Remember me
▼ Content

dollars



Page 2 of 2<12
03-06-2019 07:13
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5025)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Science is a set of falsifiable theories.


I eventually looked this up, since I've never seen anywhere but here, and it's repeated daily...

It comes from the philosophy of Karl Popper, who died in 1994.

Karl Popper put the term "falsifiable" into the mainstream lexicon but Karl Popper did not own science and the requirements for science were not established by any person or organization.

If you want a better understanding of falsifiability then look into technology testing. You might have noticed that technology is growing exponentially. Technology is the surest testament to the underlying science. Commercial technology industries insist on very thorough testing of all new science models before they will invest big money on a project. This is what the scientific method has become. It no longer matters what Popper might have said or thought.

Because so much big money rides on it, the standard verbiage of "hypothesis," "experiment" and "scientific method" have essentially disappeared and now everything falls under the umbrella term "testing." The "Test and Evaluation" field has become very complex and very technical and the people responsible for conducting testing and developing test plans require certification, e.g.

Example Test and Evaluation Certification Program
Example Test and Evaluation Professional Certification Program

There can be no ambiguity in a science model. All models must be formally specified (mathematics is the typical form of specification). The formal specification must unambiguously specify that which will prove the model false, i.e. falsifiability. That specification is also known as the "null hypothesis."

Imagine that you are a potential investment banker of many $millions in what might very well be a nutty claim of "science." You're going to insist on it being tyested inside and out ... to your complete and utter satisfaction. You might even insist on being present for some of the testing just to make sure you aren't being conned. Do you imagine that you would allow yourself to be bullied into a rash investment by some Marxists who are calling you "stupid" for daring to doubt (i.e. to deny) what they insist is already "settled science"? What if you overhear some conversation at the water cooler that Popper was discredited and that falsifiability is overrated? Will you ease up on the testing?

Of course not. If you can show some problem with the science model then you want to do so before you invest $millions. Otherwise, if you convince yourself that there's really something to this new science then you would be confident that you're sitting on a gold mine.

Bottom line: You will insist on falsifiablity and you will test any new model every which way from Tuesday.

That is falsifiability today.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

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
03-06-2019 07:15
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5025)
James___ wrote: Basically your computer is a set of falsifiable theories based on Einstein's falsifiable work. The fact that you're reading my post shows that Einstein's work back in 1906 has been falsified. And thus science itself has been falsified.

You have no idea what falsifiability is.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

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
03-06-2019 10:57
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1482)
IBdaMann wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Science is a set of falsifiable theories.


I eventually looked this up, since I've never seen anywhere but here, and it's repeated daily...

It comes from the philosophy of Karl Popper, who died in 1994.

Karl Popper put the term "falsifiable" into the mainstream lexicon but Karl Popper did not own science and the requirements for science were not established by any person or organization.

If you want a better understanding of falsifiability then look into technology testing. You might have noticed that technology is growing exponentially. Technology is the surest testament to the underlying science. Commercial technology industries insist on very thorough testing of all new science models before they will invest big money on a project. This is what the scientific method has become. It no longer matters what Popper might have said or thought.

Because so much big money rides on it, the standard verbiage of "hypothesis," "experiment" and "scientific method" have essentially disappeared and now everything falls under the umbrella term "testing." The "Test and Evaluation" field has become very complex and very technical and the people responsible for conducting testing and developing test plans require certification, e.g.

Example Test and Evaluation Certification Program
Example Test and Evaluation Professional Certification Program

There can be no ambiguity in a science model. All models must be formally specified (mathematics is the typical form of specification). The formal specification must unambiguously specify that which will prove the model false, i.e. falsifiability. That specification is also known as the "null hypothesis."

Imagine that you are a potential investment banker of many $millions in what might very well be a nutty claim of "science." You're going to insist on it being tyested inside and out ... to your complete and utter satisfaction. You might even insist on being present for some of the testing just to make sure you aren't being conned. Do you imagine that you would allow yourself to be bullied into a rash investment by some Marxists who are calling you "stupid" for daring to doubt (i.e. to deny) what they insist is already "settled science"? What if you overhear some conversation at the water cooler that Popper was discredited and that falsifiability is overrated? Will you ease up on the testing?

Of course not. If you can show some problem with the science model then you want to do so before you invest $millions. Otherwise, if you convince yourself that there's really something to this new science then you would be confident that you're sitting on a gold mine.

Bottom line: You will insist on falsifiablity and you will test any new model every which way from Tuesday.

That is falsifiability today.


Why bother investing in something you don't believe in the first place? If something does 'feel' right, I don't buy it, even if it's cheap, or claims to be a huge benefit. I trust my instincts, sometimes I'm wrong, sometimes I'm right, but either way, I get good value for my money. Might miss out on a few good deals, but avoid many bad ones.

Obviously, the Popper method fails with Climate Change, since a who lot of governments and business are sold on bad science. Their are spending millions on it, some want to spend trillions. There is a potential to profit, for a short time, but in the long run, it's going to be an economic mess.

Have have noticed that science is done differently, more money oriented, political. Figured it was a funding issue, since research is expensive, and no one is going to pay for it, unless they can profit from it, except the government. A lot of the research seems to start with a pre-drawn conclusion, and the science, is about finding away to make it happen. I just thought science got cheap and dirty, sold out. Use to be about learning, now it's about learning to make money off anything. Guess Popper just figured out how to make science more profitable.
03-06-2019 15:51
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9872)
HarveyH55 wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Science is a set of falsifiable theories.


I eventually looked this up, since I've never seen anywhere but here, and it's repeated daily...

It comes from the philosophy of Karl Popper, who died in 1994.

Karl Popper put the term "falsifiable" into the mainstream lexicon but Karl Popper did not own science and the requirements for science were not established by any person or organization.

If you want a better understanding of falsifiability then look into technology testing. You might have noticed that technology is growing exponentially. Technology is the surest testament to the underlying science. Commercial technology industries insist on very thorough testing of all new science models before they will invest big money on a project. This is what the scientific method has become. It no longer matters what Popper might have said or thought.

Because so much big money rides on it, the standard verbiage of "hypothesis," "experiment" and "scientific method" have essentially disappeared and now everything falls under the umbrella term "testing." The "Test and Evaluation" field has become very complex and very technical and the people responsible for conducting testing and developing test plans require certification, e.g.

Example Test and Evaluation Certification Program
Example Test and Evaluation Professional Certification Program

There can be no ambiguity in a science model. All models must be formally specified (mathematics is the typical form of specification). The formal specification must unambiguously specify that which will prove the model false, i.e. falsifiability. That specification is also known as the "null hypothesis."

Imagine that you are a potential investment banker of many $millions in what might very well be a nutty claim of "science." You're going to insist on it being tyested inside and out ... to your complete and utter satisfaction. You might even insist on being present for some of the testing just to make sure you aren't being conned. Do you imagine that you would allow yourself to be bullied into a rash investment by some Marxists who are calling you "stupid" for daring to doubt (i.e. to deny) what they insist is already "settled science"? What if you overhear some conversation at the water cooler that Popper was discredited and that falsifiability is overrated? Will you ease up on the testing?

Of course not. If you can show some problem with the science model then you want to do so before you invest $millions. Otherwise, if you convince yourself that there's really something to this new science then you would be confident that you're sitting on a gold mine.

Bottom line: You will insist on falsifiablity and you will test any new model every which way from Tuesday.

That is falsifiability today.


Why bother investing in something you don't believe in the first place? If something does 'feel' right, I don't buy it, even if it's cheap, or claims to be a huge benefit. I trust my instincts, sometimes I'm wrong, sometimes I'm right, but either way, I get good value for my money. Might miss out on a few good deals, but avoid many bad ones.

Obviously, the Popper method fails with Climate Change, since a who lot of governments and business are sold on bad science. Their are spending millions on it, some want to spend trillions. There is a potential to profit, for a short time, but in the long run, it's going to be an economic mess.

Have have noticed that science is done differently, more money oriented, political. Figured it was a funding issue, since research is expensive, and no one is going to pay for it, unless they can profit from it, except the government. A lot of the research seems to start with a pre-drawn conclusion, and the science, is about finding away to make it happen. I just thought science got cheap and dirty, sold out. Use to be about learning, now it's about learning to make money off anything. Guess Popper just figured out how to make science more profitable.

Popper's definition of science isn't used with Climate Change. The problem is that there is no definition for 'climate change' that is quantifiable.

No theory, scientific or otherwise, can exist based on a void argument fallacy (or any other type of fallacy). Science itself is theories that must be falsifiable, but theories nevertheless.

Scientists are almost entirely funded from one source: the government. Any independently funded scientist that questions 'climate change' is almost immediately ostracized from the bulk of the 'scientific' community.

This is not a new problem. It existed even at the time of Galileo, and even before that. It is the reason that science isn't scientists, or even people at all.

Science is just the theories themselves.

As IBdaMann quite correctly pointed out, all theories of science are formalized into some kind of equation (usually in mathematics). This gives the theory power of prediction, which comes with the power of the formal proof and a closed functional system.

This formalization allows for the use of a specific test that produces a specific result. Everything is quantifiable. It's what makes the null hypothesis something that is testable.

Thus, science and a closed functional system (usually mathematics, but it may be logic), are tied together. All of physics uses mathematics as it's closed functional system. That includes the laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 03-06-2019 16:16
03-06-2019 15:57
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5025)
HarveyH55 wrote: Why bother investing in something you don't believe in the first place?

That's not the right question.

The correct question is "Why bother investing in something that will make you a chitload of money?" The answer is "the chitload of money." People trade in goods everyday in which they themselves don't believe, or plan to use themselves, because they expect to make a profit. Such people are called "speculators." The entire futures market is based on this idea.

HarveyH55 wrote: If something does 'feel' right, I don't buy it, even if it's cheap, or claims to be a huge benefit.

You are not a speculator. You are a consumer.

HarveyH55 wrote: I trust my instincts, sometimes I'm wrong, sometimes I'm right, but either way, I get good value for my money. Might miss out on a few good deals, but avoid many bad ones.

You are prudent with your money. If more people were like you then there would be far fewer financial problems in society.

HarveyH55 wrote: Obviously, the Popper method fails with Climate Change, since a who lot of governments and business are sold on bad science.

There is no such thing as the Popper method and governments are the ones pushing the bad science for political reasons.

Climate Change and Global Warming comprise a religion that aims to convince the congregation through fear into believing that they are in dire need of salvation that can only be attained by giving more and more tax money to an ever increasingly invasive government. What government wouldn't push that agenda?

HarveyH55 wrote: Their are spending millions on it, some want to spend trillions.

There isn't anyone who wants to spend a dime on Climate Change. Politicians just want to spend $billions/$trillions of dollars ... on themselves, on their buddies, on nice office furniture, on foreign travel, on private jets and limousine caravans, on great perks ... and all they have to do is push a Global Warming agenda.

HarveyH55 wrote: There is a potential to profit, for a short time, but in the long run, it's going to be an economic mess.

But there will be much government spending today and people will get rich today ... the only goal. Future generations and political leaders will get to clean up the mess.

HarveyH55 wrote: Have have noticed that science is done differently, more money oriented, political.

Science is not "done." Science has not changed.

What you are talking about is business, and that has not changed.

HarveyH55 wrote: Figured it was a funding issue, since research is expensive, and no one is going to pay for it, unless they can profit from it, except the government.

This is called business risk and it has not changed.

HarveyH55 wrote: A lot of the research seems to start with a pre-drawn conclusion, and the science, is about finding away to make it happen.

Not exactly. Science begins as an idea, a human epiphany. You could very well call it a pre-drawn conclusion because that is what is pursued until it is shown to be in error.

Global Warming and Climate Change are religions and are not, themselves pursued as science any more than Christianity or Islam are pursued as science. There is no one out there trying to develop a science model that violates Stefan-Boltzmann or that violates the laws of thermodynamics. No one is going to invest big money in something that is, on its surface, externally inconsistent with existing science.

HarveyH55 wrote: Use to be about learning, now it's about learning to make money off anything.

That's not science. That's business. Nothing has changed.

HarveyH55 wrote: Guess Popper just figured out how to make science more profitable.

Popper simply tried to explain the need for falsifiability. He was absolutely correct. Nothing has changed.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

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
Page 2 of 2<12





Join the debate dollars:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Even if Democrats spend 100 trillion dollars and reduce CO2 in air to 100 ppm temperature won't chang124-04-2019 21:42
▲ 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 © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact