“YOU didn’t want to start to firm up ideas too early in an investigation, before you had enough facts. But you couldn’t help wondering how the pieces you had fitted together. It was a compulsion, even if at times it had to be resisted.”
This is not a quote from a scientist, but Sydney detective, Nicholas Troy. He’s a character in Michael Duffy’s first work of fiction, The Tower.
The Tower is in Australian bookshops from tomorrow.
Michael Duffy is of course a presenter of ‘Counterpoint’ one of the few programs on ABC Radio that provides an alternative perspective on a range of issues including climate change.
I wonder how much of Detective Troy’s character is a reflection of Mr Duffy’s own approach to life?
When it comes to not jumping to conclusions some of our scientists, especially our climate scientists, could probably learn a bit from both Troy and Duffy about the importance of resisting developing their own theory, or becoming too attached to a theory, too soon.
Reading a good book can be like taking a short vacation… In the case of The Tower it will be a journey to Sydney. Michael Duffy describes Sydney as a city of sharks – and he’s not referring to what’s in the harbour.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Well normally with things Duffy I just smash my keyboard and have to be restrained from punching out my monitor (now in a wire cage). I mean – an AGW person worth their salt really hates that guy for his evil radio show with its dedicated deadly data feeds from denialist (scum) central.
But I note he has stuck true to his cred – writing about getting up to bad shit in Sydney.
AND what really impressed me if that has used an old Saints song (albeit a nancy boy prissy version) for his book theme song.
Personally I would have used this authentic 1976 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-GueNOKolo classic but hey more gilding the lily is expected.
Play it loud Coho – and note they are a Brisso band (mate) – cockroaches and wet backs go home !!
the thing about our cultural differences, I can take what the Luke Desk wrote as an endorsement.
“When it comes to not jumping to conclusions some of our scientists, especially our climate scientists, could probably learn a bit from both Troy and Duffy about the importance of resisting developing their own theory, or becoming too attached to a theory, too soon.”
Honestly, Jennifer, you should know AGW theory has been developed for over a hundred years now.
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/
Have you read read the history?
SJT,
Your reference is to Spencer Weart’s site – hardly an objective exposition of the state, let along history, of climate science, if it is a science in the first instance.
You rebel head-banger, you Lukey.
I enjoyed a lttle chuckle thinking of your efforts to squash any alternative views to the ‘Big Brother’ of emission trading schemes.
Are you suggesting we should ban Duffy’s book and that the ABC should remove to one program where guests can state their views, where feedback and open discussion does occur, because it doesn’t conform with your ‘mainstream’ mantra.
Your efforts are as amusing as is your Phil Adams when he helps a poor guest whose theories have been shattered by logic, raising the embarrassment early and dismissing the dissenting parties with a “and you know he has probably had lunch with ‘Dubya’. How is your blogging going with your Adams or 100 metres Williams, they really are such rebels.
“Your reference is to Spencer Weart’s site – hardly an objective exposition of the state, let along history, of climate science, if it is a science in the first instance.”
You are a fascinating study, Louis. You will believe any theory, no matter how nutty, such as Velikovsky. Yet you won’t read Weart’s history, because it terrifies you. He has referenced it all. You can check them up yourself. The modern era of understanding CO2 and it’s physics was started by that bastion of communism, the United States Air Force.
Hey Jen,
You’ve got a defective dectective in your title!!
I would suggest that the book should be banned on the basis of the woeful prose. I tried to read a bit on the SMH site. I think I managed 3 pars. This one will go straight to the remainders bin, or possibly the recycling plant. I must say it’s not really suprising the book is so bad. Listening to CP is like slowing down as you pass a car accident. BTW I think there’s probably a bit of a quid pro quo going on.
I have a recalcitrant cop who decided too early in the evidence that the driver of a taxi that got me on foot in a hit and run had not been drinking alcohol. The cop does not want to prosecute. Part of the reason – the taxi driver “is a devoted Muslim who sustains from consuming alcohol”.
I hope he eats some food occasionally.
I’ve worked in Muslim countries where Russian vodka flowed rather freely.
SJT
“You are a fascinating study, Louis. You will believe any theory, no matter how nutty, such as Velikovsky…”
Velikovsky was a theory?
I thought he was a Jewish psycholanalyst who suggested that in addition to the force of gravity another force was operating in the COSMOS, that of electrodynamics. This has subsequently been proven correct and forms the basis of the Plasma Model. which is described in comphrensive peer reviewed scientific literature.
As for Weart, no he does not terrify me at all – what makes you write that? Where is the evidence? But I do admit not reading any of it purely on the basis of your recommendation.
And the USAF was the bastion of Communism? That’s novel – thought about writing a novel about it?
I have a recalcitrant cop who decided too early in the evidence that the driver of a taxi that got me on foot in a hit and run had not been drinking alcohol. The cop does not want to prosecute. Part of the reason – the taxi driver “is a devoted Muslim who sustains from consuming alcohol”.
I hope he eats some food occasionally.
I’ve worked in Muslim countries where Russian vodka flowed rather freely. Also, there is a city named Shiraz in Iran where a few grapes grow.
Taluka
Thanks for the tip. Fixed. Jen
“As for Weart, no he does not terrify me at all – what makes you write that? Where is the evidence? But I do admit not reading any of it purely on the basis of your recommendation.”
You cannot bring yourself to read it. As long as you do that, there is no evidence.
SJT,
“You cannot bring yourself to read it. As long as you do that, there is no evidence.
Evidence of what?
“Evidence of what?”
Evidence of the long history of research into CO2 as a greenhouse gas, including that work done by the USAF. Don’t believe Weart, he has references for his claims. You don’t have to believe it’s true, but you do have to believe the reseach has been done over a long period of time.
SJT,
You should read Pierre Duhem. If you don’t read French, there is an English translation. Have a look at the Duhem-Quine Theory (google). Then look up the discovery of Jupiter. All will become clear concerning hasty conclusions, which can occur when we don’t know what we don’t know. Newton was right, the number of planets was wrong.
Duhem, P.M.M. (1906) La Théorie physique, son objet et sa structure. Chevalier et Rivière.
Duhem, P.M.M. (1954) The Aim and Structure of Physical Theory. Princeton University Press. Translated from French by P. Wiener.
“All will will become clear concerning hasty conclusions,”
Didn’t you read what I said? The science behind the understanding of CO2’s effects on the climate has been developed for over a century. Read Wearts history. I don’t know what is supposed to be hasty about a century of science.
“Read Wearts history. I don’t know what is supposed to be hasty about a century of science.”
Warming and cooling have been known by man for somewhat more than a century.
It’s the anthropogenic bit that still hasn’t been discovered. Only theorised on.
SJT
Evidence of what is your evidence that I am frightened of reading Spencer Weart, so please read what you wrote. SO where is your evidence that I am frightened of reading Weart.
Coz if you dared read it – you would become a marxist as your mind is feeble. SJT – Louis is too chicken. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gKosmXx1gkc
SJT,
The Duhem-Quine Thesis is highly relevant to this thread. Briefly, it says that things are sometimes more complex than they may appear. In other words, a little knowledge can be dangerous. Apparent truths may collapse when other hypotheses are added to the mix, even after a century or more. The discovery of Jupiter is a good example. My reading of ‘climate science’ suggests that there is further, as yet unknown evidence, lurking, like Jupiter, in the shadows. Read more about Duhem, then come back with some relevant, constructive comment. I look forward to a solid philosophical contribution from you. No petty sarcasm now.
This detective theme just begs for the cross posting of a comment by Jeff Id over at Lucia’s Blackboard.
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2009/arent-end-points-pesky-sciaffetta-responds-to-bs-paper/?cid=17271
In discussing a story about trying to get useful info out of a shotgun plot:
“If you torture data it will confess. ”
————————-
Rather than beating a false confession out of the data you have at hand, sometimes it is best to go find a new suspect.
“The Duhem-Quine Thesis is highly relevant to this thread. Briefly, it says that things are sometimes more complex than they may appear. In other words, a little knowledge can be dangerous. Apparent truths may collapse when other hypotheses are added to the mix, even after a century or more. The discovery of Jupiter is a good example. My reading of ‘climate science’ suggests that there is further, as yet unknown evidence, lurking, like Jupiter, in the shadows.”
I met a climate research scientist once, so I gave him a grilling. They are not stupid, they know all that. Of course it’s complex, and there are deficiencies in the science that they acknowledge. Hence the IPCC report not relying on any one piece of evidence to support it’s case, they refer to several in the report that confirm the underlying science to be correct.
I would ask you, however, is this a case of “If I can’t understand it, you can’t prove it”? Ponder the philosophical implications of that.
With a corollary. Science has only advanced as far as I can understand it.