tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2555123713188257297.post6792019165267259130..comments2023-12-14T21:55:11.213-05:00Comments on Mitchell Langbert's Blog: Is the Global Warming Theory Falsifiable?Mitchell Langberthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00722335216553899790noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2555123713188257297.post-9120447293885065102010-11-06T05:30:28.534-04:002010-11-06T05:30:28.534-04:00well post, i was looking the same information to w...well post, i was looking the same information to <a href="http://www.mastersdissertation.co.uk/essays/global_warming_essay.htm" rel="nofollow">write essay on global warming</a>.Global Warming Essayhttp://www.mastersdissertation.co.uk/essays/global_warming_essay.htmnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2555123713188257297.post-28872677079548933472010-01-12T16:12:15.452-05:002010-01-12T16:12:15.452-05:00Dear B Van Gerven: Thanks for your comment. You ar...Dear B Van Gerven: Thanks for your comment. You are incorrect that the claim that smoking causes cancer is not falsifiable. It certainly is. I suggest that you familiarize yourself with Karl Popper's "Logic of Scientific Discovery" to learn the meaning of the term "falsifiable". Peter Blau, the famous Columbia University sociologist of the 1950s-1980s introduced me to this concept when I took his sociological theorizing course in 1988, right before he retired.<br /><br />You are expressing a common misconception of how science ought to work. A scientific theory doesn't necessarily predict phenomenon. For example, the astronomical theories of cosmology and cosmogony as well as archaeology and biology, anatomy and many other disciplines do not make predictions. Very little in the social sciences make predictions, specifically economics is incapable of making predictions.<br /><br />Popper defines falsifiability as the use of evidence to contradict theory. That is, in fact, how science works.<br /><br />In the case of smoking, falsifiability works like this. A scientist states the hypothesis that smoking causes cancer. Data is collected. The data show that smokers, controlling for all other determinable variables, die sooner, have higher rates of heart attacks and the like. This is consistent with the hypothesis.<br /><br />Let us say that a study found that if one controls for sun spots, then the significance of the smoking factor disappears. That would falsify the smoking hypothesis. Smoking-causes-cancer theorists then have to show that the sunspot factor does not dominate the smoking factor. <br /><br />Theories can never be proven, but they can be falisified by contradictory evidence. Laymen do not often understand this relationship of evidence to theory. There is no such thing in reality as a proven theory. You need to read David Hume thoroughly to understand why this is true philosophically. Kant tried to prove otherwise, but his proof is unconvincing. <br /><br />No hypothesis ever is proven. As Thomas Kuhn shows in his classic "Structure of Scientific Revolutions" science moves to new paradigms not because of the absolute falsehood of the old paradigm but because of the old paradigm's inability to explain contradictions.<br /><br />Knowledge in the layman's sense, the way that you conceive of science, is not possible beyond a certain point. Aristotle believed that appearances lead to knowledge, and he was right, in my opinion, with respect to human decision making. It becomes evident as you examine data in depth that it is extraordinarily hazardous to say anything with certainty. The scientific mind is a questioning mind.<br /><br />As Popper points out, science depends on falsifiability because scientists must always be open to the possibility that they are wrong. In true science, contradictions inevitability appear as data is adduced. Theories lend order to observed data, but are never complete.<br /><br />The claim that science is "settled" is inherently anti-scientific, as a reading of Popper and Kuhn will clearly show.<br /><br />The scientific community's acceptance of theory is meaningful only to a point. Unless contradictions are being reconciled to the theory, then the risk of scientism and fanaticism appears.<br /><br />This has occurred with respect to global warming theory. It is junk science.Mitchell Langberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00722335216553899790noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2555123713188257297.post-57233966618334036862010-01-12T11:29:11.866-05:002010-01-12T11:29:11.866-05:00No, it isn’t.
The AGW theory is not falsifiable. M...No, it isn’t.<br />The AGW theory is not falsifiable. Many perfectly valid scientific theories are not falsifiable, f.i. “Smoking increases the risk of getting lung cancer” is a statement that is not falsifiable, but I think few scientists – and ordinary people – will doubt that it is true.<br />A scientific theory is is generally accepted by the scientific community, not because it hasn’t been falsified, but because it explains and predicts very well the phenomena that occur.BVanGervennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2555123713188257297.post-12995387938574426012009-10-10T21:45:27.574-04:002009-10-10T21:45:27.574-04:00I think there should be a series of falsifiable st...I think there should be a series of falsifiable statements of the "Global Warming" claim, ranging from "strong" to "weak".<br /><br />"Strong" might be "Global Warming means that temperatures in every temperature station in the world show higher maximum and minimum temperatures than the same date last year."Thomas Esmond Knoxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09575207287649871332noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2555123713188257297.post-68350820455292854072009-01-05T09:01:00.000-05:002009-01-05T09:01:00.000-05:00Getting Global Warming supporters to acknowledge t...Getting Global Warming supporters to acknowledge these "facts" is like getting the people who blamed Bush for $4.00 a gallon gasoline to now thank him for $1.50 a gallon.Greg Gosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05618441283107952475noreply@blogger.com