|
|
|
Sebastian
New Member
44 Posts |
 Posted - 11/12/2011 : 22:03:31 [Permalink]
|
| I get the impression that Sebastian believes that uncontrolled non-laboratory observations are in fact inferior, but the only reason seems to be that such observations are more likely to be either misleading or just plain wrong. I don't buy that idea, and if anything, i would assert the opposite: Controlled laboratory experiments are more likely to be misleading than uncontrolled non-laboratory observations. The references to diagnoses & drug trials seem quite out of place and irrelevant to me. Weather & climate, astronomy & astrophysics, are far better examples. |
Tim,
You appear to be making a false dichotomy between uncontrolled non-laboratory observation, and controlled laboratory experiments, as though both processes are separate and unconnected.
Without controlled laboratory experiments, modern science simply does not exist. By modern science, I mean science that is constructive, productive and useful. By laboratory, I include the leaning tower of Pisa used by Galileo, as well as that Large Hadron Collider about 27 kms in circumference near the French/Swiss border, which is a bit larger than your average laboratory.
The term 'empirical' originally meant 'relying upon experience and observation alone, without the aid of science or theory'. It later came to mean, 'capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment.'
Observation, experiment, verification or falsification in a much repeated and controlled manner, is the hallmark of science.
Observation alone doesn't produce science; nor does merely thinking and arguing about an issue without observation, produce science.
There's an amusing parable about horses' teeth which explains this principle very clearly. I'm sure you've come across it. The origins of the parable are not clear. Sometimes it's quoted using the names of ancient Greek characters, such as Socrates and Plato, and sometimes the parable is set in the Middle Ages, involving monks and scholars.
I'll repeat it here because it really is an excellent parable which gets to the heart of the problem in science, at that simple and fundamental level that parables can be good at addressing. Don't despise it because it's simple.
As the story goes, a group of philosophers or scholars sit around a table discussing the issue of how many teeth a horse has. Each member of the group provides his own erudite source(s) to substantiate his claim, referring to various 'experts' throughout the ages who have agreed that a horse has 38 teeth, or 40 or 44, as the case may be.
Presumably, the purpose of the exercise is to determine the truth of the matter by reference not only to the number of 'authorities' who may agree on a particular number, but the standing and reputation of such authorities in the community.
This is in itself problematical. For example, how does one weigh the opinions of two very highly regarded authorities against the opinions of 4 or 6 or 8 less highly regarded authorities?
How does one assess the validity and accuracy of any personal assessment of any authority?
As you can see (I hope), such discussions on this basis would be unresolvable.
However, it seems that there was one bright spark in the group (called Sebastian - just kidding  ), who made the suggestion that the entire group should make an excursion to a field close by, where there was a real horse, and that the group should peer into the horse's mouth and actually count the teeth, thereby settling the matter.
In the ancient Greek version of the parable, this was sufficient. In the more modern, Medieval version, it wasn't. Poor Sebastian was chastised and ridiculed for suggesting such a coarse and un-heard-of idea.
Here's the other version of the parable.
In the year of our Lord 1432, there arose a grievous quarrel among the brethren over the number of teeth in the mouth of a horse.
For thirteen days the disputation raged without ceasing. All the ancient books and chronicles were fetched out, and wonderful and ponderous erudition such as was never before heard of in this region was made manifest.
At the beginning of the fourteenth day, a youthful friar of goodly bearing asked his learned superiors for permission to add a word, and straightway, to the wonderment of the disputants, whose deep wisdom he sore vexed, he beseeched them to unbend in a manner coarse and unheard-of and to look in the open mouth of a horse and find answer to their questionings.
At this, their dignity being grievously hurt, they waxed exceeding wroth; and, joining in a mighty uproar, they flew upon him and smote him, hip and thigh, and cast him out forthwith. For, said they, surely Satan hath tempted this bold neophyte to declare unholy and unheard-of ways of finding truth, contrary to all the teachings of the fathers.
After many days more of grievous strife, the dove of peace sat on the assembly, and they as one man declaring the problem to be an everlasting mystery because of a grievous dearth of historical and theological evidence thereof, so ordered the same writ down. |
Now, as you can see here, the Medieval version is less sympathetic to the cause of empiricism. It was after all, the Dark Ages (no direct reference to Dark Matter, but certainly an indirect reference).
The Greek version accepts the wisdom of the neophyte and allows the matter to be settled because it simply makes irrefutable sense in their culture. However, that stance of the Greeks is understandable because the ancient Greeks did begin to set the conditions for true science, at least in a very preliminary and partial way, although they do not seem to have articulated any set of principles that is the foundation of the scientific method.
For example, according to Bertrand Russell, Aristotle seemed to be of the view that women had fewer teeth than men. To quote:
Aristotle maintained that women have fewer teeth than men; although he was twice married, it never occurred to him to verify this statement by examining his wives' mouths. Bertrand Russell, Impact of Science on Society (1952) ch. 1
British author, mathematician, & philosopher (1872 - 1970) |
Now, I'm not about to fall into the same trap as many of you guys posting in this thread, that is, unquestionably accepting the statement of anyone who has a solid reputation as an expert in some field.
Using my noggin, my nous, my plain common sense, my sense of logic and reason and my understanding of human nature, I would guess that Aristotle actually did look into his wifes' mouths, or perhaps at least one of them, and actually did find fewer teeth.
His error was, he didn't conduct a survey of the number of teeth in many women's mouths. His own wife, or the one or two wives he checked, may have been anomalies for various reasons.
The same problem arises with the counting of horses' teeth. The number of teeth may vary according to the age of the horse, or other unusual circumstances. The Greek version of the parable recounted above would not meet modern scientific criteria.
To determine the number of teeth a horse has, we need to examine many, many horses, of different ages, from different regions and of different sub-species.
The same principle applies to the detection of Dark Matter particles or WIMPS. The occasional report that some research group has claimed to have detected the occasional WIMP or other particle that may be a candidate for Dark Matter, is not good enough.
Such particles need to be detected regularly, consistently, at will, in significant numbers, and in predefined conditions.
This has not yet happened, and may never happen.
| I get the impression that Sebastian believes that uncontrolled non-laboratory observations are in fact inferior, but the only reason seems to be that such observations are more likely to be either misleading or just plain wrong. I don't buy that idea, and if anything, i would assert the opposite: Controlled laboratory experiments are more likely to be misleading than uncontrolled non-laboratory observations. The references to diagnoses & drug trials seem quite out of place and irrelevant to me. Weather & climate, astronomy & astrophysics, are far better examples. |
This is a complete misunderstanding of the situation, Tim. Sorry for being so blunt, but let's call a spade a spade. I'm prepared to give reasons behind all my comments.
It seems very, very clear to me, and I can't understand how anyone could dispute it, that naked observation of uncontrolled nature, the universe, or anything else, without accompanying laboratory experiment, can lead to serious error.
Let's refresh a couple of examples I may already have mentioned.
First, the observation that the sun rises in the East, slowly traverses the sky, and several hours later sets in the West. Approximately 12 hours later (depending on your location and the season of the year), it rises again at the same point on the horizon, traverses the sky then sets about 12 hours later about the same point in the West.
Nothing could be clearer that the sun revolves around the earth. Why would anyone dispute it? According to you, Tim, observation is King, not inferior in any way to empiricism combined with observation, which I claim is the basis for all true science.
This stark and indisputable observation that the sun revolves around the earth has been so entrenched in our history, that people have lost their lives for disputing it.
I don't need to remind you of the predicament of Galileo who had to denounce his own theory, that the earth encircled the sun, in order to preserve his life.
Second, when science is based only upon observation, we tend to get absurd theories, as in religious myths that attempt to explain what's happening around us.
I'll remind you again, that even many of those clever ancient Greeks believed that we see, in part, because our eyes emit light. This theory was based soley upon observation. It was observed that eyes appear to shine, even in the dark, especially cats' eyes.
This theory persisted for thousands of years, in the absence of the 'scientific method'.
It was the advent of 'empiricism' that eventually succeeded in debunking such nonsense.
For example, (sorry if I'm repeating myself), a very simple laboratory experiment could have solved this issue a couple of thousand years ago, if the scientific method had been invented or formulated. It hadn't, of course, and the problem persisted right up to the Middle Ages.
Even any moderately intelligent high scool student of today could propose, or at least understand, an empirical solution.
If the theory is, that we see in part because the eyes emit light, then we can either prove or falsify this theory with a very simple laboratory experiment. One gets a darkened room where no-one can see hardly anything except the vaguest outline after acclimatisation.
One then introduces additional people to the room, one by one, to see if these vaguest of outlines become more visible as a result of the additional light from the additional 'shining' eyes.
Furthermore, we should not forget that without the 'laboratory tested' optics of the telescope and other devices that can detect signals from all parts of the electromagnetic spectrum, thanks to rigorous and repeated laboratory experiments, we wouldn't even know that anything existed outside of our own Milky Way.
It might come as a surprise to some of the readers of this thread that Einstein, when he first formulated his Theory of Relativity, was not only unaware that the universe is expanding, he wasn't even aware that anything existed outside of our own galaxy, the Milky Way.
It wasn't until the advent of more powerful telescopes (products of the laboratory) that astronomers began to realise that there were other galaxies in our universe at huge distances. What a surprise that must have been.
We are still improving out technology in order to observe more.
| The Square Kilometre Array (SKA) is a radio telescope in development which will have a total collecting area of approximately one square kilometre.[1] It will operate over a wide range of frequencies and its size will make it 50 times more sensitive than any other radio instrument. It will require very high performance central computing engines and long-haul links with a capacity greater than the current global Internet traffic.[2] It will be able to survey the sky more than ten thousand times faster than ever before. With receiving stations extending out to distance of 3,000 km from a concentrated central core, it will continue radio astronomy's tradition of providing the highest resolution images in all astronomy. The SKA will be built in the southern hemisphere, in either South Africa or Australia, where the view of our own galaxy, the Milky Way, is best and radio interference least. With a budget of €1.5 billion, construction of the SKA is scheduled to begin in 2016 for initial observations by 2019 and full operation by 2024.[3][4] |
Whatever the chosen location for this more powerful telescope, it must be apparent to all that the components are based upon laboratory tested procedures. The observations and knowledge gleaned from such an array, are clearly a product of very stringent laboratory testing in the true scientific tradition.
I rest my case. However, I would urge that anyone who wants to post a criticism, refrain from the uninformative, serve-no-purpose, non-educational, ad hominem attack.
Call me an idiot if you like, but only if you can substantiate such criticism with clear facts or examples which are intelligent, comprehensible, and useful to other readers.
|
| Edited by - Sebastian on 11/13/2011 09:11:41 |
 |
|
|
Sebastian
New Member
44 Posts |
Posted - 11/12/2011 : 22:11:45 [Permalink]
|
| Previous post edited. This post now redundant and therefore deleted. Sorry for the confusion. |
| Edited by - Sebastian on 11/13/2011 09:14:46 |
|
|
|
Sebastian
New Member
44 Posts |
Posted - 11/12/2011 : 23:53:38 [Permalink]
|
Okay! Next time I'll use the 'review' before posting. I was in a hurry.
Whenever I make a mistake, I admit it, unlike some folks who will lie through their teeth in order to protect their reputation.
The issue of the assertion that something is correct without scientific verification, is a sore point with me. I see it everywhere in our society, and it dismays me.
Anthropogenic Climate Change Alarmism is a case in point. I understand perfectly that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. This fact can be demonstrated in the laboratory. However, the consequences and ramifications of slight increases in this greenhouse gas, due to our industrial emissions, are another ball game.
The possibility that hurricanes and cyclones will increase in frequency and intensity, and that flooding of certain areas will be more severe and frequent, is inevetibly a serious worry for any society that is so incompetent that it builds houses in flood plains, inadequately strong house in areas subject to cyclones or hurricanes, and Nuclear Reactors on earthquake fault lines.
When our normal standards are not sufficient to protect ourselves from normal and natural floods and cyclones, due to our total inability to learn from history, then of course we are going to get alarmed by any suggestion that such calamities may increase in frequency and intensity due to AGW.
If we insist upon building normal houses in flood plains, normal housing in areas subject to category 4 or 5 cyclones, and Nuclear Power Stations on earthquake fault lines, then of course we're in trouble, irespective of any effects from our CO2 emissions.
Adding the alarmist effects of CO2 emissions to the mix, which cannot be substantiated by the normal scientific processes of verification and falsification, causes an enormous amount of confusion and waste of resources.
Instead of spending that extra, government subsidised $50,000 on an elevated house to withstand future floods, the money is often spent of Solar Voltaic Panels to marginally reduce CO2 emissions, but I emphasise only marginally, if at all, considering that the amount of CO2 emitted in the production of the Solar Voltaic Panels may exceed the total amount of CO2 saved during the Solar Panel's operation.
Climate change is similar to the Dark Matter issue in the sense that both situations are outside of the normal processes of verified science.
There are certain aspects of Climate Science which lend themselves to laboratory confirmation. For example, there's no doubt that C02 is a Greenhouse gas. It can be confirmed in the lab. The heat radiated from the earth back into space is of a lower frequency than the heat coming directly from the sun. C02 is less transparent to the lower heat frequencies radiated back from the earth, so the earth tends to heat up because these lower frequencies cannot escape back to outer space so easily.
It all seems very reasonable, except, that there are hundreds of different consequences, inter-reactions and variations on the effects from any initial temperature increase due to CO2 rises, some of which may cancel out such increased temperature, and others which may exaccerbate it.
In the absence of true scientific verification, we are left in the situation described by the parable of horses' teeth.
We just sit around a table, or at our computers, arguing incessantly, generating a lot of hot air, quoting 'so-called' authorities on the issue, claiming that 10,000 government-funded scientists who support one particular view can't be wrong, and claiming all skeptics on the issue are denialists.
How pathetic. We certainly deserve what's coming to us.
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 11/13/2011 : 00:53:23 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Sebastian
Tim,
You appear to be making a false dichotomy between uncontrolled non-laboratory observation, and controlled laboratory experiments, as though both processes are separate and unconnected. |
That's an absolutely insane characterization given what Tim quoted, more than once: "There is no clear cut distinction between an experiment and a simple observation." Tim made it absolutely clear that he thinks that there is no substantial difference, but you, Sebastian, say that he thinks they're "separate and unconnected?" That's just crazy.| Now, I'm not about to fall into the same trap as many of you guys posting in this thread, that is, unquestionably accepting the statement of anyone who has a solid reputation as an expert in some field. |
Nice ad hominem you've made there, hypocrite.| Using my noggin, my nous, my plain common sense, my sense of logic and reason and my understanding of human nature, I would guess that Aristotle actually did look into his wifes' mouths, or perhaps at least one of them, and actually did find fewer teeth. |
You have already demonstrated that your guesses are useless rhetoric.| The same principle applies to the detection of Dark Matter particles or WIMPS. The occasional report that some research group has claimed to have detected the occasional WIMP or other particle that may be a candidate for Dark Matter, is not good enough. |
And nobody here has claimed it to be "good enough" for anything.Such particles need to be detected regularly, consistently, at will, in significant numbers, and in predefined conditions.
This has not yet happened, and may never happen. |
That doesn't mean that Dark Matter is mythical (as you claimed but have not supported). It would only mean that our current best guess as to what Dark Matter consists of is wrong. You keep on conflating these two questions as if they were the same thing, but they're not.| I'll remind you again, that even many of those clever ancient Greeks believed that we see, in part, because our eyes emit light. This theory was based soley upon observation. It was observed that eyes appear to shine, even in the dark, especially cats' eyes. |
So mind-bogglingly naive observations can lead to errors. Duh.| It was the advent of 'empiricism' that eventually succeeded in debunking such nonsense. |
So where is the lack of empiricism in the Dark Matter discussion?It might come as a surprise to some of the readers of this thread that Einstein, when he first formulated his Theory of Relativity, was not only unaware that the universe is expanding, he wasn't even aware that anything existed outside of our own galaxy, the Milky Way.
It wasn't until the advent of more powerful telescopes (products of the laboratory) that astronomers began to realise that there were other galaxies in our universe at huge distances. What a surprise that must have been. |
Special or General Relativity? Not that it matters much, Hubble published his results in 1925. Only 10 years after General Relativity.| We are still improving out technology in order to observe more. |
Yes, but why do you deny the observations we already have in hand? Can you make an empirically based prediction that the theory that explains observations related to Dark Matter is wrong?What case? That science changes with new observations? Nobody is disputing that. The only thing being asserted is that current data suggests that Dark Matter is the best explanation. You repeatedly refuse to argue against that data, and so you have made no case at all against it.| However, I would urge that anyone who wants to post a criticism, refrain from the uninformative, serve-no-purpose, non-educational, ad hominem attack. |
Lead the way, hypocrite.| Call me an idiot if you like, but only if you can substantiate such criticism with clear facts or examples which are intelligent, comprehensible, and useful to other readers. |
Just because you refuse to acknowledge such criticism doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Also:| Is there no way to edit one's posts |
Yes, you use the button with the little pen over the sheet of paper. The one which says "Edit Reply" when you hover the mouse over it.
Also:| The issue of the assertion that something is correct without scientific verification, is a sore point with me. I see it everywhere in our society, and it dismays me. |
So why do you continue to do it?| Anthropogenic Climate Change Alarmism is a case in point. I understand perfectly that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. This fact can be demonstrated in the laboratory. However, the consequences and ramifications of slight increases in this greenhouse gas, due to our industrial emissions, are another ball game. |
Once again, you are changing the subject in order to avoid having to correct or even acknowledge your previous errors of fact and argument. All your bloviations on "alarmism" are simply distractions away from the fact that your previous comments provide clear evidence that you think that warming isn't occurring in the first place. The whole "beneficial trace element" nonsense is an AGW-denialist talking point intended to downplay the idea that anything bad could happen due to increased CO2 in the atmosphere, not that the "alarmist" view is over-the-top.| Instead of spending that extra, government subsidised $50,000 on an elevated house to withstand future floods, the money is often spent of Solar Voltaic Panels to marginally reduce CO2 emissions, but I emphasise only marginally, if at all, considering that the amount of CO2 emitted in the production of the Solar Voltaic Panels may exceed the total amount of CO2 saved during the Solar Panel's operation. |
The idea that funds for combating the effects of AGW are being misspent is an argument that depends upon the arguer accepting AGW in the first place.| Climate change is similar to the Dark Matter issue in the sense that both situations are outside of the normal processes of verified science. |
No, neither one is. You refuse to address the verifiable science of either subject. That doesn't make that science vanish, it only means you're sticking your head in the sand.| The heat radiated from the earth back into space is of a lower frequency than the heat coming directly from the sun. C02 is less transparent to the lower heat frequencies radiated back from the earth, so the earth tends to heat up because these lower frequencies cannot escape back to outer space so easily. |
Heat doesn't have a frequency. Thank you for again demonstrating your ignorance of the science.| It all seems very reasonable, except, that there are hundreds of different consequences, inter-reactions and variations on the effects from any initial temperature increase due to CO2 rises, some of which may cancel out such increased temperature, and others which may exaccerbate it. |
Name a negative feedback in which increased temperatures lead to lower atmospheric CO2 levels. Just one.| In the absence of true scientific verification, we are left in the situation described by the parable of horses' teeth. |
Again, your refusal to address the scientific verification of the theories doesn't make the verification magically vanish. Your ignorance of the verified science is not evidence of its absence.| We just sit around a table, or at our computers, arguing incessantly, generating a lot of hot air, quoting 'so-called' authorities on the issue, claiming that 10,000 government-funded scientists who support one particular view can't be wrong, and claiming all skeptics on the issue are denialists. |
Then you cannot sanely portray yourself in the role of the guy who suggests we all go out and count horses' teeth. By saying "we," you're saying that you're one of the idiots pointing to some authority or other and who refuses to actually perform an empirical observation. So you're agreeing that you're in no position to criticize those who are doing the science. Thanks.| How pathetic. We certainly deserve what's coming to us. |
The BEST team (made up of climate "skeptics") made their raw data available for anyone to analyze. As soon as you do so, and rise above the level of patheticness you're moaning about, then you'll have a leg to stand on regarding AGW. As soon as you make some empirical observations which put Dark Matter theory as a whole into question, then you'll be in a proper place to criticize it, according to your own apparent standards.
Hell, as soon as you address any of the data, instead of pontificating about the limitations of science and/or the abuses of public policy, you'll have gained a foothold in the discussion of either subject. But I don't think you will. Instead, I predict that you will continue to do nothing but argue about the horse's teeth, instead of counting them. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 11/13/2011 : 03:26:27 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Sebastian
Is there no way to edit one's posts? |
Yes there is. At the top of your post you should see an icon looking like this: 
That's the "edit your post"-button. It is available for a week or two from the original posting date. After that, we lock the post for editing.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Sebastian
New Member
44 Posts |
Posted - 11/13/2011 : 09:33:21 [Permalink]
|
| That's an absolutely insane characterization given what Tim quoted, more than once: "There is no clear cut distinction between an experiment and a simple observation." Tim made it absolutely clear that he thinks that there is no substantial difference, but you, Sebastian, say that he thinks they're "separate and unconnected?" That's just crazy. |
I agree that's a confusing response on my part. My excuse is, I was interrupted when writing a previous post and failed to provide the precise quote from Tim that I was responding to. Following is the quote from Tim that I should have provided, and which I've now added to my previous post through editing.
| I get the impression that Sebastian believes that uncontrolled non-laboratory observations are in fact inferior, but the only reason seems to be that such observations are more likely to be either misleading or just plain wrong. I don't buy that idea, and if anything, i would assert the opposite: Controlled laboratory experiments are more likely to be misleading than uncontrolled non-laboratory observations. The references to diagnoses & drug trials seem quite out of place and irrelevant to me. Weather & climate, astronomy & astrophysics, are far better examples. |
By 'false dichotomy' I don't mean there are no differences. I mean that the differences, as described by Tim above, are being mischaracterized, specifically when he writes: "Controlled laboratory experiments are more likely to be misleading than uncontrolled non-laboratory observations".
To put it another way, uncontrolled, non-laboratory observations are not science, they are merely observations. They become science only when interpreted, examined and analysed in relation to existing scientific theories, through laboratory processes, using instruments produced and tested in the laboratory, or laboratory-type factories.
I consider the Hubble Telescope that photographs distant galaxies to be a very complex, remote-controlled laboratory of a type.
Now here's a very strange comment from Dave W.
In response to my statement, "The heat radiated from the earth back into space is of a lower frequency than the heat coming directly from the sun. C02 is less transparent to the lower heat frequencies radiated back from the earth, so the earth tends to heat up because these lower frequencies cannot escape back to outer space so easily", Dave W writes:
| Heat doesn't have a frequency. Thank you for again demonstrating your ignorance of the science. |
Does anyone know what Dave is talking about? Has he never heard of the Electromagnetic Spectrum which assigns different frequencies to all the various forms of radiation?
How does Dave imagine that the heat from the sun reaches our planet?
From Wikipedia: Sunlight at zenith provides an irradiance of just over 1 kilowatt per square meter at sea level. Of this energy, 527 watts is infrared radiation, 445 watts is visible light, and 32 watts is ultraviolet radiation.
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 11/13/2011 : 12:37:30 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Sebastian
Now here's a very strange comment from Dave W.
In response to my statement, "The heat radiated from the earth back into space is of a lower frequency than the heat coming directly from the sun. C02 is less transparent to the lower heat frequencies radiated back from the earth, so the earth tends to heat up because these lower frequencies cannot escape back to outer space so easily", Dave W writes:
| Heat doesn't have a frequency. Thank you for again demonstrating your ignorance of the science. |
Does anyone know what Dave is talking about? Has he never heard of the Electromagnetic Spectrum which assigns different frequencies to all the various forms of radiation? |
Bwahahahaha! Electromagnetic radiation is one "form of radiation." Other "forms of radiation" are, by definition, not electromagnetic.| How does Dave imagine that the heat from the sun reaches our planet? |
It's carried by photons as energy. Light has a frequency. Heat doesn't.| From Wikipedia: Sunlight at zenith provides an irradiance of just over 1 kilowatt per square meter at sea level. Of this energy, 527 watts is infrared radiation, 445 watts is visible light, and 32 watts is ultraviolet radiation. |
Yes, so what frequency of "heat" is Wikipedia talking about? The quote you provided doesn't use the word "heat" at all.
All electromagnetic radiation carries energy. Whether that energy gets converted into heat depends upon the interactions that the photons go through.
Thanks once again for demonstrating your tenuous (at best) grasp of science and your failure to address the facts of either Dark Matter or AGW. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
podcat
Skeptic Friend
435 Posts |
Posted - 11/14/2011 : 13:48:03 [Permalink]
|
| And actually, the electromagnetic spectrum is the range of all possible frequencies of electromagnetic radiation. No other types of radiation are covered by the electromagnetic spectrum. |
“In a modern...society, everybody has the absolute right to believe whatever they damn well please, but they don't have the same right to be taken seriously”.
-Barry Williams, co-founder, Australian Skeptics |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 11/14/2011 : 19:30:13 [Permalink]
|
Sebastian......
To lend some perspective to your commentary, would you mind posting a brief paragraph as to what your academic and occupational background has been? |
|
|
|
Sebastian
New Member
44 Posts |
Posted - 11/15/2011 : 02:11:42 [Permalink]
|
Sebastian......
To lend some perspective to your commentary, would you mind posting a brief paragraph as to what your academic and occupational background has been? |
Yes I would mind. I will not do that because any perspective based upon my academic qualifications does not necessarily have any direct bearing on the correctness of the views being discussed on this issue. There are scientists who have PhDs in disciplines related to climatology, yet who disagree with the so-called consensus view on anthropogenic climate change, for clearly enunciated rational reasons rather than personal investment in the fossil fuel industries.
What makes sense, for anyone, is what makes sense. For the scientifically illiterate, what makes sense are the opinions of experts, simply expressed for their benefit, whether right or wrong.
The truth of any statement cannot be determined only by the number of qualified experts holding an opinion that it is true.
Throughout the history of humanity there have always been experts pontificating that one thing or another is true.
Do you think that at some point in history, perhaps at the beginning of the industrial revolution, or when one imagines the scientific method was discovered, that all experts in a field suddenly became nearly infallible, so that one could determine the truth of any matter by counting the percentage of experts who believed it was true?
I keep trying to impress upon you guys that the number, or percentage, or size of the consensus of experts who hold a particular opinion on any complex matter that is beyond verification, is not a guarantee of its accuracy.
Within the scientific method, verification through repeated experiment, is the only arbiter of truth.
Those matters which by their nature are currently outside of such normal and essential scientific processes of verification and falsification, such as Anthropogenic Climate Change, and the existence of Dark Matter, are simply not matters which are settled. They are the subject of much ongoing research precisely because they are not settled.
It may well be the case that in 30 years' time, new evidence will emerge that throws a different light on the situation. We may well have young students out of the universities opting for a PhD on the subject of, 'How it happened that so many experts in the field of AGW got it wrong in the early 21st century', or, alternatively as the case may be, 'The Nature of the Social Forces that caused so many people to deny the truth of the science of AGW in the early 21st century'.
This is the fundamental principle here that everyone posting in this thread, particularly Dave W, seems to have missed.
In this absence of verification of either the existence of Dark Matter or the damaging effects that may result if we ignore CO2 emissions, I'm not proposing an alternative scientific theory that proves that both assertions are wrong. I'm not claiming to be a genius.
I'm merely making the very transparent observation that in both cases the matters are far from settled, and may in the fullness of time, be proved to be wrong. They may also be proved to be right.
Whether or not the dangers of AGW are eventually proved to be right or wrong is of far more concern to us ordinary mortals than the issue of Dark Matter.
The connection I make between the two is that in both instances we have a lack of scientific verification.
In the case of AGW, the lack of scientific verification is intolerable, so the spokespeople for AGW alarmism appear to tell deliberate and calculated lies. But perhaps they don't realise they are lying.
How can this be, you may well ask? Why can't smarter people prove that the lies are lies and therefore false statements?
Well, I've already provided the answer many times in this thread. In the absence of conclusive and verifiable evidence either for or against, nothing can be proved one way or another.
If a person declares that he has evidence that God exists, how can one disprove him. How can one prove he is lying? All one can do is claim that the evidence he supplies is not conclusive or believable, if one thinks that is the case, and that the case for God's existence cannot be verified according to one's own standards of verification.
Some people would counteract that with the statement that the Pope is a much more educated person than I am in matters of Theology. Who am I to claim that the Pope is wrong? What are my qualifications?
For me, this issue in this thread is a general issue which pervades all societies; that is, the willingness of large numbers of people, the ignorant masses if you like, to be so ready to accept situations, ideas and beliefs on the basis of authority rather than on the basis of verifiable evidence.
For the unthinking masses who know little about science and its methods, statements to the effect that most climatologists are of the opinion that continuing CO2 emmissions are a serious threat to our future on this planet, have a religiously powerful effect which is reinforced by politicians who also don't understand the science but understand the opportunity of going along with a consensus opinion and exploiting it to the full.
I've discussed such issues on sites that support the AGW hypothesis, and you wouldn't believe the degree of vitriolic abuse that is directed towards skeptics such as myself, on such sites.
I would compare such abuse, almost, to what one might expect if one posted on a Moslem religious site and criticised the prophet Mohammed. One might be lucky to get away with one's life.
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 11/15/2011 : 08:56:52 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Sebastian
I keep trying to impress upon you guys that the number, or percentage, or size of the consensus of experts who hold a particular opinion on any complex matter that is beyond verification, is not a guarantee of its accuracy. |
Nobody here has made such a claim. We've been asking you to engage with the actual data, and you refuse to do so. You're apparently content to argue about the horse's teeth instead of going out and counting them.| Within the scientific method, verification through repeated experiment, is the only arbiter of truth. |
That's true. Why do you refuse to examine the repeated experiments verifying both Dark Matter and AGW?| Those matters which by their nature are currently outside of such normal and essential scientific processes of verification and falsification, such as Anthropogenic Climate Change, and the existence of Dark Matter, are simply not matters which are settled. They are the subject of much ongoing research precisely because they are not settled. |
Name one scientific discipline which is "settled." I don't think you can. There are ongoing research programs everywhere because science is a process, not a goal.| This is the fundamental principle here that everyone posting in this thread, particularly Dave W, seems to have missed. |
No, it's you making stuff up and also denying the existence of the evidence we do have.| In this absence of verification of either the existence of Dark Matter or the damaging effects that may result if we ignore CO2 emissions, I'm not proposing an alternative scientific theory that proves that both assertions are wrong. I'm not claiming to be a genius. |
No, you're demonstrating your ignorance of the verified science that's been done in both cases.| I'm merely making the very transparent observation... |
Baloney. You're not "merely" doing any such thing. You're asserting that Dark Matter is "mythical," that for plants and CO2, "the more the better," that carbon is a "beneficial trace element," that AGW proponents are lying, and that "indirect evidence" isn't evidence. If you were "merely" showing a lack of verification, you wouldn't have made any of these claims.| Whether or not the dangers of AGW are eventually proved to be right or wrong is of far more concern to us ordinary mortals than the issue of Dark Matter. |
And yet, you spew nonsense about AGW and provide not a single reference to any data to support your position. You're a blatant hypocrite.| The connection I make between the two is that in both instances we have a lack of scientific verification. |
And that characterization is factually incorrect.| In the case of AGW, the lack of scientific verification is intolerable... |
That "lack" does not exist.| ...so the spokespeople for AGW alarmism appear to tell deliberate and calculated lies. But perhaps they don't realise they are lying. |
Provide evidence to support these claims.How can this be, you may well ask? Why can't smarter people prove that the lies are lies and therefore false statements?
Well, I've already provided the answer many times in this thread. In the absence of conclusive and verifiable evidence either for or against, nothing can be proved one way or another. |
So you have no evidence that people are lying or just passing along lies. How can you verify your claim without any evidence?| If a person declares that he has evidence that God exists, how can one disprove him. How can one prove he is lying? All one can do is claim that the evidence he supplies is not conclusive or believable, if one thinks that is the case, and that the case for God's existence cannot be verified according to one's own standards of verification. |
Is that how you really think things work? That there are no objective standards for logic or evidence?| Some people would counteract that with the statement that the Pope is a much more educated person than I am in matters of Theology. Who am I to claim that the Pope is wrong? What are my qualifications? |
Nobody here has based any argument on anyone's qualifications.| For me, this issue in this thread is a general issue which pervades all societies; that is, the willingness of large numbers of people, the ignorant masses if you like, to be so ready to accept situations, ideas and beliefs on the basis of authority rather than on the basis of verifiable evidence. |
It is a lie to claim that people in this thread have based arguments on other people's authority.| For the unthinking masses who know little about science and its methods... |
Yourself included, apparently.| I've discussed such issues on sites that support the AGW hypothesis, and you wouldn't believe the degree of vitriolic abuse that is directed towards skeptics such as myself, on such sites. |
Because you're not a skeptic, you are a hypocritical contrarian who refuses to engage in a discussion of evidence, instead imputing motivations to researchers and claiming that they are lying when you have no evidence at all to support such claims, and instead you're involved in a giant case of projecting your own failures onto others.| I would compare such abuse, almost, to what one might expect if one posted on a Moslem religious site and criticised the prophet Mohammed. One might be lucky to get away with one's life. |
Oh, my. Someone get Sebastian some body armor. The AGW jihadists are out to persecute him 'cause he dared to argue about the horse's teeth. Maybe if he had a proper count of them, AGW supporters would take his arguments more seriously. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 11/15/2011 : 09:41:05 [Permalink]
|
Sebastian.....
You make a number of unjustified assumptions. I have no intention of judging the merit of your pronouncements based exclusively or even primarily on the degree or depth of your education, career experience, or age. That is not to say, however, that these factors have no importance in evaluating a member's comments.
Several others here have very competently engaged you in debate on the subject matter you brought to this forum. Your degree of expertise and competence in presenting your opinions is already quite evident. Having been a regular participant here for some time, I have formed pretty clear profiles of the intellectual and expositional skills of most of the folks you have been debating with. Generally, there is a pretty high level of intellectual inquiry evident here on SFN
My purpose in asking you to provide a basic profile of yourself was to help me, as an author writing text that pertains in part to some of the debate here on SFN, understand the quality level that this particular debate has achieved, and the nature of your contribution to it.
For example, when Tim Thompson, who has defined himself as a retired career astrophysicist, posts on the forum; I listen carefully as I respect the lifetime investment in time and effort that he has made in order to speak with authority on the subjects of both particle and astrophysics. The same holds true for Alienist when she offers comment on medical or psychological subject matter, because she is a practicing MD psychiatrist. Filthy is one of the most highly expert zooligists that I have ever had the pleasure to listen to. When he writes on his selected field, you can be pretty certain that he is correct as to detail.
On the other hand, my commentary would contribute little value to this particular current discussion because of my lack of either academic background, experiental exposure, or high anecdotal exposure to the subject matter at hand.
We have folks commenting here that range from high school students that have barely begun their educational journey, extending all the way to practicing MD's and career scientists with many years of experience in their field. It is helpful, when a member offers comments that purport to be truth claims, to understand what level of education, exposure to the subject matter, and experience on which their information is based.
I completely understand the reasons for your reticence in providing personal information regarding your educational and career background, and that realization itself is somewhat helpful to me in evaluating your commentary. Thank you for your reply.
|
|
|
|
Tim Thompson
New Member
USA
36 Posts |
 Posted - 11/15/2011 : 21:18:00 [Permalink]
|
I find the posts by Sebastian to be confusing and disorganized, peppered with irrelevant fables and discussions of global warming that don't belong in a thread entitled "Skepticism about the Big Bang". For the most part I do not know what point(s) he is trying to make. However, accidental moments of clarity do seem to come forth. So let me respond here in two parts, on the two primary & relevant issues for this thread (I have opinions about global warming too, but they don't belong here; start another thread on that topic and I'll tell you what I think).
Comments on Science
Allow me to quote myself with some modified emphasis:
Originally posted by Tim Thompson
The following quote comes from a message I posted on 1 February, 2010, on the JREF Forum: What is Empirical Science? III
Originally posted elsewhere by Tim Thompson (1 Feb 2010)
Question 2
The standard definition of the word "empirical" does not require a controlled experiment, or for that matter, any kind of experiment at all. Why do you feel justified in changing the definition of a word (any word, but in particular this one), and then complaining when the rest of the world does not use it your way?
For standard usage of the word "empirical", see for instance the definition from the online Merriam-Webster dictionary.
Case in point
I quote from the book An Introduction to Scientific Research by E. Bright Wilson, Jr.; McGraw-Hill, 1952 (Dover reprint, 1990); page 27-28, section 3.7 "The Testing of Hypotheses"; emphasis from the original.
"In many cases hypotheses are so simple and their consequences so obvious that it becomes possible to test them directly. New observations on selected aspects of nature may be made, or more often an experiment can be performed for the test. There is no clear cut distinction between an experiment and a simple observation, but ordinarily in an experiment the observer interferes to some extent with nature and creates conditions or events favorable to his purpose."
Wilson says "There is no clear cut distinction between an experiment and a simple observation," and that is the way the entire scientific community currently operates.
|
|
I agree with Wilson.
Question for Sebastian: Do you also agree with Wilson, specifically that There is no clear cut distinction between an experiment and a simple observation?
Originally posted by Sebastian
This stark and indisputable observation that the sun revolves around the earth has been so entrenched in our history, that people have lost their lives for disputing it.
|
I really don't know what point is supposed to be made by this, and the discussion around it, but I would like to point out that it was eventually determined that Earth goes around the sun by observing nature, not by making controlled laboratory experiments. The size and shape of the moon as well as its distance from Earth, and the size and shape of Earth itself were determined thousands of years ago by observing nature, not by conducting controlled laboratory experiments.
(comment aside: The sun does not go around Earth and Earth does not go around the sun; rather, both orbit around the barycenter, or center of mass/gravity of the solar system. This point occasionally lies outside the surface of the sun; see this image).
Originally posted by Sebastian
It seems very, very clear to me, and I can't understand how anyone could dispute it, that naked observation of uncontrolled nature, the universe, or anything else, without accompanying laboratory experiment, can lead to serious error.
|
I dispute it to this extent: Naked observation of uncontrolled nature is no more likely to lead to serious error than is controlled laboratory experimentation. The number one goal of any natural science, as i have said before, is to understand nature. It is not to understand the limited world of a controlled laboratory, it is to understand nature; raw, uncontrolled nature, that's why we do science. If you don't observe raw, uncontrolled nature, you can kiss science goodbye forever. However, one should not mis-construe what I am saying as an assertion that controlled laboratory experiments are inferior to observing nature, or are something we can do without. That's the whole point of what Wilson says: There is no clear cut distinction between an experiment and a simple observation. Observations of raw, uncontrolled nature are the one and only way to find out what raw, uncontrolled nature is actually doing. But it is certainly true that raw, uncontrolled nature can be messy, and that's where the relatively modern invention of controlled laboratory experiments comes in. By controlling the conditions of the experiment we can more easily discover the relationship(s) between variables in a system, and bootstrap that understanding into a better understanding of the observations of raw, uncontrolled nature. Now, just to avoid further misinterpretation, let me say this clearly: Observations of raw, uncontrolled nature and controlled laboratory experiments are both necessary; both carry equal empirical weight, neither is superior or inferior to the other.
Finally, allow me to quote myself once again:
Originally posted by Tim Thompson
In summary: I do not agree that there is any significant difference between a controlled laboratory experiment, or an uncontrolled observation in nature, in so far as the testing of scientific hypotheses is concerned. Furthermore, I do not accept the notion that indirect evidence should be considered inferior in principle to direct detection, in the context of evidence concerning the existence of non-baryonic dark matter. And it must be kept in mind that there are many kinds of experiment which are quite literally impossible to perform under controlled conditions because of limitations imposed by, for instance, size or energy restrictions on any laboratory facility.
|
Now I hope I have made myself clear enough.
Comments on Cosmology and Dark Matter
Long, long ago, in a galaxy far, far away, we were talking about dark matter. Let me return to that topic by once again quoting myself:
Originally posted by Tim Thompson
My conclusion: I don't see how anyone can look at the full weight of the evidence, both direct & indirect, and not conclude that that the presence of non-baryonic dark matter is in fact the best solution currently available to the scientific community as an explanations for the "missing mass" problem. I do not mean by this that the alternative solution, a modification of the law of gravity, should be ignore; quite the opposite, it should be pursued as best we can. But credit, as they say, should go where credit is due, and non-baryonic dark matter is in fact the superior solution on offer, by virtue of both quantity and quality of both observational evidence and theoretical considerations.
|
There really isn't much more for me to say now. In that post I laid out the empirical evidence favoring the case for the existence of non-baryonic dark matter. I will add to that a reference which in fact appeared only today:
Evidence for dark matter modulation in CoGeNT
Chiara Arina, et al., preprint dated 14 November 2011.
Abstract:
We investigate the question of whether the recent modulation signal claimed by CoGeNT is best explained by the dark matter (DM) hypothesis from a Bayesian model comparison perspective. We consider five phenomenological explanations for the data: no modulation signal, modulation due to DM, modulation due to DM compatible with the total CoGeNT rate, and a signal coming from other physics with a free phase but annual period, or with a free phase and a free period. In each scenario, we assign to the free parameters physically motivated priors. We find that the no modulation model is excluded with odds in excess of 10^5 : 1 when all energy bins are included in the analysis. The DM models are strongly preferred over explanations due to other physics, even when astrophysical uncertainties are taken into account and the impact of priors assessed. However, the evidence for the DM model in which the modulation signal is compatible with the total rate is significantly weaker than for a DM model in which this prior is not implemented, a result driven mainly by the large modulation amplitude observed in the energy range (0.9 - 3.0) keV by CoGeNT. Classical hypothesis testing also rules out the null hypothesis of no modulation at the 4.5-sigma to 4.8-sigma level, depending on the details of the alternative. Lastly, we investigate whether anisotropic velocity distributions can help to mitigate the tension between the CoGeNT total and modulated rates, and find encouraging results.
It would be nice to see a response from Sebastian on what I thought was the real topic of this thread. And hopefully we can minimize the confusingly irrelevant parables and analogies to global warming or horses teeth and try to pointedly address the topics at hand.
|
The point of philosophy is to start with something so simple as not to seem worth stating, and to end with something so paradoxical that no one will believe it. -- Bertrand Russell |
| Edited by - Tim Thompson on 11/15/2011 21:20:03 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 11/16/2011 : 07:48:57 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Tim Thompson
It would be nice to see a response from Sebastian on what I thought was the real topic of this thread. And hopefully we can minimize the confusingly irrelevant parables and analogies to global warming or horses teeth and try to pointedly address the topics at hand. |
I don't think he can provide a topical response. Not even if you'd linked direct to that last article. Words like "infer" (which appears, with variations, nine times in the paper) will stop Sebastian cold and he'll complain about how it's just "indirect evidence." And then he'll treat us to another laughably mistaken lecture about the nature of science.
On a slightly different subject, Tim: why is it that researchers doing a Bayesian analysis still seem to find a need to present a generic, introductory section on what a Bayesian analysis is? Is that process still that new to scientists in general? I mean, no physicist in his/her right mind would present a paragraph on how to do multiplication, even in a paper which used multiplication to reach its conclusions. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Sebastian
New Member
44 Posts |
Posted - 11/23/2011 : 04:42:25 [Permalink]
|
| I really don't know what point is supposed to be made by this, and the discussion around it, but I would like to point out that it was eventually determined that Earth goes around the sun by observing nature, not by making controlled laboratory experiments. The size and shape of the moon as well as its distance from Earth, and the size and shape of Earth itself were determined thousands of years ago by observing nature, not by conducting controlled laboratory experiments. |
I'm amazed at your confusion, Tim. Absolutely everything we are aware of is a result of observation, through our eyes, or hearing, through our ears, or feeling through our body, or heart (figuratively), or intuition, irrespective of any science.
The obervation that the earth revolves around the sun has been possible only as a result of the laboratory-produced lens in the form of a telescope, which was a scientific endeavour.
The obervation that the universe contains hundreds of thousands of galaxies has been possible only as a result of lots and lots of laboratory-produced technology which extends our powers of observation.
That the telescope extends our powers of observation is confirmed. There's no doubt at all about that. But there are clearly doubts about our interpretation of those distant events, just as there are doubts about any theory which cannot be verified by the standard scientific procedures which have resulted in all the goods we enjoy on this earth.
Got it? |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Skepticism about the Big Bang
