion". Theories must be proven (or more particularly disproven) by observation and how they fit with the reality of what we observe in the real world. There appears to be some sort of confusion between religion requiring "Blind Faith" and and science which requires peer review and evidence.

I wish I understood the difference. I can't help but see this whole evidence/proof business to be an argumentum ad populum.

 

[cjd]

I wish I understood the difference. I can't help but see this whole evidence/proof business to be an argumentum ad populum.

It's true because many people think so? Not at all, anything but.

It's true because it can be proven to be so - otherwise it's a belief.

I don't believe that CO2 is produced when I breath out, I know it is. I know it because I can test for it - objectively.

 

[jncc]

It's true because many people think so? Not at all, anything but.

It's true because it can be proven to be so - otherwise it's a belief.

I don't believe that CO2 is produced when I breath out, I know it is. I know it because I can test for it - objectively.

But surely "proof" exists only in the mind of the person who just became convinced (or if not, where does it reside?) - how do we reconcile that with this notion of objectivity, something that transcends individual experience?

If you use a test for CO2 and thereby become convinced that your breath contains that gas, you could consider it proof. Another person might for any number of reasons consider the test flawed/insufficient and not regard it as proof at all. Without considering what other people think (which would be fallacious), how do we establish whether this, objectively, was in fact proof of CO2 being in your breath?

 

[leemason]

But surely "proof" exists only in the mind of the person who just became convinced (or if not, where does it reside?) - how do we reconcile that with this notion of objectivity, something that transcends individual experience?

If you use a test for CO2 and thereby become convinced that your breath contains that gas, you could consider it proof. Another person might for any number of reasons consider the test flawed/insufficient and not regard it as proof at all. Without considering what other people think (which would be fallacious), how do we establish whether this, objectively, was in fact proof of CO2 being in your breath?

It would be up to whoever questioned the test to prove that it did not test for the substance being tested. It's not sufficient to say that someone might not "believe" that a test works. It's completely immaterial what other people think unless they have something to backup what they think.

Are you suggesting that if someone thinks that CO2 does not comprise two Oxygen and one Carbon atom that your views should be taken seriously?

 

[jncc]

It would be up to whoever questioned the test to prove that it did not test for the substance being tested.

Why is it that way round? That seems arbitrary at best, and dangerous at worst.
What if the roles were reversed: If I tested your breath (by whatever means) and announced that it does not contain CO2, would it be for you to "prove" that the test was unsuitable/inaccurate?

And then we're back where we started anyway, trying to "prove" something, lol.

Are you suggesting that if someone thinks that CO2 does not comprise two Oxygen and one Carbon atom that your views should be taken seriously?

Well seeing CO2 is by definition two Oxygens and and one Carbon, that seems like an odd case. Someone could try to argue that the term "CO2" ought from now on to be used to describe something other than Carbon dioxide, but that wouldn't be the same thing. The original suggested proposition is basically a case of X != X, that kind of thing.

 

[cjd]

This sort of argument always resolves to 'we can never know anything' and it's very silly as it requires us to doubt unquestionable facts while being prepared to think that unproven and unproveable ideas might be their equivalent.

You know that your breath contains CO2 and you don't know anyone who doubts it nor do you know of any flaws in the testing regime for CO2.

So what's the issue - really?

 

[leemason]

Why is it that way round? That seems arbitrary at best, and dangerous at worst.
What if the roles were reversed: If I tested your breath (by whatever means) and announced that it does not contain CO2, would it be for you to "prove" that the test was unsuitable/inaccurate?

And then we're back where we started anyway, trying to "prove" something, lol.



Well seeing CO2 is by definition two Oxygens and and one Carbon, that seems like an odd case. Someone could try to argue that the term "CO2" ought from now on to be used to describe something other than Carbon dioxide, but that wouldn't be the same thing. The original suggested proposition is basically a case of X != X, that kind of thing.

Basically what you were saying is that a test for CO2 is not a test for CO2. So you are saying that CO2 is not CO2. A test for CO2 test for that compound of 2xOxygen and 1xCarbon.

A test for CO2 can very easily be proven to test for CO2 by testing it with CO2.

 

[Subbynet]

Why is it that way round? That seems arbitrary at best, and dangerous at worst.
What if the roles were reversed: If I tested your breath (by whatever means) and announced that it does not contain CO2, would it be for you to "prove" that the test was unsuitable/inaccurate?

And then we're back where we started anyway, trying to "prove" something, lol.

But you can't just use "whatever means", you must use the same "means" as everyone else, using metrics and procedures established and tested in science. So if you find something different, yet you're conducting the experiment in the same manner as other scientists, then you have something to shout about, if not, you must concede the other scientist is right.

Just to push you on the theory - how would you go about testing for Co2?

We ain't back at the "trying to prove something" stage, because you've proved nothing, and the others have a ton of evidence.

Well seeing CO2 is by definition two Oxygens and and one Carbon, that seems like an odd case. Someone could try to argue that the term "CO2" ought from now on to be used to describe something other than Carbon dioxide, but that wouldn't be the same thing. The original suggested proposition is basically a case of X != X, that kind of thing.

Because again its a standardised system. If YOU just start using different words, you'll never understand what others are trying to tell you - or you can have trouble explaining what you have found to other scientists.

Language is like that , if we need to describe something new, we can create a new word.

 

[jncc]

This sort of argument always resolves to 'we can never know anything' and it's very silly as it requires us to doubt unquestionable facts ...

I didn't know there were such things.

You know that your breath contains CO2 and you don't know anyone who doubts it nor do you know of any flaws in the testing regime for CO2.

My particular understanding of the composition of my breath is irrelevant - we're not literally debating that here, you understand. I'm trying to use it as an example to tease out some more details from you guys about what you think re: evidence/proof and all that.

Basically what you were saying is that a test for CO2 is not a test for CO2. So you are saying that CO2 is not CO2. A test for CO2 test for that compound of 2xOxygen and 1xCarbon.

That's not what I meant to say. To use that reasoning is a case of begging the question, so I didn't take it that you would have meant it that way.

What I meant to say is that if you conduct "a test" (just, a test, that's all we can say), which you claim proves that CO2 is present. I for some reason feel an objection to the test, and conduct one of my own whose results I claim prove that there is not CO2 present.

Now, again ignoring any outside voices (since this is supposed to be objective, and not subject to majority opinion), how do we show who is right? Can we even credibly come to any such conclusion?

To avoid clouding the issue, I'll get rid of the whole CO2 thing, since we all "know" that we exhale CO2, right?

So, Mr A tests a solution and pronounces that it contains X. Mr B tests it and declares that it certainly does not contain X. Where do they go from here?

A test for CO2 can very easily be proven to test for CO2 by testing it with CO2.

Using pre-prepared CO2 from some other source obviously does just step us back to questioning whatever method was used to test that, but even ignoring that problem:

It would tell us that CO2 is a sufficient condition for the test results, but not that it was a necessary condition.

 

[jncc]

Just to push you on the theory - how would you go about testing for Co2?

The actual example of testing for CO2 is not material to the discussion - we could be using anything. See my anonymised version of the question above.

Because again its a standardised system. If YOU just start using different words, you'll never understand what others are trying to tell you - or you can have trouble explaining what you have found to other scientists.

And I'm all for it.

 

[Subbynet]

The actual example of testing for CO2 is not material to the discussion - we could be using anything. See my anonymised version of the question above.

No, no you can't...(Obviously, as not everything is a "Co2 Detector") Up to now, you've used nothing but the idea you can use something - something your unprepared to expand on. The actual testing of Co2 matters greatly when trying to disprove the presence of that gas.

So you need to explain yourself.

 

[jncc]

No, no you can't...(Obviously, as not everything is a "Co2 Detector") Up to now, you've used nothing but the idea you can use something - something your unprepared to expand on. The actual testing of Co2 matters greatly when trying to disprove the presence of that gas.

So you need to explain yourself.

I think you misunderstand - I am suggesting that we get away from this fleshed-out example of CO2 testing, because it's too familiar to us to look at it cleanly as an example of what constitutes objective evidence/proof.

What I meant by "using anything" in my last post was "using anything as an exmple", i.e. whether it's CO2 testing or determining what the moon is made of, it doesn't matter. So to keep it clean I proposed a simplified scenario instead.