Kangaroo court in Holland trying to stick its finger in the climate dike.
Funny stuff.
Kangaroo court in Holland trying to stick its finger in the climate dike.
Funny stuff.
Vaughan Pratt | September 12, 2015 at 12:09 am |
How many may have stepped out of the bath tub with an idea that seemed great at the moment, but later turned out to be wrong. I know that I myself have got many seemingly great ideas in the shower, which later turned out to be crap.
Popper did not invent every individual constituents of his empirical method. He combined them into a valuable method. I think the method is widely used, but I don´t think it is fully realized that it is. Similar methods must also have been in use before Karl Popper published his empirical method. The idea is simply put: I really have to test if this will work, if it don´t survive the tests it will not work. Or even simpler, the famous last words: “This should work just fine”, oops! it didn´t.
I think a practical example about the use of Poppers empirical method can be valuable to our discussion.
Popper´s empirical method is of great help to me. Whenever someone tries to sell me a immensely complicated device, a device which is claimed by it´s proponents to provide predictions within certain uncertainty limits. Then Popper´s empirical method both tells me what I should do and what I should not try to do.
What I should not try to do is to dive into every bit of the device and try to induce wether it will work within it´s claims or not. I should not try to induce from my understanding of every bit of the device wether the claims by it´s proponents are correct or not. And I should not take for granted the inductive reasoning by the proponents in favor of it. In a complicated device there is an infinite amount of possible errors.
What I have to do is to ask for it to be tested. I have to ask for it to be exposed to a relevant range of testing conditions. Some understanding of the principles the device works by, and what may influence on its performance, is crucial in order to select proper tests. If the device survives these tests – all I know is that the devices has survived those particular test. It has not yet been proved that the device does not perform in accordance with what has been claimed about the device, under these particular conditions. (Watch out for the double negation in the previous sentence, it is not the same as to say that it has been proved that the device works). I also know that if the device is applied outside the range of testing conditions it has been exposed to, there will be great uncertainty about it´s capabilities.
I know about several devices which has ceased to exists. These were seemingly fantastic devices, based on physics, there was consensus among its proponents about it´t capabilities. Unfortunately, testing revealed that the devices could not provide reliable predictions.
I even had a great idea myself about a device which could make predictions within certain uncertainties. However, I knew that my idea rested on the generalization of an effect I had observed. Hence, I designed a test which could falsify my idea about this effect. I went to a laboratory and did a lot of testing. It turned out that my idea survived many of my tests. Unfortunately, it did not survive all my tests. It turned out that my idea only provided reliable predictions within a very limited range of conditions. Hence, my idea was falsified. Consequently the design was falsified. Fortunately for my company I falsified the idea at a very early stage, before my flawed idea had caused much harm to my company. Soon after, we came up with another design, resting on other ideas. This new design has not yet been falsified, but we will try very hard to falsify it before the idea does any harm to my company, by making my company use a lot of resources in producing a device which in the end might turn out to not provide reliable results.
CAGW is a political movement with millions of adherents. It will not end anytime soon. It may never end, but it may stabilize as an endless special advocacy, about which little is done.
The interesting question is whether the CAGW movement is peaking? It may be. Pickett charging Paris.
IMO the “CAGW” phenomenon is in many ways like the “Reagan Coalition”: a temporary alliance among several groups with a variety of agendas, and considerable overlap.
• There are the “watermelons”: socialists and similar for whom the “environmental” movement is nothing but a cover for their own ideological agenda.
• There are many who vaguely oppose “Capitalism”, probably out of post-educational inertia, and are also concerned about the climate (and/or other aspects of fossil carbon)
• There are those who are primarily concerned about about the climate, etc., and don’t really care about political/economic ideologies.
• There are those who are concerned about the climate, etc., and have generally libertarian and/or conservative political preferences.
As long as it looked as though major social surgery would be needed to reposition “society” to solve the fossil carbon problem, they were all on roughly the same page. But the first cracks in the wall evidently stimulated a response from the watermelons: anybody who disagreed with any part of their agenda was a “denier”. A “murderer” of everybody’s grandchildren. Etc.
But things have changed. Due at least in part to concerns over “climate change”, and various policy actions and threats of policy actions to address those concerns, the cost of solar power has been declining exponentially, and the install base growing so. Solar is coming into parity with traditional fossil fuels.
At this point, it seem likely that our current “Capitalist” system, with perhaps some minor tweaks, will be able to effect a transition away from fossil fuels within the time-frame proposed as reasonable: say by 2050-2070.
Like the Reagan Coalition after the Bush election, I’m guessing the “CAGW” phenomenon will fall apart as the majority goes for pragmatic effect:
• work within the current “Capitalist” system,
• find solutions that don’t impact energy prices or availability, especially to “developing” parts of the world, and
• accept the fact that many of the current powerful players, including many oil companies, utilities, most of the natural gas transport, storage, and generating infrastructure, will retain most of their position.
This is anathema to the watermelons, and presumably distasteful to the second group I mentioned above: who vaguely oppose “Capitalism” […] and are also concerned about the climate. But my guess is that most of the latter will go along with the major party, and support solutions that work for everybody but the socialists.
Looks to me like we’re at a tipping point.
j0sha: physician heal thyself
Karl Popper is considered one of the greatest philosophers of science of the 20th century. Pratt, an utter non-entity in science, disagrees with Popper on empirical falsification.
The hubris is so thick you can cut it with a knife.
This guy says this is a super El Nino.
http://blogs.agu.org/wildwildscience/2015/09/10/questions-about-el-nino-answered/
He says this one is now bigger than the 1997-98 monster. Is this true? Is it relevant?
matthewrmarler:
My involvement began when I read this by Jim D: Somehow Steyn’s supporters have it in their heads that this is about science rather than Steyn’s credibility on it,
My response was this: By “Steyn’s supporters”, are you referring to the authors of the amicus curiae briefs that were filed in Steyn v Mann? They are the most prominent of Steyn’s supporters. If you mean someone else, could you provide an exact quote?
I think that you and I could probably have a colloquy with hundreds of exchanges without establishing anything that Jim D wrote. He made it up. Steyn’s supporters, at least those who have written anything, understand that the two lawsuits are about libel and freedom of the press.
I’d say there are plenty of people cheering Mark Steyn on who certainly fit Jim D’s description. They might not include the ones writing legal documents, but I’ve seen quite a few comments/posts on blogs talking about how Steyn’s book speaks to Mann’s science. That doesn’t make what Jim D said true (as people can believe something is about more than one thing), but it makes it not completely made up.
“Disgrace to the profession” attempts to establish that Steyn carried out neither “actual malice” nor “reckless disregard for truth.” If you can show that his book does illustrate either or both of those, I am sure that you can write an amicus curiae brief of your own. Your claim that a quoted person has the wrong associations or is too old probably won’t establish either of those (but I could be wrong.)
I didn’t claim a person had wrong associations or was too old. Please don’t make things up about what I said. The closest to any of this is I said a person was cited as saying something he hadn’t said, having another person’s words attributed to him, which is nothing like what you say. As for too old… I didn’t say anything like that. Maybe you’re thinking of something Jim D said?
You jumped in with a claim that a quote was inaccurate, but without providing the exact quote.
You misquoted a person without providing any form of meaningful reference for the quote, but you want to call me out on not providing the full quote…? Seriously? What kind of backwards world do you live in? You still haven’t even provided the name of the person you quoted or the source of the quotation. It’s hardly my responsibility to track down your quotations and provide them because you won’t.
If the exact quotes show that Steyn’s use of “fraudulent hockeystick” with respect to MBH98 was actual malice or reckless disregard for truth, I am sure that your document would have impact.
I think a willingness to tolerate misquotations on a regular basis shows a disdain for things like accuracy. The more serious problems in Steyn’s book certainly show a disdain for things like the truth. Whether or not that has any bearing on the legal matters for Steyn’s case is something I can’t say with any certainty due to not having the legal knowledge, but it should certainly have bearing on how people view Steyn as a person.
And really, if Steyn prepares for articles anything like he does his book, I’d say it wouldn’t be surprising if he acts with reckless disregard for the truth when writing them. Because honestly, I think he acted with it for this book. Because that’s the only way I can see him fabricating some of the claims he came up with in this book.
Actually governments ARE above the law. It’s called sovereign immunity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity
The Dutch court hasn’t a leg to stand on.
Thank you for making my point. Will individuals get used to their state then?
Regret.
Plato may be considered the most important ever. Yet most if not all his theories have no currency today. Go figure.
The Internet has turnined Popper into a Science Fiction character when he speaks of the Popperian method – Pop tried to reduce scientific inference to deduction. Even then, Ronald Fischer would be the closest candidate for a workable reduction.
The very idea of a method is problematic for Popper. For instance, according to him, hypothesis formation is a creative act, and the great scientific minds are like great artists. In fact, if you push Popper’s ideas to its limits, you get Feyerabend, who was a Popperian.
For more on Popper:
http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/tagged/popperforbloggers
***
All this to bash teh modulz. Sad.
Willard | September 12, 2015 at 10:19 am |
“The very idea of a method is problematic for Popper. For instance, according to him, hypothesis formation is a creative act, and the great scientific minds are like great artists.”
I can´t imagine why it should be problematic to allow creative thinking in coming up with the idea, and then require methodical handling of the idea. Nothing I have seen by Popper indicates that he had the slightest problem with this. This seems to be a problem constructed from a misconception of Poppers method.
I start to realize that even though Poppers empirical method is very simple in principle it can be misconceived in an infinite number of ways.
V Pratt, that is not my point at all, not even close. Political movements come and go, ebb and flow. My impression is that the CAGW movement may be peaking. It is an interesting scientific question, the science being political science. As an issue analyst I study these things.
But as a skeptic I find your reference to surface temperatures and 150 mph driving very strange. I do not believe in AGW so the driving metaphor is misplaced, to say the least. For that matter, I think the supposed GHG driven global surface warming shown by the surface statistical models probably never happened. It is an artifact.
> “Realism and the aim of science” From the Postscripts to “The logic of scientific discovery” were issued as late as 1983. In the book he elaborates on some fundamental principles, and responds to contemporary criticism. As far as I understand his work has stood up great up great to criticism.
In the 1982 introduction, Popper addresses six points.
The first is to clarify the concept of falsifiiability, which only refers to the possibility of a refutation, which leads us to the metaphysics of empiricism.
The second is to reiterate that his “method” is not descriptive or empirical (p. XXV):
[I] do not regard methodology as an empirical discipline, to be tested, perhaps, by the facts of the history of science. It is rather, a philosophical — a metaphysical — discipline., perhaps partly even a normative proposal.
The third is to counter-attack any other theory of science as not being descriptive either. The fourth is to rebut Kuhn’s caricature of him, a caricature that seems to be traced back to Lakatos – at least the expression “naive falsificationnism” seems to come from Popper’s heir.
The fifth is to minimize the difficulties in formalizing the concept of verisimilitude, which may escape deductive logic. The sixth is to solve Goodman’s paradox, a rare section where Sir Karl tries to throw in some real derivations.
***
Perhaps the most important page in that book, at least as far as the Popper for Bloggers series is concerned, is the one that contains this passage (p. XXXV):
It so happens that the real linchpin of my thought about human knowledge is fallibilism and the critical approach; and that […] human knowledge is a very special case of animal knowledge.
He then goes on to give a more naturalist flavour to his theory.
***
Therefore, it might be more appropriate to present Popper as a fallibilist and a criticist, both understood as philosophical, quasi-metaphysical, and normative endeavours.
I do not know the answer. I want to see if you are correct. This is your thought.
ONI:
DJF – 0.5
JFM – 0.4
FMA – 0.5
MAM – 0.7
AMJ – 0.9
MJJ – 1.0
JJA – 1.0
building (bold – El Nino)
PDO:
JAN – 2.45
Feb – 2.30
Mar – 2.00
Apr – 1.44
May – 1.20
Jun – 1.54
Jul – 1.84
rebuilding
> I can´t imagine why it should be problematic to allow creative thinking in coming up with the idea, and then require methodical handling of the idea.
I can’t imagine why Denizens would insist in imposing “methodical handling” of scientific affairs while raising concerns about government intervention, totalitarian bureaucracies, and statism in general. It’s as if the methodology they devise will be implemented through spiritualism or something. One does not simply praise methodical handling and expect Mordor to remain absolutely free.
However one might feel about this quandary, my point was only to observe that Popper’s philosophy of science did not rest on a method. It’s not even a theory, or at least not a scientific one. It’s not a conjecture that could be refuted, as Vaughan said, just like many others did before him, including his colleague Jean-Yves Girard.
***
Popper was more relevant when the DN model was in rage. It’s not anymore. The only reason to “pull him back in,” to borrow a famous line, is to promote his most reactionary streaks.
There’s no need to hide under Popper’s robe to abide by faillibity. Everyone (including her mother) agrees about that principle. It’s when we need to put that principle in practice that it becomes more complex that we may think.
Also note that John NG already met the falsificationnist challenge for the AGW theory:
http://blog.chron.com/climateabyss/2011/08/roger-pielke-jr-s-inkblot/
In the end, holism wins.
the prat who won’t shut up