Remember me
▼ Content

Scientific Theories?



Page 1 of 212>
Scientific Theories?02-09-2016 15:27
Hank
★☆☆☆☆
(77)
There are several scientific theories like Theory of Relativity, Theory of gravity, Germ theory, Theory of plate tectonics, Theory of evolution, Theory of an ancient earth, and now Theory of Climate Change. I'm curious as to whether those that deny the science presented by the IPCC deny all scientific theories or just the climate change. And if only some of the scientific theories, how then do you decide which scientific experts to believe and which to not believe.
02-09-2016 16:03
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1133)
You don't need to deny science to be called a denier in climate science. Just pointing out that the warming has not followed the projections of the IPCC will do it.
Edited on 02-09-2016 16:03
02-09-2016 17:50
Hank
★☆☆☆☆
(77)
Tim the plumber wrote:
You don't need to deny science to be called a denier in climate science. Just pointing out that the warming has not followed the projections of the IPCC will do it.


That didn't answer my question. Do you accept the evidence for AGW and if not are there other scientific theories you don't accept and how do you decide?
02-09-2016 18:35
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
Hank wrote: There are several scientific theories like Theory of Relativity, Theory of gravity, Germ theory, Theory of plate tectonics, Theory of evolution, Theory of an ancient earth, and now Theory of Climate Change. I'm curious as to whether those that deny the science presented by the IPCC deny all scientific theories or just the climate change. And if only some of the scientific theories, how then do you decide which scientific experts to believe and which to not believe.

Evolution, Big Bang are great theories but they are not science models like the others. They are theories about events of the past and since we cannot travel back in time, we cannot apply the scientific method to directly test the theories. They're still great theories; they just aren't science.

"Climate Change" isn't even a theory. It's a religious dogma. It belongs with Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, et al.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
02-09-2016 19:36
Hank
★☆☆☆☆
(77)
IBdaMann wrote:
Hank wrote: There are several scientific theories like Theory of Relativity, Theory of gravity, Germ theory, Theory of plate tectonics, Theory of evolution, Theory of an ancient earth, and now Theory of Climate Change. I'm curious as to whether those that deny the science presented by the IPCC deny all scientific theories or just the climate change. And if only some of the scientific theories, how then do you decide which scientific experts to believe and which to not believe.

Evolution, Big Bang are great theories but they are not science models like the others. They are theories about events of the past and since we cannot travel back in time, we cannot apply the scientific method to directly test the theories. They're still great theories; they just aren't science.

"Climate Change" isn't even a theory. It's a religious dogma. It belongs with Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, et al.


.


Ancient earth and plate tectonics look at events in the past so why are they science models?
02-09-2016 23:29
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
Hank wrote:[quote]Ancient earth and plate tectonics look at events in the past so why are they science models?

Plate tectonics is a falsifiable model that predicts nature and is thus science. We can directly test plate tectonics.

Ancient earth is a fascinating theory but is not a falsifiable model that predicts nature and is thus not science. We cannot apply the scientific method to Ancient earth.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
03-09-2016 01:19
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann wrote:
Hank wrote:[quote]Ancient earth and plate tectonics look at events in the past so why are they science models?

Plate tectonics is a falsifiable model that predicts nature and is thus science. We can directly test plate tectonics.

Ancient earth is a fascinating theory but is not a falsifiable model that predicts nature and is thus not science. We cannot apply the scientific method to Ancient earth.

How would you falsify plate tectonics?
03-09-2016 03:40
Leafsdude
★☆☆☆☆
(133)
Evolution, Big Bang are great theories but they are not science models like the others. They are theories about events of the past and since we cannot travel back in time, we cannot apply the scientific method to directly test the theories.


*facepalm*

The big bang and evolution can be and are tested today.

More to the point, science, being a process of induction, can test historical events.

These are Creationist arguments. I sincerely hope you are not one.
03-09-2016 04:14
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
Leafsdude wrote:The big bang and evolution can be and are tested today.

More to the point, science, being a process of induction, can test historical events.

These are Creationist arguments. I sincerely hope you are not one.

< my turn to face-palm>

I don't know where to begin. You don't seem to know anything about science.

I'll tell you what...give me an example of how you think we can directly test, say, the chronological order of the trilobyte species to verify that we have it right?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
03-09-2016 04:17
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
Leafsdude wrote:These are Creationist arguments. I sincerely hope you are not one.

They are *MY* arguments and everyone, including creationists, are welcome to use them.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
03-09-2016 04:35
Leafsdude
★☆☆☆☆
(133)
I don't know where to begin. You don't seem to know anything about science.


I'm pretty sure it's you that doesn't know anything about science.

But you've got a projecting personality, clearly.

I'll tell you what...give me an example of how you think we can directly test, say, the chronological order of the trilobyte species to verify that we have it right?


Why do we have to "directly" test? What exactly does "directly" testing entail, even, compared to just "testing"?

What we can do is test radioactive decay (doing so with multiple isotopes) on multiple layers where fossils of particular trilobytes are found (ie: multiple specimens in multiple locations, or multiple, independent experimental tests) and estimate time of death. We can then analyze differences in skeletal makeup and other physical traits to make reasoned guesses on which individuals are of the same species (well, generally with specimens as old as trilobytes, we categorize them at the genus level instead, with each individual specimen(s) getting their own species) and then build those species/genus chronologically based on those radiometric dates.

They are *MY* arguments and everyone, including creationists, are welcome to use them.


I don't think it's wise being proud of such horrible logical reasoning. Then again, if you were wise, you wouldn't be making them in the first place, so I guess it is fitting...
Edited on 03-09-2016 04:41
03-09-2016 10:00
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1133)
Hank wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
You don't need to deny science to be called a denier in climate science. Just pointing out that the warming has not followed the projections of the IPCC will do it.


That didn't answer my question. Do you accept the evidence for AGW and if not are there other scientific theories you don't accept and how do you decide?


It is utterly obvious that humanity's actions have an influence on climate. This is especially true in cities.

The degree of that influence is where the debate is. Catch up.
03-09-2016 10:04
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1133)
IBdaMann wrote:
Hank wrote: There are several scientific theories like Theory of Relativity, Theory of gravity, Germ theory, Theory of plate tectonics, Theory of evolution, Theory of an ancient earth, and now Theory of Climate Change. I'm curious as to whether those that deny the science presented by the IPCC deny all scientific theories or just the climate change. And if only some of the scientific theories, how then do you decide which scientific experts to believe and which to not believe.

Evolution, Big Bang are great theories but they are not science models like the others. They are theories about events of the past and since we cannot travel back in time, we cannot apply the scientific method to directly test the theories. They're still great theories; they just aren't science.

"Climate Change" isn't even a theory. It's a religious dogma. It belongs with Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, et al.


.


Now IBdadenier is a denier. He is just about the only one. The least mad of the mad science deniers but still a great embaressment to the Skeptic side.

Just to point out that we can look at what happened millions of years ago just like we can understand what happened at a crime scene. Evolution is real, It is happening now. It has been tested and is utterly verifyable.
03-09-2016 10:09
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1133)
Surface Detail wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Hank wrote:[quote]Ancient earth and plate tectonics look at events in the past so why are they science models?

Plate tectonics is a falsifiable model that predicts nature and is thus science. We can directly test plate tectonics.

Ancient earth is a fascinating theory but is not a falsifiable model that predicts nature and is thus not science. We cannot apply the scientific method to Ancient earth.

How would you falsify plate tectonics?


My mate was a survayor in the British Army. He once did some work in Norway which involved putting iron posts in the ground around air bases. This allowed the air defence teams to move their AA weapons around the place so that the Russians could not photo the positions and then come back and bomb them. A 3 hour turnaround. The AA waepons needed to know exactly where they were.

The position data on the iron post had it's position, the date for this and the rate at which it was moving and it's directtion such as "3cm NW per year".

If the world's land masses were not moving about the place relative to each other that would falsify the hypotesis of plate techtonics. That the results confirm the idea makes it a theory.
03-09-2016 13:46
Hank
★☆☆☆☆
(77)
Tim the plumber wrote:
Hank wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
You don't need to deny science to be called a denier in climate science. Just pointing out that the warming has not followed the projections of the IPCC will do it.


That didn't answer my question. Do you accept the evidence for AGW and if not are there other scientific theories you don't accept and how do you decide?


It is utterly obvious that humanity's actions have an influence on climate. This is especially true in cities.

The degree of that influence is where the debate is. Catch up.


Well you are not the only one out there. And deniers range all the way from there is no warming to there is some warming but not caused by man to there is some warming caused by man but it's not enough to hurt to there is warming caused by man but we can adapt to it. The deniers cannot get together on their story. Oh and I think I might have left out yours because from what I've read here I think your argument is that we can't measure the temperature so we don't know. Not quite sure about that but think that's what you argue. So why your particular argument is where the debate is I don't have a clue. But I think you are the one that needs to catch up with where the debate is.
03-09-2016 13:52
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Tim the plumber wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Hank wrote:[quote]Ancient earth and plate tectonics look at events in the past so why are they science models?

Plate tectonics is a falsifiable model that predicts nature and is thus science. We can directly test plate tectonics.

Ancient earth is a fascinating theory but is not a falsifiable model that predicts nature and is thus not science. We cannot apply the scientific method to Ancient earth.

How would you falsify plate tectonics?


My mate was a survayor in the British Army. He once did some work in Norway which involved putting iron posts in the ground around air bases. This allowed the air defence teams to move their AA weapons around the place so that the Russians could not photo the positions and then come back and bomb them. A 3 hour turnaround. The AA waepons needed to know exactly where they were.

The position data on the iron post had it's position, the date for this and the rate at which it was moving and it's directtion such as "3cm NW per year".

If the world's land masses were not moving about the place relative to each other that would falsify the hypotesis of plate techtonics. That the results confirm the idea makes it a theory.

That's an interesting anecdote, but falsifiability isn't quite the black-and-white issue that it's sometimes made out to be.

In this case, for example, how would you determine for sure that the land masses weren't moving? How many measurements would you have to take? Could you be sure that just one small part wasn't moving, or that movement below the sensitivity of your instruments wasn't occurring?

Even if you did manage to determine that there was no movement, would that really falsify tectonic theory? What if the continents had moved in the past, but were now locked together, as they are predicted to do so in the future as radioactive decay subsides and the Earth's core slowly cools?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not knocking you here. It actually makes a pleasant change to engage in some serious discussion instead of responding to IBdaMann and ITN's tedious bone-headedness!
03-09-2016 15:55
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
Tim the plumber wrote:Now IBdadenier is a denier. He is just about the only one.

Nice psychology play, i.e. try to make me feel "isolated."

I am always happy to distance myself from those who take a religious pride in being scientifically illiterate.

Tim the plumber wrote:The least mad of the mad science deniers but still a great embaressment to the Skeptic side.

I am not on the self-declared "skeptic" side. Self-declared "skeptics" are anything but skeptics and don't deserve the honor of the title. Let's take you, for example. You don't question f***ing anything that aligns with your WACKY religious dogma. I could point out (and have) egregious violations of physics that merely cause you to become an instant ass, sorry, arse, because it just riles your religious senstivities and you become "offended." When science is presented to you, you take it personally and fire back with personal insults.

So f*** you. I've read your posts and you don't rise above the level of "moron" . Just go back to licking the boots of the religious clergy that has you bent over and is reaming you.

"Skeptics." They question nothing. They are merely climate lemmings. I am certainly not one of them, thank you very much.

Tim the plumber wrote:Just to point out that we can look at what happened millions of years ago just like we can understand what happened at a crime scene.

Exactly. We speculate. We determine to what level we are sure of what happened...

...but we cannot diretly test to verify that we are correct, off slightly or way off.

THAT is the point. Directly testing. If it cannot be directly tested then it cannot be science. How many criminal trial verdicts are science? Big Bang and Evolution aren't either.

We can't travel back in time to perform a direct test.

Tim the plumber wrote:Evolution is real, It is happening now. It has been tested and is utterly verifyable.

First, you are making the egregious error of combining a non-science theory of the past, i.e. Evolution, with a branch of modern science, i.e. genetics. Genetics is a falsifiable model that predicts biological events ... and does nothing to transform any speculation about past events into science.

By the way, you might not be aware that our understanding of those past events is forever changing. Every time we discover a new fossil we acquire new information and timelines are changed. You can be assured that our understanding today will be declared incorrect tomorrow. So, why would it even occur to anyone to refer to our ever-changing speculation as "science"?

Anyway, you don't get to take speculation of the past, pretend to combine it with a branch of science and then say the speculation is science.

...or is Intelligent Design actually science?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
03-09-2016 16:40
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
Surface Detail wrote:How would you falsify plate tectonics?

Wrong wording. You might not succeed but at least you can try. Your question should have been "How do we go about testing the plate tectonics model?"

The general answer is that you follow the scientific method. You review the geological model and derive an hypothesis. Then you devise an experiment that tests that hypothesis. If the model fails the test then the model is falsified. If it passes the test, however, repeat the process, i.e derive another hypothesis, devise another experiment, etc...ad infinitum. There are no proofs in science so no model is ever "confirmed."

Tim the plumber wrote:If the world's land masses were not moving about the place relative to each other that would falsify the hypotesis of plate techtonics. That the results confirm the idea makes it a theory.

Absolutely wrong, on many levels.

For starters, I saw the word "confirm" in there. That's probably something you picked up from your church. Once you let a little religion in the door, the next thing you know ALL of science is being kicked to the curb.

Secondly, falsifiability is inherent in a model. You don't get to arbitrarily decide what falsifies a model. The only thing that can falsify a model is a direct test of an hypothesis derived from the model. In your example above, if the plates were to stop moving for a moment, for whatever reason, or were to move coincidentally the same way relative to each other, you would have to declare the model false, but there's nothing in the model that says that cannot happen.

If you were to derive hypotheses from the plate tectonics model, you would NOT arrive at the assertions you just made.

An example of a testable hypothesis would be plate direction. Since the model specifies that lithosperic plates are floating on liquid mantle, one could hypothesize that any given plate must move in the direction of the mantle flow. So you devise a test. You establish a mantle flow, fix a geo hack on a marker on a plate and see if the movement aligns. If it does, great, devise another hypothesis, etc...


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
03-09-2016 17:00
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
As a counterweight to IBdaMann's militant Popperism:

A Skeptical Look at Karl Popper

As Gardner writes, Popper's theory of falsification isn't a good description of the way that scientists actually go about their work:

"Astronomers look for signs of water on Mars. They do not think they are making efforts to falsify the conjecture that Mars never had water."
03-09-2016 17:03
Leafsdude
★☆☆☆☆
(133)
Exactly. We speculate. We determine to what level we are sure of what happened...

...but we cannot diretly test to verify that we are correct, off slightly or way off.


IBDM, do you think we are correct in the duration of a year on Pluto? We haven't measured that directly yet, as we've yet to observe a full orbit, so is it unverified?
Edited on 03-09-2016 17:03
03-09-2016 18:02
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
Surface Detail wrote:As a counterweight to IBdaMann's militant Popperism:

I never mentioned Popper. I speak only of the scientific method.

You brought up Popper. Why? You think science is about personalities. You think science is a religion, comprised of competing, subjective "ism"s. You think your religion is science. Unfortunately for you your religion is antithetical to science. Nonetheless you want your religion to own science.

Religion is all about personalities, clergy, messiahs and those who will do the thinking for the obedient, gullible masses. Hence your attempt to change the topic away from the scientific method to Popper, i.e. a person.

This is the standard tactic of Marxists when attacking competing religions, i.e. pick a prominent figure, declare him a charlatan, ridicule him, and generally EVADE the topic at hand.

Fortunately, science is not a religion. In science, no one's opinion matters. It does not matter how influential Popper might have been in establishing modern requirements for science, attacking him is absolutely meaningless and changes nothing.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
03-09-2016 18:19
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
Leafsdude wrote:IBDM, do you think we are correct in the duration of a year on Pluto? We haven't measured that directly yet, as we've yet to observe a full orbit, so is it unverified?

This should have been an easy question for you to express but nonetheless I must ask for clarification.

If you are asking if we have verified by observation our computations of Pluto's orbit then the answer is "no".

If you are asking whether I think our computations will eventually be verified as correct within an insignificant margin of error then the answer is "yes."


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist

Edited on 03-09-2016 18:20
03-09-2016 18:32
Leafsdude
★☆☆☆☆
(133)
What I'm asking, simply, is do you think it's reasonable to accept the stated duration of a single orbit of Pluto around the Sun based on scientific measurements and calculations, even though we haven't observed one in full yet, or is that also "religious"?
03-09-2016 18:56
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann, there is an entire discipline, called philosophy of science, devoted to the study of what qualifies as science, the reliability of scientific theories, and the ultimate purpose of science. If you actually want to have a sensible discussion about the topic, you'd do well to read up a little in this area. While there does exist a concrete reality, the process by which it is understood and modelled - science - is a human construct, and there are different opinions as to what it comprises.

While falsification, as propounded by Popper, is indeed generally regarded as a necessary condition for a scientific theory, it is sometimes not obvious in practise what would constitute falsification, nor is a theory that can be falsified necessarily science. And, as Gardner explains, the actual activity of science isn't well described by this paradigm.
03-09-2016 20:54
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
Leafsdude wrote:What I'm asking, simply, is do you think it's reasonable to accept the stated duration of a single orbit of Pluto around the Sun based on scientific measurements and calculations, even though we haven't observed one in full yet, or is that also "religious"?

First, I'll mention that I'm happy to help you differentiate science from religion. Don't be afraid to come to me with the hard stuff.

Second, This should have been an easy question for you to express, especially since it's your second attempt and I have already helped you.

Nonetheless I must ask for clarification.

You switched to the term "the stated duration". OK, I give up. Is this a different/alternate proposed orbital period from what you or I can compute for ourselves? Who's stated duration? ...or could this have been omitted from the question?

OK, again I give up. What constitutes "scientific" measurements? Did you mean just "measurements" or are you talking about some specific set of measurements? ... or did you mean to write "scientific calculations"?

Why start with the word "simply" if your question is going to be something so convoluted that you need to ask it in waves?

I'll try to answer some of these in an attempt to keep you from having to come back with a third terribly-worded question.

A. I accept Kepler's Law (science).

B. You or I can use it to predict the bavior of Pluto and other bodies.

C. The orbit of Pluto would make for a valid test of Kepler's Law

Beyond that I need you to clarify as indicated.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
03-09-2016 21:06
Leafsdude
★☆☆☆☆
(133)
The question is simple: is Pluto's estimated orbit of 90 560 days reasonable to accept or not?
Edited on 03-09-2016 21:10
03-09-2016 21:57
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
Surface Detail wrote:IBdaMann, there is an entire discipline, called philosophy of science, devoted to the study of what qualifies as science, the reliability of scientific theories, and the ultimate purpose of science.

So the net result of where you are going with this is that there is a certain group of people who determine, by their consensus of opinions, what gets to be called science ... and that the determining criteria is something other than falsifiable models that predict nature and that have survived the scientific method?

Your point is that science is determined subjectively and arbitrarily, yes? ... that a group of people called "philosophers of science" somehow own science and form a kind of "board of directors" who will establish for us "the new science," yes?

Surface Detail wrote:If you actually want to have a sensible discussion about the topic, ...

If I want a sensible discussion I'll find someone who can discuss science without tying to subvert it in support of a religious agenda.

Science is not determined by subjective consensus or by democratic vote.

Surface Detail wrote:While falsification, as propounded by Popper, is indeed generally regarded as a necessary condition for a scientific theory ...

Correct.


Surface Detail wrote: ... it is sometimes not obvious in practise what would constitute falsification,...

It's always obvious. How can it not be obvious?

Surface Detail wrote: ...nor is a theory that can be falsified necessarily science.

Correct. Science requires a falsifiable model that predicts nature.


Surface Detail wrote:And, as Gardner explains, the actual activity of science isn't well described by this paradigm.

Sciemce is not concerned with anyone's opinion, including Gardner's.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
03-09-2016 22:57
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote: ... it is sometimes not obvious in practise what would constitute falsification,...

It's always obvious. How can it not be obvious?

Let's take a closer look at this point.

Do you accept that Newton's laws of motion are scientific?

Edit: Gotta go now, but I'll be back tomorrow. Ciao.
Edited on 03-09-2016 23:03
04-09-2016 01:53
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
Surface Detail wrote:Do you accept that Newton's laws of motion are scientific?

I hate to quibble but can we make do without the word "scientific"?

Would it work if I were to say that I accept Newton's laws of motion and that all three are obviously falsifiable?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
04-09-2016 02:25
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
Leafsdude wrote:
The question is simple: is Pluto's estimated orbit of 90 560 days reasonable to accept or not?

Let's see:

Pluto's orbit period,

T^2 = a^3; T = sqrt ( 39.48^3 ); T = 248.065 earth years

248.065 years * 365.24 days per year = 90,603.206 earth days

I get a different number. I think your estimate is off by more than a month. Is that reasonable?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
04-09-2016 06:37
Leafsdude
★☆☆☆☆
(133)
Alright, then is Pluto's estimated orbit of ~90 603 days reasonable to accept or not?
04-09-2016 14:22
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:Do you accept that Newton's laws of motion are scientific?

I hate to quibble but can we make do without the word "scientific"?

Would it work if I were to say that I accept Newton's laws of motion and that all three are obviously falsifiable?

Excellent. So which of these observations, if any, would you consider to have falsified Newton's laws of motion:

1) That a rock and a feather fall through the air at different speeds
2) That a tilted gyroscope doesn't fall over.
2) That the precession of the perihelion of Mercury's orbit doesn't quite tally with Newton's laws.
Edited on 04-09-2016 14:23
04-09-2016 15:03
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
Surface Detail wrote:Excellent. So which of these observations, if any, would you consider to have falsified Newton's laws of motion:

To falsify a falsifiable model, you have to start with the model. No one's opinion matters and no one gets to arbitrarily decide what renders the model false.

Let's say you and I are presented the laws of motion and we are skeptical. ""What's this crap that they're trying to hand us?"

So we pick one, say, the second, and we seriously doubt this F=ma bullshit. We think "Nature doesn't work this way ALL the time!" so we aim to find an example in nature that does not adhere to F=ma. So we start developing an hypothesis that we think doesn't hold up.

I would take the opportunity to point out that what we are doing is following the scientific method. Your question put the cart before the horse and asked what observations that were not the results of experiments devised from any hypotheses derived from the model ... show it to be false. The answer is none can. You have to follow the scientific method and start with the model.

So back to our skepticism. By following the scientific method and starting with the model, it is obvious what is required to render it false. The model itself specifies exactly what it is saying and any person from any walk of life is free to show how that model does not hold up.

When you look at the laws of motion it is EASY to devise direct tests of each one.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
04-09-2016 15:15
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
OK, so I have my doubts about F = ma.

I propose a test that involves dropping two objects of different masses from the same height, say, a rock and a feather. Given that the force on each object due to gravity is proportional to its mass, F = ma dictates that both should accelerate at the same rate and hit the ground simultaneously. I perform my test. Eureka! The rock hits the ground while the feather is still falling. I have therefore falsified Newton's second law! Or have I?
04-09-2016 15:18
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
Leafsdude wrote:Alright, then is Pluto's estimated orbit of ~90 603 days reasonable to accept or not?

"Acceptance" is subjective. I can only speak for me.

All of your wording in your questions implies there is some sort of governing body that determines all these subjective decisions for us and decides what is science...i.e. your questions are all loaded with a fundamental error that reveals a misunderstanding on your part of what science is and "how it all works."

The best answer I can give you is that I certainly accept the number I computed for my purposes. If the day ever comes that I need to chart out a path for my shuttle ride to Pluto I will revisit my "acceptance" of that number.

...and no, I won't care what Wikipedia has to say on the matter then either.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist

Edited on 04-09-2016 15:19
04-09-2016 15:35
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
Surface Detail wrote:
OK, so I have my doubts about F = ma.

I propose a test that involves dropping two objects of different masses from the same height, say, a rock and a feather. Given that the force on each object due to gravity is proportional to its mass, F = ma dictates that both should accelerate at the same rate and hit the ground simultaneously. I perform my test. Eureka! The rock hits the ground while the feather is still falling. I have therefore falsified Newton's second law! Or have I?

Great, you and I thoroghly document our hypothesis, the experiment conditions and the results, and then we publish them in every magazine because we're going to be famous. We make sure to send a copy to the Nobel Foundation so they can get our paperwork started, and we make plans with our travel agent for our impending lecture circuit.

Then a few weeks after we publish, some Guido in Naples publishes an article on how the laws of motion are safe, that we didn't take into account some little things like the atmosphere and such forth and he publishes the results of his vacuum chamber experiments.

...and we become elated that we're not going to become rich and famous because truth has won out...


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
04-09-2016 16:03
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
But I thought F = ma was meant to work under all circumstances? Never mind, after you explain all about air resistance, I see that F = ma does indeed work here, but it's not quite as obvious as I thought.

Still, not to be discouraged, I propose a new test. I've got one of these spinning things - a gyroscope. I spin it up to speed and set it down on the table at an angle. I expect that, when I let it go, it'll fall to the table as the force of gravity acts on it. It doesn't! Instead, it starts to circle round. It even does this in a vacuum! Why is F = ma not working? Surely this has falsified Newton's second law! Or has it?
04-09-2016 17:17
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5419)
Surface Detail wrote:
OK, so I have my doubts about F = ma.

I propose a test that involves dropping two objects of different masses from the same height, say, a rock and a feather. Given that the force on each object due to gravity is proportional to its mass, F = ma dictates that both should accelerate at the same rate and hit the ground simultaneously. I perform my test. Eureka! The rock hits the ground while the feather is still falling. I have therefore falsified Newton's second law! Or have I?


I also accept the number, because two independent investigations were able to show the same thing. First, Kepler, who was able to come up with a series of equations that solved the Mars problem, and was able to show a general form of how that works, and Newton, who took these equations, combined them with Galileo's work, and distilled it down to a beautifully simple equation that works not just for Mars, but was extremely accurate for the Moon as well. Newton was also able to show these movements could be found in Earthly movement using the same equations.

The falsification of Galileo's law (not Newton's) certainly would have blown up Newton's work with it. This particular test, however, I can reject as a falsification because I can accept the effect of the resistance of the medium through which it falls. Even Galileo could see the effects upon a feather in the wind, and how the feather sometimes goes UP, then down, then up again, while the ball just seems to drop in a more or less straight line.


The Parrot Killer
04-09-2016 17:47
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
Surface Detail wrote: I see that F = ma does indeed work here, but it's not quite as obvious as I thought.

But the relationship in question, i.e. F=ma, was spectacularly obvious. Any guy on the street can see it.

The model comes with its falsifiability branded on the packaging. There's no guarantee that all purchasers will be able to derive valid hypotheses or devise valid experiments but the falsifiability comes in the box.

Surface Detail wrote: Still, not to be discouraged,

...and still not starting with the model...


Surface Detail wrote: I propose a new test.

...and I say "Whoa, easy there tiger. A test of what hypothesis?"

This is where you explain the prediction of nature you derived from the model (and briefly your derivation) for which the gyroscope test would make a valid experiment.

You have to do that first.

Surface Detail wrote: I've got one of these spinning things - a gyroscope. I spin it up to speed and set it down on the table at an angle. I expect that, when I let it go, it'll fall to the table as the force of gravity acts on it. It doesn't! Instead, it starts to circle round. It even does this in a vacuum! Why is F = ma not working? Surely this has falsified Newton's second law! Or has it?

You might very well predict the correct result when you derive your hypothesis from the model.. If not, you'll know what to look for when reviewing your test results and when you form a second test.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
04-09-2016 17:49
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5419)
Surface Detail wrote:
But I thought F = ma was meant to work under all circumstances? Never mind, after you explain all about air resistance, I see that F = ma does indeed work here, but it's not quite as obvious as I thought.

Still, not to be discouraged, I propose a new test. I've got one of these spinning things - a gyroscope. I spin it up to speed and set it down on the table at an angle. I expect that, when I let it go, it'll fall to the table as the force of gravity acts on it. It doesn't! Instead, it starts to circle round. It even does this in a vacuum! Why is F = ma not working? Surely this has falsified Newton's second law! Or has it?


Friction was a known component of movement at the time. Newton could show that although friction is not a force in itself, it could act as an opposing force (Newton called it a resistant medium). He also knew that the greatest gyroscope on Earth was the Earth itself. He was even able to show why gyroscopes precess by applying his same laws.


The Parrot Killer
Page 1 of 212>





Join the debate Scientific Theories?:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Scientific Consensus14126-05-2018 18:34
Scientific Challenge8304-08-2017 00:03
There is no Scientific Consensus on Global Warming4929-02-2016 13:36
There is no mathematical and scientific foundation nor any experimental evidence of the greenhouse effect516-01-2016 17:59
Total global CO2-stop (scientific value?)8428-12-2015 13:34
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2017 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact