Is Anthropogenic (Human-Caused) Global Warming/AGW Falsifiable?

[Dagosa]

Is Climate Science falsifiable?

Guest post by Hans Custers. Nederlandse versie hier. A very, ehhrmm… interesting piece on Variable Variability, Victor Venema’s blog: Interesting what the interesting Judith Curry finds…

ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com

Hans Custers is not a climate scientist. You’ll have trouble finding anyone but philosophers who confuse a hypothesis with a theory, your boy Popper does. He’s confused. Hypotheses are falsified, theories are not…..you’re confused too.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Hans Custers is not a climate scientist.

The author was Jos Hagelaars, an acclaimed and beloved climate change researcher/blogger who died last year.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Hypotheses are falsified, theories are not…..

Wrong.

 

[Dagosa]

The author was Jos Hagelaars, an acclaimed and beloved climate change researcher/blogger who died last year.

So you can’t provide a working scientist/ institute that backs this made up shit. He’s just posting a philosophical view of poppers

 

[Dagosa]

Wrong.

It’s a myth that science illiterates fall for.
Science American is a science institute. It’s not made up shit. It’s no different than deniers, falling for made up shit.

The Idea That a Scientific Theory Can Be 'Falsified' Is a Myth

It’s time we abandoned the notion

www.scientificamerican.com

 

[Grumblenuts]

Why so angry?

 

[Dagosa]

Wrong.

Take it a step further. The idea that science theories must either or can be proven or falsified is a myth.

Scientific Proof Is A Myth

We can demonstrate, suggest, and convince ourselves that a scientific truth is valid. But proof? That's an impossibility for science.

www.forbes.com

 

[Dagosa]

Wrong.

Nope……

 

[Grumblenuts]

It’s a myth that science illiterates fall for.
Science American is a science institute. It’s not made up shit. It’s no different than deniers, falling for made up shit.

The Idea That a Scientific Theory Can Be 'Falsified' Is a Myth

It’s time we abandoned the notion

www.scientificamerican.com

I have no issue with Scientific American, but I'm not subscribing just to read an opinion piece that I suspect you're just reading wrong anyway.

In any case, you appear to be arguing semantics. In my experience, dictionaries best resolve such matters.

Take it a step further. The idea that science theories must either or can be proven or falsified is a myth.

I agree completely that "proof" is best reserved for mathematics. But falsification is a whole different animal that you don't fully grock yet.

 

[Dagosa]

I have no issue with Scientific American, but I'm not subscribing just to read an opinion piece that I suspect you're just reading wrong anyway.

In any case, you appear to be arguing semantics. In my experience, dictionaries best resolve such matters.

I agree completely that "proof" is best reserved for mathematics. But falsification is a whole different animal that you don't fully grock yet.

I have no issue with Scientific American, but I'm not subscribing just to read an opinion piece that I suspect you're just reading wrong anyway.

In any case, you appear to be arguing semantics. In my experience, dictionaries best resolve such matters.

I agree completely that "proof" is best reserved for mathematics. But falsification is a whole different animal that you don't fully grock yet.

Falsification of science theories is the brain child of one person, Karl Popper, a philosopher and non scientist.
There is no science research facility or working scientist that mentions or practices it. None.
Maybe it is just semantics as every theory initially comes under the closest of scrutiny…….