This is what science is

[Injunear]

“I can now rejoice even in the falsification of a cherished theory, because even this is a scientific success.” — John Eccles

Source: The Economist Expresso

Falsification based on evidence and experimentation is what science is. Creating dogma and "consensus" is not.

[Stonge]

You need to explain the concept of 'true' only having meaning if falsifiable.

[argoal]

Falsification based on evidence and experimentation is what science is. Creating dogma and "consensus" is not.

I'm glad we got that cleared up. No more questions here.

[XFool]

Falsification based on evidence and experimentation is what science is. Creating dogma and "consensus" is not.

Ah, the old "consensus" trope! Ever beloved of climate science Deniers everywhere.

"There is no place for consensus in science" they prate.

But how exactly can you have an agreed science of anything if at no time is there a generally accepted and agreed set of facts, ideas and theories? i.e. a consensus.

They never seem very quick to answer that!

Is there no consensus on the germ theory of diseases? Is there no consensus on the role of DNA in biology? Is there no consensus on the fact of Evolution? Is there no consensus on whether the Earth is stationary and at the centre of the universe, or moves in an orbit around the sun?

Of course, as science is a progressive project, new facts and ideas may become available. The old facts are disproved, old ideas no longer work and new ideas are called for. In such a time of transition there may well not be a generally agreed consensus. That is until new theories are established and there is a new consensus.

But whenever I hear somebody bleating on about "no such thing as consensus in science" I know I am hearing from somebody with little understanding of, and probably little genuine interest in, science.

[Stonge]

Consensus proves nothing.

Oh very well then, from Wikipaedia...

Falsifiability or refutability of a statement, hypothesis, or theory is the inherent possibility that it can be proven false. A statement is called falsifiable if it is possible to conceive of an observation or an argument which negates the statement in question. In this sense, falsify is synonymous with nullify, meaning to invalidate or "show to be false".

For example, by the problem of induction, no number of confirming observations can verify a universal generalization, such as All swans are white, since it is logically possible to falsify it by observing a single black swan. Thus, the term falsifiability is sometimes synonymous to testability. Some statements, such as It will be raining here in one million years, are falsifiable in principle, but not in practice.

The concern with falsifiability gained attention by way of philosopher of science Karl Popper's scientific epistemology "falsificationism". Popper stresses the problem of demarcation—distinguishing the scientific from the unscientific—and makes falsifiability the demarcation criterion, such that what is unfalsifiable is classified as unscientific, and the practice of declaring an unfalsifiable theory to be scientifically true is pseudoscience.

[Slarti]

“I can now rejoice even in the falsification of a cherished theory, because even this is a scientific success.” — John Eccles

Source: The Economist Expresso

Falsification based on evidence and experimentation is what science is. Creating dogma and "consensus" is not.

I don't think I'd take much from an economics journal re science. All things being equal.


Slarti

PS, Which John Eccles?

[XFool]

Oh very well then, from Wikipaedia...

Cor! Could do with a bit of a clean up IMO.

[Injunear]

I don't think I'd take much from an economics journal re science. All things being equal.

I don't take anything from an economics journal "re science" other than they have good and well earned reputation for decent journalism, which is more than be said for some organs, and do write on science and technology, also rather better than some. Editorially the Economist is well behind the AGW dogma if that makes you feel any better.

But anyway the source was simply the source of the quote - which I thought was a helpful summary - if you want more the extract from Wikipedia posted by another is helpful.

[Injunear]

... what is unfalsifiable is classified as unscientific, and the practice of declaring an unfalsifiable theory to be scientifically true is pseudoscience.

This for example is what led reputable physicists to cavil at the idea, published by the American Physical Society, that the AGW theory "cannot be questioned".

All "unfalsifiable" theories must be questioned - that is what the practice of science does.

[Injunear]

But how exactly can you have an agreed science of anything if at no time is there a generally accepted and agreed set of facts, ideas and theories? i.e. a consensus.

They never seem very quick to answer that!

I am happy to answer. I think your thinking is in error. Science does not proceed through the arrival of general agreement. Science proceeds through the testing of falsifiable theories and the accumulation of verifiable and repeatable evidence.

For example for the AGW theory to be real, as opposed to pseudo-science, it would need to be falsifiable, i.e. how can one test to disprove it?

For example the AGW theory expounds that rises in CO2 are "forcing" rises in temperature and that the rise in CO2 is caused by man-made activity and the rise is unprecedented. Each of these elements can be tested as to their veracity through attempting to falsify them based on the evidence. When one looks at the evidence each element is falsifiable.

All that "climate science" appears to have done is to seize on the theory, attempt to refute or dismiss any attempt at falsification, and then find ways to spend enormous sums of money on building self-serving computer models based on the unfalsified assumption set of the theory.

There does not need ever to be a "generally accepted" set of ideas and theories. There does need to be evidence of a test that would falsify a theory categorically, not doing so, for a theory to be accepted as science, rather than faith. The result of falsification experiment maybe generally accepted since they are scientifically based on evidence, not simply ideas and theories.

There is a general agreement within a very large set of people that extra-terrestrial entities called gods influence our lives. It is a faith based consensus, but it is not science.

[XFool]

Consensus proves nothing.

Actually it does!

In science it surely proves there is general agreement about an area of science, a general acceptance of the facts and concepts. Anyone hoping to overthrow or ignore such a "consensus" would do well to think carefully about their challenge. That consensus was only reached following scrutiny and challenges of its own - perhaps over many years - so a challenge would need to be substantial in intellectual appeal, or powerful enough to explain or predict new phenomenon.

Oh very well then, from Wikipaedia...

The concern with falsifiability gained attention by way of philosopher of science Karl Popper's scientific epistemology "falsificationism". Popper stresses the problem of demarcation—distinguishing the scientific from the unscientific—and makes falsifiability the demarcation criterion, such that what is unfalsifiable is classified as unscientific, and the practice of declaring an unfalsifiable theory to be scientifically true is pseudoscience.

Actually it may not be as simple as that!

That used to be the standard philosophical view - possibly the consensus? - but is likely considered a bit dated, in some quarters at least. I quote from a recent public lecture:

"Modern philosophers of science have moved beyond the notion of falsifiability. They refer to the old school who believed in empirical testing of scientific theories as the Popperazzi. Now one applies statistical inference, pioneered by Reverend Thomas Bayes in the 19th century, to infer the likelihood that a theory is correct."

This may be controversial stuff. The problem in science - say in particle physics or cosmology - is that there are now theories that cannot currently BE tested. Some might become testable in future, some may never be testable in practice, or possibly even in principle. What happens then? How do you trust a theory?

[tjh290633]

In science it surely proves there is general agreement about an area of science, a general acceptance of the facts and concepts. Anyone hoping to overthrow or ignore such a "consensus" would do well to think carefully about their challenge. That consensus was only reached following scrutiny and challenges of its own - perhaps over many years - so a challenge would need to be substantial in intellectual appeal, or powerful enough to explain or predict new phenomenon.

You may find that there is a general consensus in a particular area, where most of those working in that area are being paid or sponsored to support a particular point of view.

That does not mean that the rest of scientists agree with that consensus, not working in that field and therefore not commenting on it. They may well be able to see flaws in the argument or in the treatment of the data recorded. If they have the temerity to point this out, they run the risk of being labelled heretics or worse.

I chanced to see an article in the Mail on Sunday yesterday, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... -data.html which doesn't seem to have been picked up elsewhere. If true, it is another condemnation of the way in which Cook's Constant is indiscrimately applied to weather data. These days, with "fake news" abounding, it pays to be skeptical.

TJH

[XFool]

You may find that there is a general consensus in a particular area, where most of those working in that area are being paid or sponsored to support a particular point of view.

So how does that work with a typical range of well known scientific ideas, where there clearly is consensus?

Evolution - Who is sponsoring that one? London Zoo, Natural History Museum, Pedigree Chum?

The Big Bang - Firework manufacturers maybe?

Germ Theory of Disease - Dettol perhaps?

Kinetic Theory - BOC Group? (Now Linde)

Electromagnetic Theory - Magnet?

I chanced to see an article in the Mail on Sunday yesterday, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... -data.html which doesn't seem to have been picked up elsewhere. If true, it is another condemnation of the way in which Cook's Constant is indiscrimately applied to weather data.

Ah, the Daily Mail. That well known reliable, trustworthy source of scientific information. Can I take it that is where you usually get your understanding of matters scientific? That could explain many things.

https://www.desmog.uk/2017/02/05/climate-science-deniers-find-astonishing-evidence-politicians-previously-listened-scientists

These days, with "fake news" abounding, it pays to be skeptical.

Quite so. But you need the judgement to be "sceptical" about the right things.

[hiriskpaul]

This may be controversial stuff. The problem in science - say in particle physics or cosmology - is that there are now theories that cannot currently BE tested. Some might become testable in future, some may never be testable in practice, or possibly even in principle. What happens then? How do you trust a theory?

A good example would be the theory to explain the cosmic microwave background. The CMB looks just like black-body radiation. The only snag is that it is thermal black-body radiation that you might expect from a black body at a temperature of 2.7K, which is impossible. The current theory, unlikely as it may sound, is that it is ancient, massively red shifted black-body radiation from an instant in time when the universe became transparent, allowing the radiation to pass through the previous plasma haze. Hard to see how this fits into the notion of not being a scientific theory as it cannot be falsified.

The current theory behind the CMB explains it incredibly accurately using known science. There may of course be any number of other explanations, such as it being a Chinese hoax, perpetrated so as to persuade US scientists to buy more Chinese microwave detectors, or something put in place by an advanced alien civilization as a practical joke on us Earth Monkeys. No doubt that bastion of modern scientific thinking The Daily Mail will have its own explanation that involves some conspiracy involving lazy migrants, European bureaucrats and our traitorous judiciary.

[SteMiS]

I chanced to see an article in the Mail on Sunday yesterday, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... -data.html which doesn't seem to have been picked up elsewhere. If true, it is another condemnation of the way in which Cook's Constant is indiscrimately applied to weather data. These days, with "fake news" abounding, it pays to be skeptical

There's a good reason that this wasn't published in a reputable, peer reviewed, scientific journal...

[tjh290633]

There's a good reason that this wasn't published in a reputable, peer reviewed, scientific journal...

I'm sure there was.

Ah, the Daily Mail. That well known reliable, trustworthy source of scientific information. Can I take it that is where you usually get your understanding of matters scientific? That could explain many things.

No, I have a number of reputable peer-reviewed journals which I refer to in my field of expertise.

I wonder what your qualifications are to make such coments?

TJH

[GJHarney]

“I can now rejoice even in the falsification of a cherished theory, because even this is a scientific success.” — John Eccles

Source: The Economist Expresso

Falsification based on evidence and experimentation is what science is. Creating dogma and "consensus" is not.

You are risking mixing up two different things into an impossible unity.

Yes, science is about testing, experimenting, challenging and if required falsifying previous beliefs. The speed of sub-atomic discovery and knowledge in a very small amount of time has overturned accepted wisdom on many occasions. However, equally consensus is not anti-scientific where it is based on tested fact. It is 'consensus' that gravity pulls downwards towards the earth's center, and until you drop an apple and it floats up rather than drops down then that consensus is not actually unscientific is it?

That is not to say that other examples of consensus should not be challenged until the science in the form of repeatedly tested models is clear. So I get the problems with much of the debate around climate change. There is tested science to show that the earth's climate has changed on many occasions over millions of years, and living as I do in the NW of England on the edge of one of the outer reaches of the ice flows during the last ice age with an environment shaped by that ice then I see and accept that change is real, as I do when visiting nearby limestone rock formations created by tiny dead sea creatures that are now nowhere near the sea. I also accept that experiments and modelling have shown that human impact (from Co2 production to deforestation) is also likely to mean that we are now actively contributing to any current changes. However, the consensus does not necessarily in this matter mean absolute factual truth, but as a parent who cares what kind of world by own son will grow up to live in, like much else I take what information is available and model my perception of risk upon it, which usually amounts to the wish to play it safe until the science catches up!

[Injunear]

You are risking mixing up two different things into an impossible unity.

Yes, science is about testing, experimenting, challenging and if required falsifying previous beliefs.

With respect I suggest it is you that is mixing up two different things. Science does not rest on belief. That would be religion.

Of course it is possible that hypotheses are formed and various people may come to the conclusion that one or another hypothesis is more likely. But this does not negate the opportunity for falsification of the hypothesis.

I agree that there is very good evidence historically for very significant shifts in climate, both warming, and including as recently as the 17th century, cooling which have had impacts on a global scale. Like you I set out to understand the potential for mankind to have been influencing the various weather patterns around the globe that we describe as climate (of course there is not and has never been a "global climate") out of concern for my children's future, but the more I looked the more was the AGW hypothesis falsified on the evidence.

There is simply no evidence that any rises in average temperatures anywhere on the plant in the last 100 years is in any way exceptional.

There is simply no evidence that any rises in sea level in the last 100 years is exceptional.

There is simply no evidence that there has been anything remotely like a greater incidence of exceptional weather "events".

These are all assertions made in an attempt to "prove" that "global warming" is happening. The evidence contradicts all of them.

If there is nothing exceptional happening, a hypothesis that posits that mankind is causing something exceptional is very clearly falsified.

[hiriskpaul]

You are risking mixing up two different things into an impossible unity.

Yes, science is about testing, experimenting, challenging and if required falsifying previous beliefs.

With respect I suggest it is you that is mixing up two different things. Science does not rest on belief. That would be religion.

Of course it is possible that hypotheses are formed and various people may come to the conclusion that one or another hypothesis is more likely. But this does not negate the opportunity for falsification of the hypothesis.

I agree that there is very good evidence historically for very significant shifts in climate, both warming, and including as recently as the 17th century, cooling which have had impacts on a global scale. Like you I set out to understand the potential for mankind to have been influencing the various weather patterns around the globe that we describe as climate (of course there is not and has never been a "global climate") out of concern for my children's future, but the more I looked the more was the AGW hypothesis falsified on the evidence.

There is simply no evidence that any rises in average temperatures anywhere on the plant in the last 100 years is in any way exceptional.

There is simply no evidence that any rises in sea level in the last 100 years is exceptional.

There is simply no evidence that there has been anything remotely like a greater incidence of exceptional weather "events".

These are all assertions made in an attempt to "prove" that "global warming" is happening. The evidence contradicts all of them.

If there is nothing exceptional happening, a hypothesis that posits that mankind is causing something exceptional is very clearly falsified.

Off he goes again.

You have demonstrated by a number of your postings that you lack the most basic knowledge of climate science. You clearly did not even have a basic understanding of the way greenhouse gasses worked. On another thread you stated "The average human exhales about 5 litres of breath 12 times a minute." I would expect anyone with a modicum of common sense to at least question an amount like that before claiming and running with it.

So forgive me if I conclude that you lack the ability to make any judgement at all about climate science and the evidence for or against AGW.

[hiriskpaul]

To have a successful Science board, I think it would be useful to have a Not Science or similar board that threads like this can be moved to. So far I have not seen a lot of sensible science discussion taking place.

I have even come across stuff claiming/hinting that climate scientists were unaware of the importance of clouds and water vapour, or had somehow forgotten about them!