“People only insist that a debate stop when they are afraid of what might be learned if it continues.”
George Will, in reference to climate science
via Fred Singer.
Footer
About Me
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Read morePayPal
Makes sense.
When people discuss any issue they are likely to do so through different ….. even mutually exclusive ….. a priori sets of assumptions or beliefs about the nature of reality and the human place in it. For all perceptual, emotional, and behavioral purposes, people in fact can live in quite different realities. With such species dissociation, it is not unusual for different groups to be psychologically unable to draw compatible conclusions from the same fact. How do people then cope with this situation? Democratically perhaps?
So whilst one can always be curious as to why we don’t agree on certain issues with others there is always for myself a serious problem when it comes to anyone preferring to pull down the shutters. I just know that with these people the mechanisms essential to human functioning have been poisoned and are of no use through such obvious insecurity.
Of course we can ask many questions but in the process only a democratic humanity can win the day and if we believe in the importance of the human desire to communicate, then we have to believe in reason and that requires open public debate.
Keiran well said but as a non believer there is a vast chasm between myself and someone who believes the Christian religion or any other religion. If I were to try communication about my beliefs in this area I would say I can not see there is convincing evidence that Christ existed or that God is no more believable than an omnipotent omniscient teapot in orbit around an unknown sun in a galaxy far away. I have found such gets nowhere and so I try to side step such discussions. Skeptics do not challenge religion and Skeptic groups do not challenge AGW in my experience. This seems to be an unwritten rule which is just known. The behaviour on this blog of many is the same as that of a religious zealot. It makes me wonder often about the religious background of many here. Long ago I was a member of the Humanist Society, I found most in it at the time were ex Catholics, ex Jews or communists. These people just translated their past into the new and behaved in the same mode. I left because I could not communicate with them. I have split totally with my elder brother over AGW because he choose to belittle me as a method to win the argument. There a very few people in this world who just don’t believe and are quite comfortable with the uncertainty of just not knowing. For me if there is enough pressure put on me to believe then I move on, further argument is pointless.
That’s very sad that you have split with your brother over AGW. Patch it up DHMO. Life is too short. I myself had two tense discussion with a good friend in recent days for relating sceptic concerns and points of view.
But good friendships need to transcend such things. Be angry in the discussion but not with each other. But I reckon most people don’t believe or more likely – don’t really care two hoots.
Keiran and DHMO; both of you, no doubt, would have caught Richard Dawkin’s latest effort on the growth of new-age, spiritual beliefs; Dawkins puts this growth down to the emphasis in modern society of relativism where subjective, personal perspectives are valued as much, if not more, than objective standards which underlie science (and I might add, law). The extrapolation to AGW is compelling because we find under the barrage of science quite emotive and belief driven attitudes. At another blog I had the following article thrown at me to help me understand that my scepticism was irrational; the irony is, the article’s conclusions about sceptics is actually applicable to AGW believers.
http://theness.com/articles.asp?id=23
““People only insist that a debate stop when they are afraid of what might be learned if it continues.””
Only? That’s a pretty absolute claim, and utter piffle. “Only”.
I can think of a few reasons off the top of my head, and none of them have anything to do with the “only” reason given by Singer.
1) The time for debate is over, as delay will cause disaster.
2) The debate has been debased, and is not arguing the point anymore, but has been derailed.
3) There was no actual insistence that debate be stopped, but someone made a false claim that it be stopped.
So Singer’s basic claim is yet another example of his fraudulent attacks on science. Make a catchy but totally false claim, and run with it. If his science is so good, why does he yet again have to stoop to dishonesty?
In this particluar case, there is an ongoing debate and research into AGW, the scientists involved in it certainly don’t believe they have all the answers.
“The extrapolation to AGW is compelling because we find under the barrage of science quite emotive and belief driven attitudes. ”
Unbelievable. I believe that AGW is happening because there is a scientific argument for it that I find compelling. All you have offered in support of your argument is a highly speculative fantasy.
” All you have offered in support of your argument is a highly speculative fantasy.”
Um, and whose posistion is based on Playstation scenarios?
SJT, Al Gore insists that the debate is over and he refuses to debate.
Woody has nailed it. Only a non-scientist (whose only effort in basic science received a “D”) would claim that science based on highly suspect computer models is settled.
Singer’s MO is simply to create uncertainty as a political tactic. Standard stuff. Credibility of the statement is zilch.
Here we have the word science is bandied about all the time. I think you all should examine what you mean by science. If you have a definite idea what it is read this.
The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Paperback)
by Thomas S. Kuhn (Author)
Many scientists believe in water divining and homeopathy. Jame Randi has shown that scientists are easily deluded due their own conceit and lack of proper testing. I would ask Dawkins why do humans behave this way. To me he is boring.
What is interesting is how Steve McIntyre defers to the IPCC in this radio interview after all that’s been said and done (not uncritically mind you).
http://www.wosu.org/radio/radio-open-line/
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3087
As someone recently remarked – you won’t find McInytre signing the “Manhattan declaration” (ex New York sceptics conference –
http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=63&Itemid=1
Look out – it’s the ICSC or is it the ISCC or the ISCS or ICSS – not sure. Even saying it is hard work.
Once again, Lord Creepo demonstrates his allegiance to the edifice of AGW rather than to the truth.
Steve McIntyre does not “defer” to the IPCC, he simply refrains from attacking them because his stated objective is the integrity of the data. The lack of integrity in just about everything the IPCC does speaks for itself.
“SJT, Al Gore insists that the debate is over and he refuses to debate.”
Al Gore again? What would you people do without him. The fundamental science is sound, the only debate is over the extent of change, and scientists are working hard on that. Even Pat Michales says the CO2 greenhouse effect is correct, he just says the changes won’t be as large as the IPCC predicts.
Why would you care who Al Gore debates? I don’t, since he is not a scientist. I also don’t see the point in him debating someone else who is not a scientist.
DHMO, i’m not so much concerned with skepticism as such but interested in individual perceptions/differences. As such it seems more interesting to be interactive/curious and why for many people, our brains seem to treat beliefs we consider to be true, almost exactly the same as facts. i.e. belief in belief only rather than belief from some evidence.
Dawkins says … ” Let’s now stop being so damned respectful!” and i fully agree. e.g. Why should we simply allow vested groups codify their domination and not be somewhat concerned? Two world wars in the first half of the 20thC teaches us this very big lesson. However, i’m inclined to ask the bigger questions …. how does reason justify itself and just how do we communicate?
Well, Modernism of the early 20thC is highly problematic because it presents as mechanical and seemingly a period of unreason flirting seriously with irrationalism. However the art movement DADA is where we first see that there is nothing to prevent reason from challenging reason. i.e. In the midst of modernism already is the theme of postmodernism. The postmodern from the late 1950s represented learning as a move from the centre, a move to deny a centre, a move from the grand narrative, a move from the linear ………..AND to consider the relativism of culture, identity, environment, etc … But it is lateral only.
From 1995, with the birth proper of the www it now makes sense that the postmodern has mutated with a hyperlink to the 360 degrees of an infinite meta-narrative with its global network of moderators and always connected. (lateral plus lineal and neither a system but an environment) ………. and coax out of chaos the rudiments of a civility without borders. i.e Our new enlightenment beyond the postmodern. It also says that learning is somewhat more inherently nomadic rather than homogenous, ……. that learning may rely on relevance, observation and curiosity far more than memory or the system.
How do we communicate then? Well we now have a communications medium unlike others that were always one to many forms. Rather than the “word” it is now many to many communications where there are real enticement rules that you do get to vote on. So let’s debate, let’s have a chat, let’s share thoughts …….. no matter how wacky.
ps By all reason let’s debate dawkins or whatever …. even these mere personal thoughts above.
Keiran I don’t know if it is just the way I am or because I had no religious upbringing but I cannot accept anything just because of the authority of the source. A large influence on me was “An Inquiry Into the Meaning of Truth” by Bertrand Russell. That is why I raised the question of what is science? Most if not all on this blog use words such as science and assume there is a common ground using that word. I often percieve they are refering to this as a benchmark when often what is meant by each is different. Some assume that if a scientist does something it must be scientific or if a number of people reach consenus then that is a scientific method. One may connect and communicate with someone who is already of like mind but how do you know that? For instance I doubt Louis and Alarmist creep will ever know what the other is trying to say. In this situation one or the other is likely to try to stop debate.
DHMO
Science is simply done by people using the scientific method that is intrinsically empirical.
Alarmist Creep (and others) argue as deductionists – that some fundamental truth is deemed true by consensus, (not based on an empirically verified fact) and deduce their ideas therefrom. This mindset seems never to change its mind.
I am an empiricist and when facts change, I change my mind, not from some personal feeling, but from the compulsion of phhysical evidence. As I work as a professioanal exploration geologist, you learn very quickly not to become too attached to some cherished theory – drilling holes into such theories is easily done in my profession – literally.
Alarmist Creep, Ender and others will always be in cognitive dissonance – and always will be because in order for an empiricist to exist, there needs to be its opposite.
Right now I have a crew of greenies doing a fauna and flora survey – they think quite differently!
Incidentally Kuhn was required reading during my undergraduate days at UNSW.
Keep going guys. The most useful exchange I’ve seen in the last 2 years.
DHMO, you are pushing me on a bit now. If I may indulge myself again in some small way it may provide an explanation of sorts.
When I was eight years old I decided to leave Sunday School much to my mother’s displeasure, because I found it unpleasant to be rote learning in wrong order little pieces of the biblical story and to receive a pretty colored stamp to put in a book as a reward. What I wanted to do with my time, was to play with my mates in the bush, gullies and hills that surrounded our home. These experiences in the bush aroused great curiosity about life and it was not surprising that I came to believe that the universe is an infinite connected environment where it seemed impossible to find identicals. Why even my best mates were so different and saw the world differently. Today I say there is an inseparable quantum inter-connectedness as reality that requires assumptions like infinity, inseparability, causality, uncertainty and complementarity for starters.
If we see ourselves uniquely then this is a positive when we express thoughts and feelings. Pulling down the shutters can represent the disconnect but then we do for some reason desire the intimate. However as i grow older i say let’s debate, let’s have a chat, let’s share thoughts …….. no matter how wacky so that we learn from each other about life. It’s not the “word” anymore because if a contemplative intelligence evolved here on planet earth then this tells us a bit about intelligence. e.g. If you don’t use it you lose it.
Louis – “Alarmist Creep, Ender and others will always be in cognitive dissonance – and always will be because in order for an empiricist to exist, there needs to be its opposite.”
So let us examine the other people that are also in cognitive dissonance and disagree with the theories that Louis thinks fits the facts.
1. 99% of climate scientists – AGW
2. 99% of geologists – Plate Techtonics
3. 99% of petroleum geologists – Abiotic Oil
4. 99% of astrophysicists – Plasma Universe
With this array of people that also have cognitive dissonance according to Louis I am glad I am with them.
Jennifer – ““People only insist that a debate stop when they are afraid of what might be learned if it continues.”
George Will, in reference to climate science
via Fred Singer. ”
No not really. They often stop when they realise that no matter how long they debate the person they will still have the same opinion at the end as when they started. The smart ones will only debate on matters shaping policy, where the scientific facts will most likely actually make a difference.
Most of them would prefer to let the climate speak as it is doing and work to minimise the warming that is most likely coming. Debates are for show ponies like Singer.
Ender,
Ho ho, science by consensus again.
BAsed on what survey data Ender, or your own presumptions.
Ender, science is not done by debate, or convincing someone of your verity of your opinion by reasonable persuasion.
And may I criticise you for the ad hom describing Prof Singer is a show pony? Please write that stuff on your own website, note here.
Louis – “Ho ho, science by consensus again.”
No not really. Don’t you ever think to yourself at any time, with the vast array of intelligent and qualified people that do not share your opinions, for reasons that they can demonstrate with mathematics and science that you cannot even understand, that just one of your pet ideas might be even the smallest part wrong?
Louis – so you would like science by anarchy? Where everyone gets a go. Imagine medicine by anarchy. You can have a go at the consensus – but you better have the goods.
The consensus may indeed be wrong – but on most days it isn’t slayed. Would-be Galileos come along and try their hand and turn away disappointed, done in by things they did not see, finding they haven’t got the answer after all. Drat !
Most of us don’t become famous.
I think I will do what Ender suggests one does in a case like this.
Alarmist Creep, that is how science generally works but in sciences that one cannot readily, if at all, do experiments, like, go to the sun and take a sample, then it is very easy for the consensus to convince themselves that they are right when they are not. Called group think.
There is no group think among civil enginers, explortion geologists, plasma engineers, all scientists who just deploy the proven scientific facts of their discoplines in practical ways. They do so because the the science is right.
In astronomy, archaeology and geology, sciences that deal with the far, far away and long, long, ago, experiments are not easily done if at all.
So how do these scientists employ the scientific method? How do we know they are right when their hypotheses can’t be tested?
“How do we know they are right when their hypotheses can’t be tested?”
Seems what I just posted in the previos thread applies here. Proffessionals are satisfied to the extent that money will follow the need.
Oh yes – totally agree about group think.
Totally agree about the difficulty of solving problems too big, too dangerous, too far away or tool old in time, or in the future. Direct sampling is difficult.
But fame awaits the player who can make a breakthrough or smashes an ideological mirror. But embarrassment if you’re dead wrong too.
And scientists are also a scrappy bunch. Always looking for flaws.
The global climate is one such grand challenge problem.
And reductionism won’t solve the problem.
Systems simulation is critical IMO – otherwise you may see but not understand. That does not imply that validation is not important.
But of course modelling brings all the pitfalls of simulation as well. Parameterisation. Non-linearity. Feedbacks. Representation. Chaos.
Systems simulation is ok when it is based on sound proven science, but not when the science is based on empirical fact.
If the initial assumption is wrong, but deemed correct by conensus, the everything deduced therefrom might be technically correct etc etc, no quibble about that, but that does not alter the fact the results are pseudoscientific.
This is especially so if the plasma people are correct in pointing out that the earth’s weather is electrically driven.
Whoops, the first sentence should read “but not whenthe science isn’t based on empirical fact”.
Alarmist Creep,
I am quite used to having my hypotheses falsified – its mineral exploration, I do it for a living, but embarrassment? no, it’s the scientific method – what is so embarassing about being having a hypothesis falsified?
Probably embarrassing for a priest to make a prophesy which doesn’t come about.
Luke I thought you had morphed into another identity ! I don’t understand how you can have read Kuhn and then state that science is practised using the scientific method. Do you think scientific method is used for computer models?
Kieran many on this blog use debating techniques designed to shut down debate. Chrisgo put this point of view sometime ago, usually I ignore them. Look up blog trolls to know what I am talking about. So guess I have shut down debate with them. I more concerned about efforts to stop dissent rather debate.
DHMO
????? Luke?
The scientific method:
Observation made –> Question arises –> hypothesis framed –> tested.
1. If falsified , hypothesis dropped and another put.
2. Not falsified, accepted as true, bearing in mind that there might be a future observation that might contradict it.
Has anyone problems with this specific definition of the scientific method?
In the case of AGW, there was never any observation that human emissions of CO2 cause warming requiring a theory for it.
Louis – “So how do these scientists employ the scientific method? How do we know they are right when their hypotheses can’t be tested?”
So that applies also to the plasma theorists, the non plate geologists and abiotic oil geologists. Why are they right when you are not able to test their hypothesis’s either?
“many on this blog use debating techniques designed to shut down debate”
DMHO there is one who tries to keep it in a proper perspective by moving discussion away from mere blog echoes when most on here have no experience in either routine measurements or data analysis. There is also too much emphasis on scientific modeling using computers. I note too real climate scientists and government advisors generally have no time for these places.
The common view is farming or gardening between the Capital and Hobart hasbecome increasingly difficulr in these sustained drough conditions. OK there is a cutting from the Daily Mail on my desk top (July 31) where Percy Thrower offers a tip to beat the drought in 1976 using Harcostar plastic water butts. The same page illustrates how folk should plant some egg sized “new” spuds (December harvest) to overcome gloomy forecasts of a winter potato shortage.
Who rembers that “weather” item?
My tip is hundreds of such drought studies will be analysed in a fresh climate report soon and it won’t be based on a half baked model.
me reading Kuhn? huh ? ….
Anyway – back to Louis … if you have a stupid hypothesis or really are not testing the hypothesis it’s not science either – it could be stupidity or it could be sophistry or pure evil.
Global climate is driven by many components – solar, aerosols, greenhouse, land use change, clouds, decadal and seasonal thingys – guys you know this – so you do need to construct a relevant test on a proper hypothesis.
Confounded hypotheses are a major statistical issue.
Endless debate is assured but the movers and shakers have moved on. A classic case is the huge new controlled tomato cropping facility in SA featured on ABC Landline, see Big Red
“The corporate investors in this new tomato glasshouse at Two Wells, north of Adelaide, are certainly convinced. The see-through structure which stretches over eight hectares cost $30 million”
http://www.abc.net.au/landline/content/2006/s2247329.htm
see too “Water carters in Tasmania’s south-east are supplying water to farms and vineyards for the first time because it is so dry”
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/05/16/2246342.htm
Ender:
Louis – “So how do these scientists employ the scientific method? How do we know they are right when their hypotheses can’t be tested?”
So that applies also to the plasma theorists, the non plate geologists and abiotic oil geologists. Why are they right when you are not able to test their hypothesis’s either?
1. Plasma theorists propose testable hypotheses from laboratory experiments. This proves, Ender, that you have not read one scintilla of the literature.
2. Plate tectonics – You have been given references to the literature on the http://www.ncgt.org site. We have no way of disproving or proving plate tectonic theory, and a familiarity with the latest literature on this topic would suggest a modicum of reticence on your part.
3. You have been asked repeately by me to produce any scientific report detailing the experiments showing that petroleum (not methane) can be spontaneously produced at the temperatures and pressures thought to occur at the P=T conditions are the base of sedimentary basins.
Ender, the latest announcement from the Max Plackt institute is the discovery of an ejected black hole from a galaxy from inferred gravity waves. The problem with this that a galaxy needs a black hole in order to rotate at its observed velocity according to Newtonian physics. Take away the black hole by ejection and we have a problem.
Please tell everyone here what that might be.
“How do we know they are right when their hypotheses can’t be tested?”
Well Ender, your seem to have no problem with it, just we empirical scientists, but you excoriate us for dissenting.
Alarming Creep
“Anyway – back to Louis … if you have a stupid hypothesis or really are not testing the hypothesis it’s not science either – it could be stupidity or it could be sophistry or pure evil.”
A stupid hypothesis is quickly falsified by experiment. The rest is a non sequitur.
“Global climate is driven by many components – solar, aerosols, greenhouse, land use change, clouds, decadal and seasonal thingys – guys you know this – so you do need to construct a relevant test on a proper hypothesis.”
It’s global weather, and you neglect electrical effects which dominate everything we observe in the weather, thunderstorms, cyclones, tornadoes. No we don’t need to construct a relevant hypothesis, you do Creep.
Confounded hypotheses are a major statistical issue.
Well sorry you actually do need a relevant hypothesis Louis (IMO). Assuming you might be interested for example in deciding on water policy in Australian Rivers. Unless you throw your hands up and go berserk, presumably you’d like to base your policy on something to do with climate. So if you have good evidence to know your climate is changing – trends are apparent – what do you do.
You see you guys always seem to think that you can just walk away from this problem. Sorry dudes – in the real world water managers, farmers, bankers, and Treasury policy wallas need to make and review real world decisions. There’s not an option – “oh coz AGW is b/s I can go home early”.
Sorry real decisions still need to be made.
So as a policy walla you find yourself sitting there with your 120 years of climate records, chronic low water in your dams, stakeholders up you for the rent, and a well argued report from BoM that the climate has changed and why ! Watcha gonna do eh?
http://www.mdbc.gov.au/subs/seaci/Final_report_for_Project_1.1.2.pdf
BTW – if you’re citing electrical effects are that important you need to construct a relevant hypothesis if you want to justify your position.
And yes “A stupid hypothesis is quickly falsified by experiment.”
yes and any conclusions are utterly meaningless.
So designing a linear hypothesis test for a complex multi-factor signal may not tell you anything.
Good hypotheses are as valuable as good testing.
Water Policy?
So what the facts Creep? Why is the Murray River dry? Facts please.
I worked for the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corp in 1977 as a geologist, have been involved with the people associated with it since 1955, and suspect that the problems might not be so much nature as politics. So I side with Lance Endersbee on this issue.
Government might be the problem Creep, as it always has been.
2. And yes “A stupid hypothesis is quickly falsified by experiment.”
yes and any conclusions are utterly meaningless.
Explicitly defined from the test – you still don’t understand the scientific method.
3. “So designing a linear hypothesis test for a complex multi-factor signal may not tell you anything.
Good hypotheses are as valuable as good testing.”
No one would design such a test in the first place, simply because it would be physically meaninless.
A complex multi-factor signal is non-linear, and in my profession, including geophysics, we don’t touch those situations with a barge pole. Bets are off if non-linearity is concerned.
But armchair critics know nothing about the practicalities of applying science to physical reality. When they do get a voice, monumental stuff-ups usually occur.
“The behaviour on this blog of many is the same as that of a religious zealot. It makes me wonder often about the religious background of many here.”
“There a very few people in this world who just don’t believe and are quite comfortable with the uncertainty of just not knowing.”
And ‘agnostics’ are immune from the accusation of ‘religious zealot’? Nice try. Intimidation met with caustic, pyrrhic quietism.
SJT: “Why would you care who Al Gore debates? I don’t, since he is not a scientist. I also don’t see the point in him debating someone else who is not a scientist.”
Well, the former V.P. of the U.S., the Nobel Peace Prize winner for global warming, and the number one carbon-trader in the world should be told to shut-up by agw proponents, since he is not a scientist, or he should put his mouth where his money is and debate.
You want it both ways.
“No one would design such a test in the first place, simply because it would be physically meaninless.”
Well Louis that’s exactly what you do every post with AGW !!
“But armchair critics know nothing about the practicalities of applying science to physical reality.” – you wouldn’t be one of those climate armchair critics would you?
Despite Gore’s insistance that “the science is settled”, let the debate continue – and it will by the efforts of myself and millions of others.
Louis – “1. Plasma theorists propose testable hypotheses from laboratory experiments. This proves, Ender, that you have not read one scintilla of the literature.”
OK we will focus on this for a moment. Your plasma theories include ideas that the galaxy is held together or shaped by electo-magnetic forces. Just how did your theorists manage to create a galaxy in the laboratory and experiment on it?
“But armchair critics know nothing about the practicalities of applying science to physical reality”
Louis: Hey; I too have worked with a fair range of professionals including engineers and scientists, also known the odd geologist but does that experience ever make me more than the average blowhards in hydrology (“Why is the Murray River dry? Facts please”),
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrology
or say plasma physics?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_(physics)
BTW physics was once my best subject at night school.
One of my lab tech cobbers built his own Wimshurst Machine using a full sheet of Perspex. Dangerous thing! Not a toy for kids either. I prefer a bit of pole to pole leakage through the hardware.
Ender,
They are not my plasma theories – when are you going to get that right?
And can you refer back to the previous posts in which I showed that Peratt simulated this using PIC simulation?
Ender
You really have lost the plot – how can anyone actually put a gaslxy into a laboratory – you are demanding of us an impossible task.
The theory is based on the Maxwell -Lorentz equations, and using PIC simulation Peratt came up with simulated shapes virtually indistinguishable from observed galaxies.
This suggests the plasma theory is correct.
Now which part of this don’t you understand?
Louis – “In astronomy, archaeology and geology, sciences that deal with the far, far away and long, long, ago, experiments are not easily done if at all.
So how do these scientists employ the scientific method? How do we know they are right when their hypotheses can’t be tested?
Posted by: Louis Hissink at May 19, 2008 05:48 PM”
In this post you said that these scientists deal with the far far away etc and therefore their hypothesis’s cannot be tested and yet you assert that the scientists that support your plasma ideas can verify their hypothesis on galaxies that are far far away and experiments cannot be done on, the same as the astronomers that you critisize.
So why can your plasma physics scientists verify their hypothesis where other scientists, according to you, cannot?
Ender,
How many times do you have to be told that these plasma ideas are not my ideas at all.
How many times, Ender?
Ender
“So why can your plasma physics scientists verify their hypothesis where other scientists, according to you, cannot?
Posted by: Ender at May 20, 2008 12:05 PM”
Because they do lab experiments with plasma, and because plasma phenomena scale up to galactic size, they can test their theories.
Louis – “How many times do you have to be told that these plasma ideas are not my ideas at all.”
I didn’t imply that they were – please answer the question.
So why can your plasma physics scientists verify their hypothesis where other scientists, according to you, cannot?
If you prefer
So why can the plasma physics scientists, who’s work you are presenting, verify their hypothesis where other scientists, according to you, cannot?
Louis – “Because they do lab experiments with plasma, and because plasma phenomena scale up to galactic size, they can test their theories.”
How can you test that these phenomena scale correctly if you cannot test it?
Ender
You wrote:
“the scientists that support your plasma ideas can verify…”
QED
Ender
Please study this material:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scalability_of_plasma
The parameters of plasmas, including their spatial and temporal extent, vary by many orders of magnitude. Nevertheless, there are significant similarities in the behaviors of apparently disparate plasmas. It is not only of theoretical interest to understand the scaling of plasma behavior, it also allows the results of laboratory experiments to be applied to larger natural or artificial plasmas of interest. The situation is similar to testing aircraft or studying natural turbulent flow in wind tunnels.
Similarity transformations (also called similarity laws) help us work out how plasma properties changes in order to retain the same characteristics. A necessary first step is to express the laws governing the system in a nondimensional form. The choice of nondimensional parameters is never unique, and it is usually only possible to achieve by choosing to ignore certain aspects of the system.
One dimensionless parameter characterizing a plasma is the ratio of ion to electron mass. Since this number is large, at least 1836, it is commonly taken to be infinite in theoretical analyses, that is, either the electrons are assumed to be massless or the ions are assumed to be infinitely massive. In numerical studies the opposite problem often appears. The computation time would be intractably large if a realistic mass ratio were used, so an artificially small but still rather large value, for example 100, is substituted. To analyze some phenomena, such as lower hybrid oscillations, it is essential to use the proper value.
Louis – “It is not only of theoretical interest to understand the scaling of plasma behavior, it also allows the results of laboratory experiments to be applied to larger natural or artificial plasmas of interest. The situation is similar to testing aircraft or studying natural turbulent flow in wind tunnels.”
Thats interesting Louis. It is saying that other phenomena are scalable as well including turbulent flow and I assume atmospheric flows.
In effect you are saying that plasma physicists can use lab experiments to verify galaxy wide phenomema even though they do not have a galaxy to experiment on.
This completely contradicts this statement:
“Louis – “In astronomy, archaeology and geology, sciences that deal with the far, far away and long, long, ago, experiments are not easily done if at all.
So how do these scientists employ the scientific method? How do we know they are right when their hypotheses can’t be tested?
Posted by: Louis Hissink at May 19, 2008 05:48 PM””
Because these scientists use the same lab and computer experiments to test their hypothesis and then apply it to larger systems that they cannot test. The plasma physicists are in exactly the same position as the astronomers etc that you claim cannot test their theories.
Are you claiming that plasma physics is the only branch of science that can be tested this way or is your first statement incorrect and therefore your entire critisism of what you term conventional science?
Louis – I think you have demonstrated you have pet topics. Rules of engagement that apply to unfavoured topics do not apply to favoured topics. Hissink’s axiom.
You can’t have it both ways. Well you can actually – but we might remark that’s hypocritical and doubt your credulity. And we don’t want you getting upset do we.
Creep I am not getting upset at all, I find all this amusing.
So have I stated Hissink’s Axiom correctly?
Ender,
Explain how astronomers can do an experiment to test the existence of a black hole please. According to you they can.
I also find it amusing that they reckon they observed a black hole being ejected from a galaxy, without realising that they now have a galaxy minus its black hole, and thus have an enormous galaxy rotation velocity problem. So how do think they will solve the missing mass that was, according to them, observed to be ejected? Invent another impossible thing?
In any case the only sciences that have difficulties doing experiments are astronomy, geology (to a degree) and archaeology. These sciences have settled on the deductive method, eschewing the empirical. I never included any other science area – you assert I did.
So your statement “That plasma physics is the only branch of science that can be tested” is not what I said.
As mentioned in another thread, gravitationalists are unable to satisfactorily solve the 3-body problem, let alone an 4-body problem, so please tell us how astronomers can do experiments.
Incidentally Ender, they proposed the existence of a neutron star to explain the observed behaviour of pulsars – can you tell me how they can prove this? You reckon they can.
Especially since no one has actually managed to create a substance comprised of 100% neutrons? I mean, free neutrons spontaeously decay in 10 minutes, (1/2 life that is).
Creep,
You haven’t stated anything – let’s remember that Ender initially said he wasn’t going to engage me on this topic, or some or other, but I’ll play his game, along with yours.
Oh whoops – I made a typo above, its n-body problem.
“It is an embarassment that the dominant forms of matter in the universe remain hypothetical” Jim Peebles, Princeton University.
I personally would have difficulty peforming experiments on hypothetical matter, but apparently I am gloriously wrong.
James P Hogan has some interesting stuff – this is a quote from a post on Black Holes:
“There are those in our midst who seem to believe that, once again, man is on the thresh-hold of discovering the answers to the final secrets of the Universe. This is undoubtedly an echo from the final years of the nineteenth century but, after that period of premature claims, one might have expected a little more reticence from the modern godfathers of world science. However, sensibly keeping quiet does not seem a virtue of these people . . .
One further surprising aspect of much of conventional wisdom is that the originators of much of this body of knowledge would have welcomed discussion and even criticism, provided that criticism was constructive. In this day and age, however, people who disagree with conventional wisdom do not face discussion and constructive criticism; rather they are either quietly ignored or destroyed.
[A]lthough the conventional ‘big bang’ school rules out all interference from outside and demands that everyone describe everything in terms of the gravitational force, the electric universe adherents, while being able to describe so much, so accurately, make no attempt to rule out gravity completely even though it is such a weak force by comparison. This open-mindedness and unwillingness to completely ignore something is surely an indication of the true way of science.”
Rest is here: http://www.jamesphogan.com/bb/bulletin.php?id=1138
Louis – “Explain how astronomers can do an experiment to test the existence of a black hole please. According to you they can.”
Ahhhh now comes the waffle. So clearly you can see where a debate stops. When you expose a logical fallacy commited by the person you are debating with.
The problem you have is that you have asserted that astronomers etc cannot truly test their hypothesis because the cannot conduct experiments however I pointed out that plasma theorists also cannot conduct experiments on the large scale objects that they claim are influenced by electromagnetic forces. However you then said that they can apply small scale lab experiments to these large scale objects which completely contradicts your previous statements.
Please stop waffling and resolve the contradiction .
“James P Hogan has some interesting stuff – this is a quote from a post on Black Holes:”
And on the Holocaust too…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_P._Hogan_(writer)
“Hogan has also espoused the idea that the Holocaust didn’t happen in the manner described by mainstream historians, writing that he finds the work of Arthur Butz and Mark Weber to be “more scholarly, scientific, and convincing than what the history written by the victors says.”[6] While such theories are seen by many to contradict his views on scientific rationality, he has repeatedly stated that these theories hold his attention due to the high quality of their presentation – a quality he believes established sources should attempt to emulate, but have instead resorted to attacking their originators.[citation needed] As such, they are consistent with the view that scientific theories should not be accepted simply because they are widely held (see, for instance, argument from authority).”
The AGW claims that “global warming” science is settled, and is a reality, is also premature, and about as useful as a premature ejactulation.
Meanwhile in the real world, snow-melt in many areas of the NH is about a month behind schedule, with snow on Mt St. Helens still being 12 ft deep, when usually melt completed by this time.
Sid: Have a guess at the next ENSO wrap up due tomorrow.
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/
Ender,
Small scale laboratory work in plasma science produces experimental results which can be scaled up to galactic sizes.
Only you would make an issue of trying to experiment with galaxies.
End of discussion.
Louis – “Small scale laboratory work in plasma science produces experimental results which can be scaled up to galactic sizes.”
How do you know this? Truth is you don’t and you can’t resolve the question so of course you end the discussion. Which answers the orginal post topic – when do you end the discussion.
Ender,
You are aa total tosser – All that is described in the plasma literture, I posted some figures showing the lab experiments and simulations therefrom in Part 3 of th electrical universe post, or was it 2,.
You have never read anything of the plasma literature otherwise these inane questions would not be asked.
Discussion ends because you are an ignoramus, and because you are trying to wind me up.
Discussion totally finished Ender.
Ender
“How do you know this? Truth is you don’t and you can’t resolve the question so of course you end the discussion”.
I quote an accessible source:
“Plasma cosmology has gone beyond hypothesis and analysis. There are problems with part three, of course, experimentation on universal scales, but the fact is that plasmas are highly scalable, and super-computing capabilities have enabled us to model plasma behaviours on galactic scales … utilising only a few simple formulae.”
http://www.plasmacosmology.net/
The debate ends Ender when idiots enter into it.
One final comment:
The 9th International Workshop on the Interrelationship between Plasma Experiments in Laboratory and Space – http://prl.anu.edu.au/SP3/ipels2007
The 9th International Workshop on the Interrelationship between Plasma Experiments in Laboratory and Space (IPELS 2007) is being held at the Novotel Palm Cove Resort near Cairns in tropical north Queensland, Australia from 5th – 10th August 2007. The workshop is being hosted by Professor Rod Boswell and the Space Plasma Power & Propulsion Group from the Australian National University.
Isn’t that funny, Louis. CO2 as a greenhouse gas has been studied for over a 100 years in the lab.
SJT,
Totally out of context – no one has studied climate sensitivity in the lab, but I am happy to change my mind once you come up with published lab experiments verifying climate sensitivity.
Louis – “You are aa total tosser”
First the waffle and now the abuse. This is the second part of where the debate ends.
Now we are seeing the person that has been backed into a logical corner and cannot waffle his way out of it, resorting to abuse.
Really this has been an very informative thread. You can clearly see what stops a debate in all its glory.
Funny thing is that Louis is the most sensitive about ad-homs.
“The debate ends Ender when idiots enter into it.”
Yes mate however you are such the idiot that even your denier mates have had enough. I find the comments in the next post hilarious.
Ender,
I have been backed into a logical corner when I have refuted you allegation concerning the scalibility of plasma phenomena?
Talk about severe cognitive dissonance.
Louis – “I have been backed into a logical corner when I have refuted you allegation concerning the scalibility of plasma phenomena?”
And the final gambit. When the other party fails to rise either to the waffle or abuse you simply restate the postition that you started with, even though it was shown to be illogical, as if the discussion never happened.
Not bad Louis you are really showing the different methods most peddlers of pseudo science use. As I said before this has been really instructive and informative thread.
Ender writes:
Louis – “Small scale laboratory work in plasma science produces experimental results which can be scaled up to galactic sizes.”
How do you know this? Truth is you don’t and you can’t resolve the question so of course you end the discussion. Which answers the orginal post topic – when do you end the discussion.”
to which I respond:
I quote an accessible source:
“Plasma cosmology has gone beyond hypothesis and analysis. There are problems with part three, of course, experimentation on universal scales, but the fact is that plasmas are highly scalable, and super-computing capabilities have enabled us to model plasma behaviours on galactic scales … utilising only a few simple formulae.”
http://www.plasmacosmology.net/“
and
“The 9th International Workshop on the Interrelationship between Plasma Experiments in Laboratory and Space – http://prl.anu.edu.au/SP3/ipels2007
The 9th International Workshop on the Interrelationship between Plasma Experiments in Laboratory and Space (IPELS 2007) is being held at the Novotel Palm Cove Resort near Cairns in tropical north Queensland, Australia from 5th – 10th August 2007. The workshop is being hosted by Professor Rod Boswell and the Space Plasma Power & Propulsion Group from the Australian National University.”
Let the facts speak.
Louis – “Let the facts speak.”
That right Louis. You are going back to the original position that I asked you to explain which is:
“In effect you are saying that plasma physicists can use lab experiments to verify galaxy wide phenomema even though they do not have a galaxy to experiment on.
This completely contradicts this statement:
“Louis – “In astronomy, archaeology and geology, sciences that deal with the far, far away and long, long, ago, experiments are not easily done if at all.
So how do these scientists employ the scientific method? How do we know they are right when their hypotheses can’t be tested?
Posted by: Louis Hissink at May 19, 2008 05:48 PM”””
You have simply returned to your original postition without explaining the contradiction. I think even blind freddy can see this by now so I am not starting on the hole in my bucket technique you use to cover the fact that you really have no idea of what you are talking about and cannot effectively defend it even against the most unqualified person, such as myself.
The only difference here is that I am purposely leading you through the depths of your ignorance for demonstration purposes as the title of this post is “How do you stop a debate”. You have amply demonstrated, with a bit of prompting, the techniques snake oil salesmen employ to stifle and/or ‘win’ debates even if the postion they hold is illogical and/or anti-scientific – congratulations.
Ender,
It is reasonably clear when I used the terms astronomy I did not include plasma universe theory, knowing full well that in this discipline laboratory experiments are the basis of the science.
Astronomy is essentially a purely mathematical construct, invoking concepts and fictions which no one can test and thus falsify. They even come up with more than 3 dimensions, to which we might conclude that those who believe in 4 dimensions or more are probably suffering from dimensionia.
So your science asserts that the sun is powered by a fusion reactor but no one has been able to produce a sustainable fusion reaction.
Your science asserts that pulsars are neutron stars but no one has ever been able to make “neutronium”.
Your science invokes black holes to explain the missing mass in galaxies.
And there no experiments you can do to falsify those proposals and that is what pseudoscience is – the putting of unfalsifiable propositions.
Louis – talk about falling on your sword – Louis I did not expect this – it is pure gold – keep going please.
No such thing as fusion …….. LOL
Ender
Your english comprehension is abysmal – I did not say there is no such thing as fusion, I said “no one has been able to produce a sustainable fusion reaction”.
Quite a significant difference, don’t you think?
I should correct my previous statement.
I should have said that no one has experimentally produced a sustainable fusion reaction.
I do this because I found it odd that an individual could do that – none can of course.
So we will now wait for Ender to react.
Louis – “Your english comprehension is abysmal – I did not say there is no such thing as fusion, I said “no one has been able to produce a sustainable fusion reaction”.”
Yours is even worse. You did not JUST say this at all. You are even cherry picking your own statement now. You said:
“So your science asserts that the sun is powered by a fusion reactor but no one has been able to produce a sustainable fusion reaction.”
Which in this context clearly means that you doubt that the sun is powered by a fusion reactor because we cannot reproduce it experimentally.
Cherry picking your own statements is a new low even for you.
Ender,
That is right, the implication is that I doubt the sun is powered by a fusion reaction because we cannot reproduce it experimentally.
However I did not state that there is no “No such thing as fusion …….. ” nor did I imply it.
So my deduction that your english comphrension is abysmal must now stand doubly proven.
Louis – “So my deduction that your english comphrension is abysmal must now stand doubly proven.”
However you still not have supplied an answer for the contradiction that is at the heart of the debate.
Again your statements are but a distraction as you duck and weave trying to keep your illogical and unscientific notions alive.
Ender,
On the basis that you didn’t disagree with my deduction that your english comprehension is abysmal, you will therefore appreciate I might have some difficulty making sense of the rest of your post.
Most of us have a problem supplying an answer to a contradiction – answering questions is far easier.