The Sound Of Settled Science

But I thought the science was settled !?

You're all a bunch of polarity deniers.

""It's a great day when you come to the office and somebody shows you that your beliefs are wrong," UCLA physicist Seth Putterman says."

If only AGW wasn't a religion.

What next, they'll tell us ulcers are cause by a bacteria instead of stress.

Must be a Denier funded by Exxon or BP.

Wasn't this researcher a member of the Polish Aerospace team, who planned to send a man to the sun? They were going to deal with the extreme temperature by going at night.

Damn! I can't try this at home as all my hair departed years ago!

I'll just have to trust the scientists.

Again, science is rarely about proving our theories right - it's about proving our theories wrong. How did the masses hijack this scientific method? It's a sad day when even scientists can't apply their own methods. An even sadder day when we let them get away with it - all in the name of the almighty dollar.

"It's a great day when you come to the office and somebody shows you that your beliefs are wrong," UCLA physicist Seth Putterman says.

Now thats a real scientist.

Actually no serious scientist think that "Science" is settled, so the title is this recurring subject doesn't make any sense.

Science evolves all the times.

While Science with a big S is not settled some subjects within science are actually settled.

Things like the earth is round is settled at 100%.
I would say that human contributing to global warning to be settled at about 98% sure.

errr .. "global warming" i mean..

before all the stupid jokes start.

QNDP, I think the AGW settled number is closer to 2% than 98, at least in ROC.

Considering the complexity of the weather/climate system (as compared to, say, static electricity), I'd take QNDP's 98% AGW confidence level as 100% BS.

"It's a great day when you come to the office and somebody shows you that your beliefs are wrong," UCLA physicist Seth Putterman says.

I also found this comment to be charming but sadly unrealistic. Scientists tend to have big egos and hate (hate!) criticism. In fact their need to be right and convince all those present of their superior knowledge occasionally comes in handy. For instance, if too many PhDs or MChem's happen to have descended on your lab and each is demanding their tests be given priority then just toss in an opinion on any controversial subject. The ensuing debate between the geniuses ensures that they'll completely forget about you for hours. Meanwhile you can get your work done, go for coffee and hide until they've given up waiting for you to come back.

Of course, AGW "scientists" cannot be compared to real scientists. They act more like activists and/or mercenaries with pocket protectors.

A definition:
Science is the human effort to understand the natural world.

A consequence of this definition is that, unless you believe that humans perfectly understand the natural world, there is no such thing as "settled science".

All explanations for observed natural phenomenon are fair game for reexamination at any time. It would be pretty hard to change minds about some scientific theories, particularly those which have earned the title of "Law", but it is entirely valid to try. Anyone who disagrees is not speaking as a scientist.

LC Bennett at June 30, 2011 9:04 PM:
Scientists tend to have big egos and hate (hate!) criticism.

In other words, scientists are people! A key feature in the success of the modern method of scientific inquiry is that it eventually weeds out explanations more or less objectively even if a particular explanation is being pushed by someone who is emotionally invested in that explanation.

Now if only the software development process could better overcome the "not invented here" problem!

Yes, I agree, scientists are people. Nice people. Funny people. Smart people and, occasionally, weird people. They are delightful company.

But if you read only journalist's accounts of scientists then you'd think they were infallible god-like creatures without biases and faults. Simply not true. Even a cursory understanding of science reveals the dominant role that cliques, conformity, and resistance to change have played in the history of science. Often official approval of scientific breakthroughs or novel hypothesis were resisted for as long as possible. Even super-duper smart guys like Einstein and Darwin were wrong once in awhile.

I would say that human contributing to global warning to be settled at about 98% sure.
Posted by: quebecois NDPiste at June 30, 2011 8:21 PM

Citation, please.

LC Bennett,
watching how scientists and science are treated by journalists is pretty cringe-inducing. A real problem is that, since science has had such a demonstrably positive influence on our world and continues to make the seemingly miraculous come true, lots of people have tried to hitch their agendas to the credibility of science. In some ways, science has become a victim of its own success.

And, of course, scientists who gain a little fame, like any public figure, automatically acquire a public image. I found it interesting that, a while back, someone tried to get attention by going after Einstein's reputation by attacking his pubic image as having a good-natured, grandfatherly personality. This person pointed out that Einstein was actually somewhat cold and, at times, arrogant. I remember thinking, "No, duh!" In order to develop theories which change the way people look at the universe, as Einstein did, one has to first have the intellectual confidence to dream of developing such theories. Any scientist who dreams of fundamentally altering humanity's perception of the world is, deep down, supremely confident in his own capabilities. Most people perceive that confidence as arrogance.

There is also the "academic culture" factor to consider. As people in the private sector are wont to point out, academic arguments are so petty and vicious mainly because the stakes are so low.

Colin in Mission BC

I'm unsure how NDPiste is going to cite his/her ass since it's apparent he/she couldn't find it with both hands.

I'm about...(grabs ass with both hands)...98% sure of that.

"Any scientist who dreams of fundamentally altering humanity's perception of the world is, deep down, supremely confident in his own capabilities."

actually they don't DREAM of altering anyone's perception, they look for an answer to a question they have asked of themselves, and usually don't give a sh1t what most people think of their answer. They only consider the input of those who they their "equals"

Hmmmm, for a person who claims to enjoy cruelty and arguments, you sure seems quite agreeable and pleasant. I haven't yet figured out if you're being coy or if your name is a paradox of your nature.

GYM at June 30, 2011 10:37 PM:
actually they don't DREAM of altering anyone's perception, they look for an answer to a question they have asked of themselves

I'm afraid I have to disagree. Many scientists, like many people, dream of doing something "important". There are some people who want nothing more than to live an ordinary working life and derive their happiness and satisfaction from their bonds with family and friends. Others want to leave their mark on the world by building a company, creating a great work of art or by making an important scientific discovery.

usually don't give a sh1t what most people think of their answer. They only consider the input of those who they their "equals"

Absolutely not true in the sense that scientists, especially academic scientists, value professional reputation enormously, just like people in other professions. People like to be recognized by their peers as being good at what they do.

Peer recognition is more important to the people at the highest levels of any profession than admiration from people who are not in the peer group. Do you think that a professional athlete cares more about what other professional athletes in his sport think of him or what some run-of-the-mill fan thinks? He might enjoy the admiration of the fan and being appreciated by fans does lead to bigger paydays, but fan admiration can never make up for never winning a championship or never receiving an MVP award.

Scientists are the same. It is nice to be respected for being smart by non-scientists, but being respected by their professional peers means more. And, too, there is the ego factor. Winning verbal arguments counts, just as winning a one-on-one match-up on a given play means something in sports.

LC Bennett,
I enjoy understanding and I enjoy the banter of hashing through an issue. Being able to argue all sides of an issue is a good indicator of deep understanding. You happen to have caught me at a mellow moment and we seem to be in agreement. I confess there are times when I'm not in the mood to argue a position which I don't hold. I should probably use a different handle at times like these, but ... meh. Also, it's a little hard to get too worked up on SDA. The posters here don't throw a whole lot of monkey-poo around, largely because there is not much partisan spread and partisan zealotry. Plus - Canadians! - when are they ever ill-tempered!?

Believe me when I say that there are times when people would probably like to knock my teeth out (http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/016818.html).

Imagine a world without science? This blog certainly wouldn't exist.

I would say that human contributing to global warning to be settled at about 98% sure. errr .. "global warming" i mean..
Posted by: quebecois NDPiste at June 30, 2011 8:21 PM

The key word is CONTRIBUTION. Of course humans have been CONTRIBUTING to global warming, that's been accurately measured as heat islands around big cities. Yes, the amount of CO2 human activities emit will CONTRIBUTE to the CO2 greenhouse effect.

Is that human contribution the most significant cause of the warming that's been happening since the last ice age?
Of course not.

The human contribution to toxic pollution, habitat destruction, overfishing the oceans, overpopulating some regions, and general damage to the earth's ecosystem that sustains us is very significant. Unfortunately pollution and environmental degradation is also very profitable.

Guess who contributes the most funding to the AGW movement?

Guess who benefits most from the ongoing debate about "who caused global warming"?

Anthony at WUWT has an interesting guest post about Ridiculous Complexity

In life it seems that the more educated you become the less you know. If you are as stupid as me you are always willing to learn. So is the science settled? Only for those that can't or won't learn.

I think that:
"It's a great day when you come to the office and somebody shows you that your beliefs are wrong," UCLA physicist Seth Putterman says.
is the type of attitude you want scientists to have. I've worked with enough researchers to know that they are human, but the good scientists among them are always skeptical of everything.

The worst people I've worked with are those who have made a name for themselves in some obscure area and have decided that there is no longer any need for them to use the scientific method and just coast along on their one accomplishment exploring all of the manifold ramifications of that theory that a sub-sub specialist can. The best people I've worked with are those scientists who are never satisfied and are always looking for something new and they are the least upset when new findings overturn some of their earlier work. By always moving on to a new field of inquiry they don't have the same emotional attachment to an old theory of theirs when it is proven wrong.

I love it when fundamental suppositions about science are overturned. What I learned decades ago is that the universe is far stranger than we can imagine and, once I understood that, I no longer was as attached to my minor discoveries in neuroscience.

What I utilize as a metric is a sort of scientific batting average where I test my gut feeling about what will be the correct interpretation years before that interpretation comes. I'm proud to say that I've been right much more often than I've been wrong. When I am wrong, I readjust my mental model of reality unless I have the feeling that the "proof" of something is incorrect. Again, I find myself being more often right in such cases than I'm wrong.

Dealing with people on a daily basis I find that there is a large fraction of the population that can't handle such a fluid model of reality. With these patients I have to be dogmatic and tell them I'm 100% sure you have (insert diagnosis here). It took me a while to learn to lie like this but multiple long fruitless discussions with people who can't understand conditional probabilities or think probabilistically made me decide that there was a place for medical dogmatism at times.

Any scientist who dreams of fundamentally altering humanity's perception of the world is, deep down, supremely confident in his own capabilities.

Posted by: Sadistic Eristic
______________________

Einstein was actually just trying to solve a physics puzzle and came up with his famous equation. When he realized that it fundamentally altered humanity's perception of the universe he was appalled, because he didn't want his own perception changed, so he fudged his own equation in order to distort the outcome to his preference. Only when Edwin Hubble was able to prove his original equation correct did he accept the results of his own work.

Not too many people are aware of that.

Dirtman at July 1, 2011 2:19 AM:
When he realized that it fundamentally altered humanity's perception of the universe he was appalled, because he didn't want his own perception changed, so he fudged his own equation in order to distort the outcome to his preference.

Ever since J.C. Maxwell unified two fundamental forces, the electric and the magnetic, into a single force, the electromagnetic, by showing that a single set of equations could describe them both simultaneously, every theoretical physicist and his brother has dreamed of developing an equation or set of equations which would further unify the known fundamental forces. Einstein was just doing what had become trendy at the time and wasn't "appalled" because he didn't want his or anyone else's perceptions changed, he was just hesitant about staking his reputation on conclusions which he didn't really believe and which might have turned out to be BS.

When one gets deep into mathematical physics, there is always the danger of being led around by the nose by mathematical results which have no demonstrable connection to reality (someone should remind string theorists of this once in a while).

Oh my the self proclaimned gods are wrong again.Just shows us our wisdom compared to gods is microscopic to a particle smaller than nano.

QNDP: "While Science with a big S is not settled some subjects within science are actually settled.

Things like the earth is round is settled at 100%."

Sorry, that's not right either. The earth is in fact slightly elipsoid, with the diameter slightly south of the equator. This is a necessary consequence of axial tilt and the earth having an eliptical orbit.

In science, nothing is 100%, ever. Everything is always subject to change without notice.

cgh, I was going to mention that but I didn't want to feed that troll. There's also a bulge cause by the Moon's gravity.

Lefties believe in science when it supports their purposes, otherwise not.

Phantom,if in one or two sentences I can prove that a troll is wrong, mostly I'll do it. To me, troll-feeding is when it degenerates into as repetitive cycle of insults.

As a side note on the spherical nature of the earth. it's probably worth noting that it's a question of scale. If reduced to the size of a cue ball, the earth would be a far more perfect sphere with a far smoother surface. Perhaps this is just a long way of saying that there are no perfect spheres in nature. It's ultimately why leftist policies are all wrong. They want to make generalizations about things which simply are not true.

The devil is, as usual, in the details. Lefties aren't good with those it seems. Or numbers.

A whole political movement made of Big Picture men. Ugh.

To quote T. E. Lawrence:

"Nothing is written."

Mars has 2 satellites which have near circular orbits and break the pattern for all other satellites in this solar system. And Neptune or Uranus rotate in the opposite direction to other planets...while orbiting the same way in the same plane.

Then there is the problem of Pluto...is it a planet?...or the inner edge of the Ort Cloud?

The rule makes the exception is generally correct...we think....

errr .. "global warming" i mean..

before all the stupid jokes start.

Posted by: quebecois NDPiste at June 30, 2011 8:24 PM

---------------------------------------------

No problem you covered the stupid joke requirement in your original post.

Scientific Laws are simply theories that have yet to be disproven.

*facepalm*

Kate ... I'm really starting to wonder whether you read these things before you link to them.

"In science, nothing is 100%, ever. Everything is always subject to change without notice."

Sorry, that's not right either. The Earth is not flat. That is 100%. While we may, over time, develop refinements which allow us to improve the level of detail which we can observe, these only improve on the discoveries which we've already made. They do NOT overturn present theories, nor validate long-discredited ones. Even the most extreme examples, such as the acceptance of relativity over Newtonian physics - do not generally overturn existing theories; they merely show us the limitations of established theories. Similarly, no discovery will ever show that evolution doesn't occur, and that 'god' miracled everything into existence 6,000 years ago, nor will any discovery ever show that an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide does not result in greater heat absorption by a planetary body. Future discoveries in those areas will only further improve on existing theories, giving us an even greater understanding of how these things function.