Home > Academia, Global Warming, Science, Scientism > Skeptics – Nature of Science

Skeptics – Nature of Science


DC Snow Storm

Does the Snow-pocalypse this past week disprove Global Warming?
No
Does the heat wave in Brazil prove GW?
No

The whole Climate Change debate is way off kilter here. The language being used by both sides, and I’m as guilty as anyone, doesn’t do anything to advance the knowledge on what is actually happening.

I see the whole Climate Change/Global Warming/AGW debate a different way.

You have to separate what we are actually debating here. There are two distinct and separate issues going on. The first question that needs to be asked is, is the Earth getting warmer?

I think the answer to that is yes. The earth is getting warmer over the past hundred years. This is natural warming that should be expected by anyone, since we came out of the Little Ice Age in the late 19th century. Obviously, if the Earth were still cooling, we’d still be in the ice age, but to paraphrase Newton’s Third Law; what goes down must come up!

The second question that needs to be asked is; is the warming due to Man, i.e. Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW)?

This is where the debate starts and were it gets tricky. Personally, I say no. The way I see it, is that there isn’t enough evidence to support that claim. Proponents of AGW say otherwise. This is the crux of the debate and the cause of all the confusion.This is also where the skeptics come in.

Nature of Science

Science and the scientific method are tools that can be used to increase our level of knowledge about the world around us and the universe. Like any tool, it has it’s pros and its cons. Also, like any tool, it can be used for good or evil (and no I don’t mean a Sith Lord type of evil).

The nature of Science Method is to be skeptical. The different steps involved, evolved around a certain amount of skepticism in both the hypothesis being tested, methodology used and the results from which we draw our conclusions. We test our hypothesis because we are skeptical that the hypothesis is correct. That seems kind of obvious, but it’s the foundation of the whole methodology being used. If we were to take the hypothesis as true (non-skeptical approach), why should we even test it? It would be much easier to just assume something happens the way we say so and go about our business.

Skepticism

The nature of a scientist is to be skeptical of the answers being given. That is why they try to verify other people’s work. Reproducibility is just another name for testing other people’s hypothesis. Why do you do that? Five points if you said, because your skeptical of their work.

They way we do that in modern science is through a peer review process. The way a peer review should work, is that a scientist submits their; hypothesis, methodology, results and conclusions to another scientist, which doesn’t exactly have to be in the same field but that helps. The peer, then goes through the first scientist’s work for errors. Why does he spend so much time; reviewing, auditing and reproducing the first scientists work? Three points if you say, because he is skeptical of the first. (No more points because you should have guessed the pattern here by now.)

After multiple rounds of peer reviews, the hypothesis sits in a special place. It sits waiting for someone to come along and show that it is wrong.  Why? Yeah I don’t even need to ask that question anymore right?

Take Einstein’s General Relativity for example. When Einstein first proposed his landmark theory in 1915, most of his peers out-and-out rejected him. They didn’t see any evidence to support Einstein’s hypothesis. So in 1919, Sir Eddington observed during a solar eclipse that light was being bent by the gravity of the Sun. It wasn’t until after this observation that any one in the scientific community took Einstein seriously. something we do almost reflexively now. The reason behind that was and always is, skepticism. The scientific community was skeptical of the claims being made by Einstein and want to a way to test Einstein’s hypothesis. What would have happened if the eclipse would have shown no light being bent? Well then, we probably wouldn’t know who that scruffy haired man was right now.

Gravitational Lens

Only a select few hypothesis actually go long enough to become a Theory. Even fewer make it long enough to become a Law. At anytime, hypothesis, theories or laws can be shown to be false.

Well how can you show a law to be wrong? Doesn’t the word law mean that it is in fact been proven true? Well to answer that look no farther that the Biogenetic Law that has been thoroughly dismissed by modern scientist in light of the evidence. At one time though, it was a well established Law that most people in the field subscribed to. What caused it’s demise? Some damn skeptic came along and didn’t think it was quite right and did his own experiments that showed that the biogenetic law of embryo development was rubbish. Damn those skeptics, how dare they increase our knowledge because they don’t trust other scientists word.

One consequence of the scientific method is that everything can be falsified. Einstein said it best with, “”No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.” Karl Popper made the point that a scientific theory is only “scientific” only if it is falsifiable. I don’t want to get into Popperian vs Bayesian, but I think it’s fair to say we live in a Popperian scientific world. In fact my whole rant here is based upon my Popperian notion of science.

I’m going to wait for another post to talk about how the Climate Change debate has moved away from actual Popperian science to the realm of religious fury in part II.

Advertisements
  1. February 16, 2010 at 22:02

    I don’t buy your skepticism. You apply endless amounts of it to the international climate science community, but then pass along non-reviewed newspaper interviews from the media, breathlessly repeating out-of-context quotes and hearsay with nary a skeptical thought, so long as they conform to your perspective. That’s the opposite of skepticism.

    • February 17, 2010 at 16:13

      What do you think is appropriate skepticism then?
      When the peer review process doesn’t catch even things like 2035 instead of 2350, who is supposed watch the watchers?
      What is a reviewed newspaper interview? I wasn’t aware that interviews had to be “reviewed” in order to go on the public record at all. Is that something new?
      Finally, what pray tell is a skeptical thought in your mind?
      Please explain to me oh wise one and stop speaking in platitudes.

  2. yttik
    February 17, 2010 at 11:46

    I’ve lost the link, but I read an article that talked about how we may actually be cooling, not warming, because mother nature has a way of adjusting herself to compensate for things. They had some good studies or trends over the years.

    It’s kind of funny, up here we had record breaking cold snaps all winter. Now we’re having record breaking warm temps. But if you average out the first half of winter with the second half, we’re right where we’ve always been. I have to laugh, they come out on TV telling us rainfall is off, we’re having a drought and we all better start conserving water. The moment the make that declaration it starts raining and hasn’t stopped since. Now we’re flooding all over the place. Please stop declaring droughts before we all drown.

    It’s a shame really, because in their haste to prove global warming, they’re losing the argument. Proving it or disproving it seems kind of irrelevant. Nobody really wants to live in a polluted cesspool and fossil fuels are running out and causing dependence on foreign oil and often hostile countries. So lets do something simply for those reasons. Of course there’s no money in that, no cap and trade, no political power to be gained. Ironically not solving this issue but instead keeping people on opposite ends of the spectrum will probably serve politicians better, just like everything else. Besides, they really need a new wedge issue, the other ones are getting so used.

  1. February 27, 2010 at 19:43

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: