Questioning "Science"? - Starting Strength Radio Clips

[Bre Hillen]

[Eric Schexnayder]

A particularly interesting one. Though I must disagree with you on something fundamental.

Global warming is not a theory, but a phenomenon - an observation. It is something that can be directly measured and quantified (temperature). A theory must explain why something is happening and not just that something is happening. For example, the most popular theory behind the phenomenon of global warming is that is it anthroprogenic in nature - that human civilization is causing global warming.

It's like Evolution. Evolution is also not a theory, but an observation. We can observe Evolution looking at fossil records and taking measurements of bones, etc., of these different fossils. The observations serve as empirical evidence for the theory, which is Natural Selection. In other words, when we observe Evolution and we ask, "why is that happening / why did that happen?", one possible explanation of Natural Selection.

So, theories must be falsifiable, but observations / data, must be measurable and repeatable, to be scientific in nature. If we cannot observe the thing happening or measure it repeatably, or, in case of an experiment (which is also an observation), measure it reproducibly, then we must question the validity of the observation.

That's the problem with global warming, and quite frankly epidemiology. There are no experiments because such experiments are either unethical or impossible. Testing anthroprogenic global warming would require another Earth without any humans as a control group.

Testing these epidemiological models presents something else entirely. We know how viral transmission works, for the most part. This is part of the Germ Theory of Disease. So we have a foundation for modeling and understanding situations like this pandemic, but the data are the problem, like you said. Test data are unreliable, inconsistent, and incomplete. So we can't have a good model even though we may have a good understanding for how the thing spreads. We are using knowledge we have to predict how this will behave, but a prediction is useless if it is continually invalidated.

[Mark Rippetoe]

I explain the term theory in lecture when I'm describing our pulling model. A theory is an explanation for a set of observed facts, that is further strengthened by its ability to reliably predict future observations. Data is gathered, and a theory is formed to explain it. As such, the Theory of Evolution is very much a theory, and a damned good one since it has yet to be credibly falsified; a competing theory would be "Scientific "Creation. Same for the Germ Theory of Disease -- it's competing theory would be the Demon Possession Theory of Disease. But in the case of global warming, the data is such corrupted, manipulated shit that I'm not sure you can say you even have a phenomenon that requires explanation. As such, Anthropogenic Global Warming is a theory in search of a set of facts that have not been reliably observed.

[Barry Charles]

A particularly interesting one. Though I must disagree with you on something fundamental.

Your response is pedantic.

[Mark Rippetoe]

Yet incorrect.

[Eric Schexnayder]

Your response is pedantic.

Maybe it's just too complicated for you. I'd elaborate, but you'd probably find that pedantic, too.

Yet incorrect.

Not sure which part you find incorrect. Seems to me like we agree.

My guess is that you read "Global warming is not a theory" and made some assumptions. My comment is simply that "Global Warming" does not need to be falsifiable since it's not actually a theory, but a catch-all description for a set of observations. The supposed observations are rising sea levels and global temperatures, etc. Are they legitimate or reliable? Fuck if I know for sure, but it's doubtful. The narrative attached to the Anthropogenic theory doesn't help. Definitely has an alarmist feel about it.

But from shitty observations come even shittier hypotheses. And those hypotheses are absolutely not falsifiable, as I described above. Hence, bullshit. But even with good theories like Germ Theory, we obviously can't make great predictions about the spread of disease in large populations. My personal experience with analyzing large data sets is that theory and observation have to check one another; you can't just blindly fit an equation to a set of data and call it a model. There has to be a foundation upon which to test and validate data using the model, both past and incoming. If they don't support one another, something is off. My guess is that this is not taking place with our COVID-19 "models".

As for Evolution, perhaps I got it backwards, and Natural Selection is the phenomenon, while Evolution is the theory. After all, we observe the former quite a bit more.

[Mark D]

One of my favorite stories regarding "science" (and if it's not true, it ought to be):

Not so long ago, every scientist KNEW that if you applied Force F to Mass m, you'd get acceleration a, and if you kept applying that force you'd continue to accelerate to whatever velocity you may wish to attain. Then along came Albert Einstein who said "Not so fast, Guido!" and showed that mass is not a constant as thought, and that the speed of light was a hard limit. Under Hitler, a group of one hundred scientists wrote a paper refuting the "Jewish science" of Einstein. Upon hearing of it, Einstein said "Why did they need 100? If I was wrong, one would be enough."

[Mark Rippetoe]

Your understanding of the semantics is wrong, and precision is necessary here. Again, a theory is an explanation for a set of observed facts -- data. Natural selection is one of the mechanisms by which the process of Evolution as explained by the Theory of Evolution is hypothesized to operate. The facts we have gathered that the Theory of Evolution explains are the paleontology, archaeology, genetics, and comparative anatomy, all of which reinforce the Theory of Evolution as the explanation for the accumulation of change over time revealed by these sciences' data collection. Global warming would be the data collected by climatology, except that it has been faked, corrupted, and tailored to fit their Theory of AGW, which has become unfalsifiable because it's not about science anymore, if it ever was. They will not allow you to present alternative explanations that better fit the actual data, or to even question the data itself. Like the Theory of Salvation through the Blood of Christ, it cannot be found to be wrong at this point (too many Greta Thunbergs to disappoint), it must be accepted on Faith, and there is no theoretical data set they will accept to show it to be false.

Under Hitler, a group of one hundred scientists wrote a paper refuting the "Jewish science" of Einstein. Upon hearing of it, Einstein said "Why did they need 100? If I was wrong, one would be enough."

Einstein was smarter than Little Greta

[Barry Charles]

I'd elaborate, but you'd probably find that pedantic, too.

.

Agreed

[Jdcuth]

Linking human activity to climate change must be hugely complex, and beyond scientists who are not trained in the field (like myself). But when a huge consensus of scientists and reputable organisations advocate the theory I would tend to believe them. I hope I’m wrong.