A question about the accuracy of science

[CrusaderFrank]

Crick you state your "AGW Hypothesis" and I'll tell you what would constitute evidence.

Deal?

 

[Crick]

Pretending to be even stupider than you actually are will not get you off the hook. You claimed that Mamooth's answers to SiModo's question, scientific observations that the warming the world has experienced has been caused by the greenhouse effect acting on human GHG emissions, was not evidence - that observations do not constitute evidence. I have then asked you the simple question "what constitutes evidence"? You seem to be doing your very best to avoid answering.

FRANK, WHAT CONSTITUTES EVIDENCE?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Pretending to be even stupider than you actually are will not get you off the hook. You claimed that Mamooth's answers to SiModo's question, scientific observations that the warming the world has experienced has been caused by the greenhouse effect acting on human GHG emissions, was not evidence - that observations do not constitute evidence. I have then asked you the simple question "what constitutes evidence"? You seem to be doing your very best to avoid answering.

FRANK, WHAT CONSTITUTES EVIDENCE?

Crick, state your "AGW Hypothesis" and I will tell you what constitutes evidence

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Crick, do you just plain not have a hypothesis or are you not able to formulate it in a sentence?

Here, try this

"Key Info

• A hypothesis is an educated guess about how things work.
• Most of the time a hypothesis is written like this: "If _____[I do this] _____, then _____[this]_____ will happen." (Fill in the blanks with the appropriate information from your own experiment.)
  
  
• Your hypothesis should be something that you can actually test, what's called a testable hypothesis. In other words, you need to be able to measure both "what you do" and "what will happen."

Writing a Hypothesis for Your Science Fair Project

 

[Si modo]

What are you babbling about? The links he provided were evidence that the warming we've experienced is due to greenhouse gases. They were precisely what you asked for. That you should now claim don't answer your question simply tells us that you would have accepted nothing for an answer and that your pretense of open-mindedness is a complete lie.

I could challenge you to waste your time and post the section of each of those papers which answers the question I posed.

I read each paper...some I've already read...and none of them answer the question I posed. They all seemed like proper science, answered valid scientific questions, but not the one I asked.

Thanks.

 

[Crick]

Where is the science to support global warming is man made?

Is this the question you claim has not been answered?

 

[bripat9643]

Many people here bring up instances in which the majority opinions of scientists in a number of fields have been found incorrect. Peptic ulcers were once thought to be caused by acidic food. The universe's expansion was once thought to be slowing. These posters have used these sorts of instances to argue that we have no reason to be influenced by the fact that the vast majority of climate scientists in the world today believe that the world is still warming and that the dominant cause since at least the middle of the last century is human activity. They believe that history tells them that we have no reason to trust such opinions - that their universality simply makes them more suspect.

So, here is the question. Let us look at all the positions held by all the world's scientists since the development of the modern scientific method. If we rule to the best of our knowledge on which of those positions have since been shown to be incorrect, will we find that individual scientists or small groups of scientists have been wrong LESS often than majorities, or MORE often wrong.

The answer, of course, is that there is a very strong and direct correlation between the numbers of scientists (percent or absolute) who hold a given position and the likelihood that it is found correct - that it is not falsified. Thus the logic of rejecting the common opinion for that of the lone wolf fails its most basic test.

The Earth is getting warmer and the dominant cause is human GHG emissions and deforestation. The effects of that warming will be consequential and a committed human response is required.

Superseded scientific theories - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Superseded theories

• Spontaneous generation - is a principle regarding the spontaneous generation of complex life from inanimate matter, which held that this process was a commonplace and everyday occurrence, as distinguished from univocal generation, or reproduction from parent(s). Falsified by an elegant experiment by Louis Pasteur—where apparently spontaneous generation of microorganisms occurred, it did not happen on repeating the process without access to unfiltered air; on then opening the apparatus to the atmosphere, bacterial growth started.
• Transmutation of species, Lamarckism, inheritance of acquired characteristics - first theories of evolution. Not supported by experiment, and rendered obsolete by Darwinian evolution, Mendelian genetics and epigenetics (although some elements of Lamarckian evolution are coming back in the area of epigenetics).
• Mendelian genetics, classical genetics, Boveri–Sutton chromosome theory - first genetical theories. Not invalidated as such, but subsumed into molecular genetics.
• Maternal impression – the theory that the mother's thoughts created birth defects. No experimental support (a notion rather than a theory), and rendered obsolete by genetic theory (see also fetal origins of adult disease, genomic imprinting)
• Miasma theory of disease – the theory that diseases are caused by "bad air". No experimental support, and rendered obsolete by the germ theory of disease.
• Preformationism – the theory that all organisms have existed since the beginning of life, and that gametes contain a miniature but complete preformed individual. No support when microscopy became available. Rendered obsolete by cytology, discovery ofDNA, and atomic theory.
• Recapitulation theory – the theory that "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny". See Baer's laws of embryology.
• Telegony – the theory that an offspring can inherit characteristics from a previous mate of its mother's as well as its actual parents, often associated with racism.
• Vitalism – the theory that living things are alive because of some "vital force" independent of nonliving matter, as opposed to because of some appropriate assembly of nonliving matter. It was gradually discredited by the rise of organic chemistry,biochemistry, and molecular biology, fields that failed to discover any "vital force". Friedrich Wöhler's synthesis of urea from ammonium cyanate was only one step in a long road, not a great refutation.
• Out of Asia theory of human origin – The majority view is of a recent African origin of modern humans, although a multiregional origin of modern humans hypothesis has much support (which incorporates past evidence of Asian origins)

Chemistry[edit]

• Caloric theory - the theory that a self-repelling fluid called "caloric" was the substance of heat. Rendered obsolete by themechanical theory of heat.
• Classical elements - All matter was once thought to be composed of various combinations of classical elements (most famously air, earth, fire, and water). This was finally refuted by Antoine Lavoisier's publication of Elements of Chemistry, which contained the first modern list of chemical elements, in 1789.
• Phlogiston theory – The theory that combustible goods contain a substance called "phlogiston" which entered air upon combustion. Replaced by Lavoisier's work on oxidation
• Point 2 of Dalton's Atomic Theory was obsoleted by discovery of isotopes, and point 3 by discovery of subatomic particles andnuclear reactions.
• Vitalism - See section on biology.

Physics[edit]

• Emission theory of vision – discredited by Ibn al-Haytham (Alhacen)
• Aristotelian physics – superseded by Newtonian physics
• Ptolemy's law of refraction, replaced by Snell's law
• Luminiferous aether – failed to be detected by the sufficiently sensitive Michelson-Morley experiment, made obsolete byEinstein's work.
• Caloric theory – Lavoisier's successor to phlogiston, discredited by Rumford's and Joule's work
• Contact tension - a theory on the source of electricity
• Vis viva – Gottfried Leibniz's elementary and limited early formulation of the principle of conservation of energy
• "Purely electrostatic" theories of the generation of voltage differences.
• Emitter theory – another now-obsolete theory of light propagation.
• Progression of atomic theory

• Democritus, the originator of atomic theory, held that everything is composed of atoms, which are indestructible
• John Dalton's model of the atom, which held that atoms are indivisible and indestructible (superseded by nuclear physics) and that all atoms of a given element are identical in mass (superseded by discovery of atomic isotopes).[1]
• Plum pudding model of the atom—assuming the protons and electrons were mixed together in a single mass
• Rutherford model of the atom with an impenetrable nucleus orbited by electrons
• Bohr model with quantized orbits
• Electron cloud model following the development of quantum mechanics in 1925 and the eventual atomic orbital models derived from the quantum mechanical solution to the hydrogen atom

• All of classical physics, including Newtonian physics, superseded by relativistic physics and quantum physics. However, classical physics is a limiting case of the latter two theories, and it is often a very good approximation.

Astronomy and cosmology[edit]

• Ptolemaic system – replaced by Nicolaus Copernicus' Heliocentric model.
• Geocentric universe – made obsolete by Copernicus
• Heliocentric universe – made obsolete by discovery of the structure of the Milky Way. Heliocentrism only applies to the Solar System, and only approximately, since the Sun's center is not at the Solar System's center of mass.
• Copernican system – made obsolete by Johannes Kepler and Isaac Newton
• Newtonian gravity – superseded by general relativity, to which it is an excellent approximation unless typical speeds approach that of light in a vacuum (c). The anomalousperihelion precession of Mercury was the first observational evidence that Newtonian gravity was not totally accurate.
• Luminiferous aether theory
• Steady State Theory, a model developed by Hermann Bondi, Thomas Gold, and Fred Hoyle whereby the expanding universe was in a steady state, and had no beginning. It was a competitor of the Big Bang model until evidence supporting the Big Bang and falsifying the steady state was found.

Geography and climate[edit]

• Flat Earth theory. On length scales much smaller than the radius of the Earth, a flat map projection gives a quite accurate and practically useful approximation to true distances and sizes, but departures from flatness become increasingly significant over larger distances.
• Terra Australis
• Hollow Earth theory
• The Open Polar Sea, an ice-free sea once supposed to surround the North Pole
• Rain follows the plow – the theory that human settlement increases rainfall in arid regions (only true to the extent that crop fields evapotranspirate more than barren wilderness)
• Island of California – the theory that California was not part of mainland North America but rather a large island

Geology[edit]

• Abiogenic petroleum origin
• Catastrophism was largely replaced by uniformitarianism
• Flood geology replaced by modern geology and stratigraphy
• Neptunism replaced by plutonism
• The following were superseded by plate tectonics:
  • Expanding Earth theory (superseded by subduction)
  • Geosyncline theory
  • The theory of continental drift was incorporated into and improved upon by plate tectonics

Psychology[edit]

• Pure behaviorist explanations for language acquisition in infancy, falsified by the study of cognitive adaptations for language.[2]

Medicine[edit]

• Theory of the four bodily humours (see also Four temperaments)
• Eclectic Medicine – Transformed into alternative medicine, and is no longer considered a scientific theory.
• Physiognomy, related to phrenology, held that inner character was strongly correlated with physical appearance.

Obsolete branches of enquiry[edit]

• Alchemy, which led to the development of chemistry
• Astrology, which led to the development of astronomy
• Phrenology, a pseudoscience
• Numerology, a pseudoscience

 

[Si modo]

Pretending to be even stupider than you actually are will not get you off the hook. You claimed that Mamooth's answers to SiModo's question, scientific observations that the warming the world has experienced has been caused by the greenhouse effect acting on human GHG emissions, was not evidence - that observations do not constitute evidence. I have then asked you the simple question "what constitutes evidence"? You seem to be doing your very best to avoid answering.

FRANK, WHAT CONSTITUTES EVIDENCE?

Manmouth's posts did not answer my question. My question was not, "Is warming due to the greenhouse effect?"

 

[Old Rocks]

yes

 

[CrusaderFrank]

yes

Based on the "Just because we say so" method

 

[CrusaderFrank]

yes

Can you state the AGW Hypothesis?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Most of the time a hypothesis is written like this: "If _____[I do this] _____, then _____[this]_____ will happen." (Fill in the blanks with the appropriate information from your own experiment.)

If we ask the AGW Cult to state their hypothesis, they will run away

 

[Crick]

I have no reason to make any deal with you, Frank. I owe you nothing. You have reason to answer my simple question because you have made statements and accusations based on your claim to know the answer, but have failed so far to demonstrate that knowledge.

Frank, what constitutes evidence?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I have no reason to make any deal with you, Frank. I owe you nothing. You have reason to answer my simple question because you have made statements and accusations based on your claim to know the answer, but have failed so far to demonstrate that knowledge.

Frank, what constitutes evidence?

If we ask the AGW Cult to state their hypothesis, they will run away

1 for 1 so far.

 

[Crick]

Frank, it is COMPLETELY obvious to the most ignorant poster here that you are the one running away from a simple question.

Here, Frank, are the definitions of "evidence" from a couple of dictionaries:

1. that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.

2. something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign:

3. Law. data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects.

1. ground for belief or disbelief; data on which to base proof or to establish truth or falsehood

2. a mark or sign that makes evident; indication

3. (law) matter produced before a court of law in an attempt to prove or disprove a point in issue, such as the statements of witnesses, documents, material objects, etc See also circumstantial evidence, direct evidence

***********************************************************************************************************

Obviously, observations can easily fit this bill. The observations Mamooth posted are, indeed, evidence that global warming is being caused by the greenhouse effect and, as you've all heard many times before, isotopic analysis shows that virtually every drop of CO2 above 1750's 280 ppm has its origin in the combustion of fossil fuels and is thus of human origin.

So, we will never know whether or not you truly believe that no observation qualifies as evidence because you clearly seem to be too fearful to discuss it and reveal the actual level of your knowledge. But we do now know that you and honesty are nearly complete strangers.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Frank, it is COMPLETELY obvious to the most ignorant poster here that you are the one running away from a simple question.

Here, Frank, here are the definitions of evidence from a couple of dictionaries:

1. that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.

2. something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign:

3. Law. data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects.

1. ground for belief or disbelief; data on which to base proof or to establish truth or falsehood

2. a mark or sign that makes evident; indication

3. (law) matter produced before a court of law in an attempt to prove or disprove a point in issue, such as the statements of witnesses, documents, material objects, etc See also circumstantial evidence, direct evidence

***********************************************************************************************************

Obviously, observations can easily fit this bill. The observations Mamooth posted are, indeed, evidence that global warming is being caused by the greenhouse effect and, as you've all heard many times before, isotopic analysis shows that virtually every drop of CO2 above 1750's 280 ppm has its origin in the combustion of fossil fuels and is thus of human origin.

So, we will never know whether or not you truly believe that no observation qualifies as evidence because you clearly seem to be too fearful to discuss it and reveal the actual level of your knowledge. But we do now know that you and honesty are nearly complete strangers.

Any idiot can copy and paste the definition of evidence.

What's your hypothesis?

 

[Crick]

Any idiot can copy and paste the definition of evidence.

Then why couldn't you?

What's your hypothesis?

That's not the topic. Besides, you and everyone here knew that long ago.

So, Frank, you said that observations were not evidence. Please explain.

 

[mamooth]

I could challenge you to waste your time and post the section of each of those papers which answers the question I posed.

No you can't, as that would require you actually stating what your question is, and you lack the courage and honesty to do that.

The only tactic you're capable of is squealing "That's not my question!" while steadfastly refusing to tell anyone what your question is. It's the weasel tap dance, it's your specialty, and it's pathetic. And given how you're lying to our faces, there's no reason to treat you with civility.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Any idiot can copy and paste the definition of evidence.

Then why couldn't you?

What's your hypothesis?

That's not the topic. Besides, you and everyone here knew that long ago.

So, Frank, you said that observations were not evidence. Please explain.

Because you needed to state your hypothesis, then I would tell you what constitutes evidence.

What's the "AGW Hypothesis"?

 

[Crick]

Your crap about an AGW hypothesis is just that: crap. And EVERYONE here knows it. I told you you could quote the dictionary. My hope was to show you how wrong it was to state that observations weren't evidence. Do you now understand now how wrong that is? Your lab experiment showing 120 ppm increasing the warming of the planet would consist of nothing but observations.