Science is falsifiable

[gfm7175]

That is incorrect. It was measured in the 1800s by thermometers.

A 'global temperature' has NEVER been accurately measured (per Statistical Mathematics), not even today...

The limited data from the 1800s is augmented with various proxies.

In other words, cooked?? Statistical Mathematics requires RAW data, Crick...

And it would be nice to have more thermometers

Yes, it would... With at least 200 million of them uniformly spaced and simultaneously read by the same observer, we could at least BEGIN to conduct a semi-accurate statistical analysis of a global temperature.

but don't forget we have satellites that can measure temperatures of the atmosphere and the surface.

Satellites do NOT measure absolute temperature, Crick... They measure light. The light that they read cannot be converted into temperature because we do not know what the emissivity of Earth is, and in order to know the emissivity of Earth, we need to first know the temperature of Earth... a "chicken and egg" problem... Therefore, global temperature cannot be measured that way.

 

[gfm7175]

You mean 'theory', but yes, god(s), Loch Ness, Bigfoot, etc. are all religions. They are not falsifiable, thus they are not within the realm of science.

Therefore atheism, agnosticism, the "scientific" theory promulgated by the likes of Hawking, Sagan, et al., is a religion too, because the theory that the universe created itself on its own without the need for some supreme consciousness or directing force are not falsifiable either.

Agnosticism is not a religion, but other than that, this is generally correct.

Atheism is indeed a religion. The theory that the universe created itself is indeed a religion as well. Science has no theories about the non-falsifiable (incl. past unobserved events).

 

[Crick]

gfm7175

First, there are no proofs in the natural sciences. Second: do you understand the concept of falsification?

Correct, and yes I do.

If I put forth a hypothesis in the natural sciences, I can only gather evidence that does or does not support my hypothesis. Without the possibility of proof, I cannot prove it is true. However, I CAN logically prove it false.

By "hypothesis", you mean 'theory', since you are speaking of an explanatory argument here... A theory is an explanatory argument.

No, I mean hypothesis.
HYPOTHESIS: a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.
THEORY: a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.

I start a study with one or more hypotheses. The results of the studies experimentation, and/or observation leads me to a theory.

For example, suppose I hypothesize that all swans are white. I can count white swans all day and the more white swans I find, the more likely is my hypothesis to be correct.

No, the more white swans you find does NOT in any way make your "hypothesis" any more correct, or any more likely to be correct.

Yes it does. Observations are evidence. If I hypothesize that all swans are white, search the Earth for every swan I can find and find nothing but white swans, I have found observational evidence that supports my hypothesis.

All that means is that your theory hasn't been falsified as of yet.

Then you leave no mechanism whereby a theory or hypothesis can be confirmed. Studying an hypothesis or a theory makes use of more than attempts to falsify.

You would be reasonable to accept the "all swans are white" theory as correct until you or someone else falsifies it.

Why? What evidence would make it reasonable if you reject all observations?

But if I come across a single black swan, my hypothesis is done for because I said "ALL swans are white".

You mean 'theory', not 'hypothesis'

No, I mean hypothesis.

but yes you are correct here. The sighting of the black swan completely falsifies your theory. It is no longer a theory of science.

Of course, I might just coincidentally count a very large number of white swans and never run into a black one and this might be enough evidence that I and my co-researchers become convinced that the hypothesis is correct.

Nope, not how science works. It's not about "enough evidence" to "become convinced"... That is how RELIGION works, NOT science... Your coincidentally counting a very large number of white swans (never running into a black one) only means that your theory of science is withstanding null hypothesis testing. It is continuing to remain a theory of science.

If "all swans are white" were the null hypothesis, challenging it would be the first step in any valid scientific study of the question.

You've made several comments now concerning the differences between the operations of religion and science that I am having difficulty accepting. Religion does not depend on a preponderance of evidence to sell itself. What evidence supports the existence of any god? What evidence supports the divinity of Jesus or the complete enlightenment of Gautama? Is there a preponderance of evidence supporting Catholic hagiogrphy's contentions of miracles? The answer to all of these is no. Religion tells stories and asks the listener to accept their truth on faith or desire or because of their alignment with the listener's social paradigm.

In pseudoscience, however, you will frequently see hypotheses that are simply not falsifiable. Anything that makes use of the supernatural: claims that a certain god exists or that any god exists or claims that some event was caused by a supernatural entity is not testable because the supernatural by definition, cannot be tested by scientific methods. Hypotheses such as the existence of the Loch Ness monster, the Abominable Snow Man, Bigfoot, alien visitors cannot be falsified and so are not valid hypotheses.

You mean 'theory'

No, I mean hypothesis

but yes, god(s), Loch Ness, Bigfoot, etc. are all religions.

Loch Ness and Bigfoot are not religions. They are apocryphal stories that may or may not involve supernatural elements.

They are not falsifiable, thus they are not within the realm of science.

There has long been an argument that anthropogenic global warming (AGW) was not falsifiable. My list was simply a dozen ways in which it COULD be falsified. They are the foundations of the theory. Take any of them away and the theory collapses.

It is not even a defined term... So far, it has only been circularly defined... That type of definition is meaningless...

Show me the circularity:

ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING: a gradual increase in the overall temperature of the earth's atmosphere generally attributed to human activity enhancing the action of the greenhouse effect via emissions of carbon dioxide, methane, chlorofluorocarbons and other greenhouse gases.

And, of course, every one of them HAS been thoroughly tested.

Many of those things actually show the complete denial of science and mathematics by the AGW crowd...

My comment referred to the items I listed for falsification: that atmospheric gases that absorb IR produce the greenhouse effect, that CO2 and methane absorb IR, that the excess CO2 and methane are of human origin and so forth. To what things do you refer that you claim show a denial of science and mathematics?

CO2 absorbs infrared radiation in several discrete bands. That is all that is required to determine that it is a greenhouse gas.

Absorbing IR is not trapping heat, air, nor thermal energy.

Eh? This seems an odd time to admit you are unfamiliar with the greenhouse effect. Atmospheric gases trapping IR is the core of the greenhouse effect

However, further testing has definitively shown that it produces increased warming from exposure to infrared radiation, another demonstration of its satisfaction of the definition of a greenhouse gas. Look up the absorption spectrum of CO2.

CO2 cannot warm the Earth. Heat cannot flow backwards, Crick... See the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics...

I am tempted to say I suspect you are not who you say your are, but I won't. CO2 and other greenhouse gases slow the escape to space of infrared radiation emitted by the land, sea and air. That raises the equilibrium temperature of the planet. That is the cause of the warming observed over the last 150 years. That is NOT a violation of the Second Law. (with which I am familiar). Why do YOU think the planet has warmed?

Several organizations have been collecting CO2 level data since the 1950s. They all show levels steadily increasing. Look up the Keeling Curve.

Sure, data is being collected. I don't deny that. I am simply telling you that the data being collected is NOT 'global CO2 content' data... It is measured at specific locations, and those locations are subject to location and time biases, which are not properly accounted for. Mauna Loa has been known to cook their data, so they aren't even putting out raw data. Statistical Mathematics axioms are not being followed, rendering the data (on a global level) useless.

I disagree with everything you've just said. So do over 60,000 climate scientists who depend on the accuracy of that data and have been for decades. CO2 is a well-mixed gas in Earth's atmosphere. The issues of location and time biases was examined when Mauna Loa was set up and have been watched for decades. The same is true of other monitoring locations. Data from the multiple stations now in operation show close agreement. And since 2008, satellites have been providing truly global data that have verified the data being collected from ground stations.

What, precisely, do you mean when you say "Mauna Loa has been known to cook their data" and "Statistical mathematics axioms are not being followed"?

Isotopic analysis of CO2 in Earth's atmosphere has repeatedly shown that 131 ppm of the current 411 ppm originates with the combustion of fossil fuels.

Made up numbers...

Really? Are you certain you actually want to have this discussion?

It is not possible to measure global CO2 content. We don't have enough stations (nor are they uniformly spaced and simultaneously read) to even BEGIN such a statistical analysis.

I disagree. So do several tens of thousands of people far more qualified that you or I.

Additionally, calculations based on accurate estimates of the amount of fossil fuel burned since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution closely match the results of isotopic analysis.

We have never used fossils for fuel. They do not burn very well. Also, more made up numbers... See above.

You started this discussion sounding like a reasonable fellow. Repeated claims of "made up numbers" are making me rethink that evaluation. If your comment about fossil fuels was meant to be a joke, you should have inserted a laughing face because given your other comments here I am sorely tempted to consider it serious.

Virtually every molecule of CO2 above the pre-industrial level of 280 ppm came from the combustion of fossil fuels and is thus of human origin.

Again, more made up numbers. See above.

I don't think you're following what I am talking about. Two completely independent analyses of well-mixed CO2 in the atmosphere have shown that virtually every bit that has been added since 1750 came from burning coal, oil or other fossil fuels.

You're new to these arguments, aren't you.

No, I'm not. I've heard them before. This is nothing new for me.

You don't sound it.

You misunderstand. I am listing methods by which the theory of AGW could be falsified. The theory is falsifiable. It is valid in that regard. That is has not BEEN falsified by anyone so far is another strong piece of evidence that it is correct

Global Warming (Climate Change) isn't even adequately defined, Crick... Circular definitions do not work. They are meaningless.

What circular definition do you believe everyone is using?

I've shown elsewhere precisely how AGW denies both science and mathematics (in addition to denying logic).

Where? I had not seen you posting in the Environment forum prior to a week or two back.

This has become a long note. Let me sum up my queries

1) To what circular definition for AGW do you refer

2) You say that CO2 in the atmosphere cannot warm the planet. Does that mean you reject the greenhouse effect?

3) How do you believe Mauna Loa is "cooking their data"?

4) What statistical axioms are being violated in the processing of the Keeling curve?

5) Do you believe the planet is warming?

6) If yes, what do you believe is causing it to warm?

7) If no, why do you believe the world's scientists say otherwise?

 

[Crick]

That is incorrect. It was measured in the 1800s by thermometers.

A 'global temperature' has NEVER been accurately measured (per Statistical Mathematics), not even today...

Would you mind defining what you mean by the term "accurately"?

The limited data from the 1800s is augmented with various proxies.

In other words, cooked?? Statistical Mathematics requires RAW data, Crick...

A liquid-in-glass thermometer is a proxy measurement. You are assuming that the vertical axis of the expansion of the working fluid in the tube is a proxy for temperature. An electronic thermometer makes the assumption that the resistance of an element in a circuit is a proxy for temperature. There is no perfectly raw data. Whether I measure the resistance in a thermistor or the width of a tree ring, I am using a proxy.

And it would be nice to have more thermometers

Yes, it would... With at least 200 million of them uniformly spaced and simultaneously read by the same observer, we could at least BEGIN to conduct a semi-accurate statistical analysis of a global temperature.

Please elucidate. Where did you get 200 million, why do you require they be read simultaneously by the same observer and what, precisely, do you mean by "semi-accurate"

but don't forget we have satellites that can measure temperatures of the atmosphere and the surface.

Satellites do NOT measure absolute temperature, Crick... They measure light. The light that they read cannot be converted into temperature because we do not know what the emissivity of Earth is, and in order to know the emissivity of Earth, we need to first know the temperature of Earth... a "chicken and egg" problem... Therefore, global temperature cannot be measured that way.

Your first line looks suspiciously like this line from Wikipedia's article on satellite temperature measurement: "Satellites do not measure temperature. They measure radiances in various wavelength bands, which must then be mathematically inverted to obtain indirect inferences of temperature.[1][2]" I have no problem with Wikipedia. I use it myself extensively. But you ought to identify your sources. Satellites either use radiometry or microwave sounding units to determine temperatures at different levels of the atmosphere.

There is no chicken or egg problem Satellite data can be compared against simultaneous, in-situ thermometer readings from aircraft and weather balloons. The emissivity of the atmosphere is easily measured in the laboratory.

Anything else?

 

[gfm7175]

No, I mean hypothesis.
HYPOTHESIS: a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.
THEORY: a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.

I start a study with one or more hypotheses. The results of the studies experimentation, and/or observation leads me to a theory.

Your definition of hypothesis is assuming that science makes use of supporting evidence. It does NOT make use of supporting evidence. Theory is close...

A theory is an explanatory argument.
A hypothesis (a null hypothesis) best answers the question "How can I falsify this theory?".

Science is all about trying to falsify theories. One starts out with a theory ("all swans are white"). One then forms a null hypothesis ("if a swan could be any color other than white, then that theory would be falsified"). Then, you start trying to falsify that theory. You keep noticing white swans, so the theory continues to withstand null hypothesis testing. The theory remains a theory of science. Oh no, now you saw a black swan. Whoops! Now that theory is completely and utterly destroyed. In a nutshell, that's how science works. You didn't make use of supporting evidence in any way, you didn't prove anything, you didn't do any peer-review, you didn't come to a consensus, you didn't consult a university course or a textbook, you didn't appeal to an elite voting bloc, you didn't go to a casino, etc. etc... You simply made use of conflicting evidence to falsify the theory. Science is a set of falsifiable theories; that's it. They have simply "yet to be falsified"...

Yes it does. Observations are evidence.

Science doesn't make use of supporting evidence. Only conflicting evidence.

Remember, observations are subject to the problems of Phenomenology. You and I could both observe the same exact thing, make use of the same exact evidence and data resulting from it, yet come to two completely different conclusions about said observation.

If I hypothesize that all swans are white, search the Earth for every swan I can find and find nothing but white swans, I have found observational evidence that supports my hypothesis.

Crick, science doesn't make use of supporting evidence. That is what RELIGION does. Science only makes use of conflicting evidence. Here, your THEORY that all swans are white has continued to withstand NULL HYPOTHESIS testing (find a different color and the theory is falsified). So long as it continues to withstand this testing, your THEORY remains a theory of science. All the supporting evidence in the world in NO way shape or form blesses, sanctifies, nor makes holy this theory. No peer-review nor consensus nor holy incantation makes this theory any "stronger" or "more special" or "more supported". It simply continues to stand as a theory of science because it continues to withstand null hypothesis testing against it.

Then you leave no mechanism whereby a theory or hypothesis can be confirmed. Studying an hypothesis or a theory makes use of more than attempts to falsify.

Correct. Theories can NOT be "confirmed" or "proven"... They are believed to be true due to their continued survival against null hypothesis testing. IF they eventually fail a null hypothesis test, then they shouldn't be believed anymore since the theory was utterly destroyed.

Why? What evidence would make it reasonable if you reject all observations?

Because the theory continues to withstand null hypothesis testing. See above.

No, I mean hypothesis.

You mean theory. You can't hypothesize about anything unless you first have a theory to hypothesize. You can't form a hypothesis without first having a theory to base that hypothesis on...

If "all swans are white" were the null hypothesis, challenging it would be the first step in any valid scientific study of the question.

It's NOT the null hypothesis. It is the THEORY. The null hypothesis is "find any other colored swan and the theory is falsified"...

You've made several comments now concerning the differences between the operations of religion and science that I am having difficulty accepting.

Okay. Let us first define our terms... provide your definitions of "religion" and "science". I will now provide the definitions I am operating under when I use the terms.

Science: a set of falsifiable theories.
Religion: an initial circular argument, with other arguments stemming from it.

Religion does not depend on a preponderance of evidence to sell itself.

Religion is typically believed on a faith basis (in other words, believed based on circular reasoning).

What evidence supports the existence of any god?

Let's use Christianity for example. What evidence supports the existence of the Christian God? Well, life itself is one evidence. The Bible is another. The hundreds of millions (maybe even billions) of believers in that religion is another. Now, are those PROOFS?? No, they are not. They ARE evidences, however... Evidence is simply any statement that supports an argument. Do those evidences make Christianity true? NO, they do not... Christianity, just like any other religion, can only be accepted as true (or rejected as false) by faith and faith alone.

What evidence supports the divinity of Jesus or the complete enlightenment of Gautama?

His miracles, his death on the cross, his resurrection, his 'authority' over the scriptures which he preached (vast knowledge of them beyond what anyone has ever displayed)... Does that PROVE Jesus' divinity? NO, it does not. It's merely evidences of it. One can only accept/reject his divinity purely on a faith basis.

Is there a preponderance of evidence supporting Catholic hagiogrphy's contentions of miracles? The answer to all of these is no.

Argument From Ignorance Fallacy (for all of your examples). Absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence.

Religion tells stories and asks the listener to accept their truth on faith or desire or because of their alignment with the listener's social paradigm.

Religion is accepted/rejected purely on a faith basis. Any other reasoning seems to lead to logical fallacies, like your above-mentioned argument from ignorance fallacy...

No, I mean hypothesis

See previous discussion concerning "hypothesis" and "theory"...

Loch Ness and Bigfoot are not religions. They are apocryphal stories that may or may not involve supernatural elements.

Yes, they ARE religions. They are initial circular arguments with other arguments stemming from them. Religion need not involve god(s), ghosts, angels, nor any other "supernatural" elements. You seem to think that religion and theism are one of the same. They are NOT. Theism is merely one of many religions. Many theories typically masqueraded as science are also religions. The Big Bang Theory is one such example. The Theory of Abiogenesis is another. The Theory of Evolution is another. Global Warming/Climate Change is another. Those are all religions. They all have an initial circular argument with additional arguments stemming from that initial circular argument.

Show me the circularity:

Okay. I will put into bolded text the parts of the attempted definition that are circular with regard to the below all-caps word that is attempting to be defined properly...

ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING: a gradual increase in the overall temperature of the earth's atmosphere generally attributed to human activity enhancing the action of the greenhouse effect via emissions of carbon dioxide, methane, chlorofluorocarbons and other greenhouse gases.

"increase in the overall temperature" is simply another way of saying 'warming', and "earth's atmosphere" is simply another way of saying 'global'.

You are essentially saying that 'global warming' IS 'global warming'. That is a circular definition. Global Warming MUST be defined by something outside of itself.

My comment referred to the items I listed for falsification: that atmospheric gases that absorb IR produce the greenhouse effect, that CO2 and methane absorb IR, that the excess CO2 and methane are of human origin and so forth. To what things do you refer that you claim show a denial of science and mathematics?

The claims of "we can measure global temperature" denies statistical mathematics since the location and time biases were not addressed, variances were not declared, and margins of error were not calculated. I've shown that about 200 million thermometers would be required to even BEGIN such a statistical analysis, yet "climate scientists" supposedly "know" what the global temperature is... The greenhouse effect models presented outright deny the laws of thermodynamics and the stefan boltzmann law because they attempt to create energy out of nothing (perpetual motion machine), attempt to make heat flow backwards (from cold to hot, rather than hot to cold), and attempt to decrease radiance while increasing temperature (the SB equation shows that radiance is directly proportional to temperature).

Eh? This seems an odd time to admit you are unfamiliar with the greenhouse effect. Atmospheric gases trapping IR is the core of the greenhouse effect

I'm familiar with the claims, but heat [the flow of thermal energy] can't be "trapped", Crick... That goes against the laws of thermodynamics...

I am tempted to say I suspect you are not who you say your are, but I won't. CO2 and other greenhouse gases slow the escape to space of infrared radiation emitted by the land, sea and air.

Heat cannot be trapped, Crick... See the laws of thermodynamics.

That raises the equilibrium temperature of the planet.

You cannot decrease radiance (see your above argument) WHILE increasing temperature (the argument you are making here), Crick. See the stefan boltzmann law.

That is the cause of the warming observed over the last 150 years.

No, it's not... Have you falsified the laws of science which you violated above? Have you done a proper statistical analysis on global temperatures (as I described above)? It is impossible to measure global temperature.

Also, WHY is 150 years such an important time frame? Why is that time frame significant and any other time frame insignificant?

That is NOT a violation of the Second Law. (with which I am familiar).

I don't believe you, especially since you violated it with that argument.

Why do YOU think the planet has warmed?

Attempted Force of a Negative Proof Fallacy. YOU are the one asserting that it is warming. YOU need to come up with a valid argument...

I don't know whether the planet has warmed, cooled, or stayed the same, relative to ANY point in time. It is impossible to measure global temperature.

I disagree with everything you've just said.

Okay.

So do over 60,000 climate scientists who depend on the accuracy of that data and have been for decades.

Appeal to False Authority Fallacy. Appeal To The Masses Fallacy.

There is no such thing as a "climate scientist". "Climate scientists" are anything BUT...

CO2 is a well-mixed gas in Earth's atmosphere.

How do you know this? Have you done a proper statistical analysis on this?

The issues of location and time biases was examined when Mauna Loa was set up and have been watched for decades. The same is true of other monitoring locations.

'examining' is not 'addressing', Crick. So long as there aren't uniformly spread stations that are simultaneously read by the same observer, there are location and time biases present. Mauna Loa "cooking the data" is not a fix for those biases...

Data from the multiple stations now in operation show close agreement.

So?? What about all the areas where there AREN'T stations?

And since 2008, satellites have been providing truly global data that have verified the data being collected from ground stations.

Numbers can be fudged to match up with each other...

Satellites can NOT measure global temperature. They do not measure absolute temperature. They measure light. Light cannot be converted to temperature via stefan boltzmann since the emissivity of Earth is unknown. In order to figure out emissivity of Earth, we need to know the temperature of Earth, the VERY THING we are trying to figure out in the first place. See the issue??

What, precisely, do you mean when you say "Mauna Loa has been known to cook their data" and "Statistical mathematics axioms are not being followed"?

I already told you. A fairly recent volcano eruption should have shown a massive spike in their data, but when the volcano erupted, there was no data spike. RAW data would have shown that spike, therefore the data they are presenting is NOT raw data. It is cooked...

An axiom is simply a "rule of the game", like any board or card game you may have played as a child... There are rules that statistical mathematics operates under. If those rules aren't being followed, then "statistical mathematics axioms are not being followed"...

Really? Are you certain you actually want to have this discussion?

Yes, those ppm numbers (global numbers) are made up. The numbers from the specific location may or may not be valid, depending on whether the data was cooked or whether it is raw data, but those few stations are NOT good enough for determining a global number. See Statistical Mathematics.

I disagree. So do several tens of thousands of people far more qualified that you or I.

Science is not a set of qualifications, Crick. It is a set of falsifiable theories. Also a continued Appeal To The Masses Fallacy.

You started this discussion sounding like a reasonable fellow. Repeated claims of "made up numbers" are making me rethink that evaluation. If your comment about fossil fuels was meant to be a joke, you should have inserted a laughing face because given your other comments here I am sorely tempted to consider it serious.

We don't burn fossils for fuel, Crick. We make use of carbon based fuels such as coal, oil, and natural gas.

I don't think you're following what I am talking about. Two completely independent analyses of well-mixed CO2 in the atmosphere have shown that virtually every bit that has been added since 1750 came from burning coal, oil or other fossil fuels.

Continued denial of Statistical Mathematics.

... ... ...

The rest of your comment I have already responded to above.

 

[Crick]

No, I mean hypothesis.
HYPOTHESIS: a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.
THEORY: a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.

I start a study with one or more hypotheses. The results of the studies experimentation, and/or observation leads me to a theory.

Your definition of hypothesis is assuming that science makes use of supporting evidence. It does NOT make use of supporting evidence. Theory is close...

Those weren't my definitions. They were Merriam-Webster's and forgive me if I take their opinion over yours.

A theory is an explanatory argument.
A hypothesis (a null hypothesis) best answers the question "How can I falsify this theory?".

I think a more workable definition is that a hypothesis is an attempt to explain a phenomenon before I have conducted research. A theory would be the explanation I develop from that hypothesis as a result of research, study and experimentation.

Science is all about trying to falsify theories. One starts out with a theory ("all swans are white"). One then forms a null hypothesis ("if a swan could be any color other than white, then that theory would be falsified"). Then, you start trying to falsify that theory. You keep noticing white swans, so the theory continues to withstand null hypothesis testing. The theory remains a theory of science. Oh no, now you saw a black swan. Whoops! Now that theory is completely and utterly destroyed. In a nutshell, that's how science works. You didn't make use of supporting evidence in any way, you didn't prove anything, you didn't do any peer-review, you didn't come to a consensus, you didn't consult a university course or a textbook, you didn't appeal to an elite voting bloc, you didn't go to a casino, etc. etc... You simply made use of conflicting evidence to falsify the theory. Science is a set of falsifiable theories; that's it. They have simply "yet to be falsified"...

I agree that valid theories are falsifiable and that falsification is the end of a theory. But you have completely skipped science's exploration of the unknown. There are an infinite number of phenomena for which no theory exists. To develop theoretical explanations or frameworks for such things requires observations and experimentation. Those observations produce evidence from which researchers learn.

A single researcher conducts an experiment that he believes falsifies a theory. He may well be convinced but until he has repeated his work, gotten it published in a peer reviewed journal and the work has been successfully repeated by other researchers, there will be no consensus among the experts of that falsification. Till then, the original theory will still be the accepted explanation. It is a consensus among experts that a theory has been falsified that nullifies it as an explanation.

Observations are evidence.

Science doesn't make use of supporting evidence. Only conflicting evidence.

I'm sorry, but you just don't know what you're talking about.

Remember, observations are subject to the problems of Phenomenology. You and I could both observe the same exact thing, make use of the same exact evidence and data resulting from it, yet come to two completely different conclusions about said observation.

Perhaps that is why research labs are filled with accurate measuring devices. You seem to want to throw out all observations. Why do you think they built the Large Hadron Collider at CERN? To test existing theories? Do you think the Higgs Boson was discovered by falsification?

Crick, science doesn't make use of supporting evidence. That is what RELIGION does. Science only makes use of conflicting evidence. Here, your THEORY that all swans are white has continued to withstand NULL HYPOTHESIS testing (find a different color and the theory is falsified). So long as it continues to withstand this testing, your THEORY remains a theory of science. All the supporting evidence in the world in NO way shape or form blesses, sanctifies, nor makes holy this theory. No peer-review nor consensus nor holy incantation makes this theory any "stronger" or "more special" or "more supported". It simply continues to stand as a theory of science because it continues to withstand null hypothesis testing against it.

You are incorrect on every count.

...
..
.

Okay. Let us first define our terms... provide your definitions of "religion" and "science". I will now provide the definitions I am operating under when I use the terms.

Science: a set of falsifiable theories.
Religion: an initial circular argument, with other arguments stemming from it.

From whatever dictionary Google uses:
SCIENCE: the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.
RELIGION: the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal god or gods.

Religion does not depend on a preponderance of evidence to sell itself.

Religion is typically believed on a faith basis (in other words, believed based on circular reasoning).

Faith is not circular reasoning. It is belief without, or in spite of, evidence. Google says "strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof." Nowhere do I see circular reasoning mentioned and I have to say after your attempt to accuse me and others of using circular logic, that you do not seem to understand what the term means.

What evidence supports the existence of any god?

Let's use Christianity for example. What evidence supports the existence of the Christian God? Well, life itself is one evidence. The Bible is another. The hundreds of millions (maybe even billions) of believers in that religion is another. Now, are those PROOFS?? No, they are not. They ARE evidences, however... Evidence is simply any statement that supports an argument. Do those evidences make Christianity true? NO, they do not... Christianity, just like any other religion, can only be accepted as true (or rejected as false) by faith and faith alone.

But there's those damned phenomenological issues you mentioned. Life could be considered evidence for any religion with a deity(ies) credited with creating life. The Bible, the Quran, the Torah, the Bhagavad Gita, the Egyptian Book of the Dead... there are damned few religions without holy books. There are almost as many people that believe in Allah as Jesus, Jehovah and the Holy Ghost. These are NOT evidence for Christianity.

What evidence supports the divinity of Jesus or the complete enlightenment of Gautama?

His miracles, his death on the cross, his resurrection, his 'authority' over the scriptures which he preached (vast knowledge of them beyond what anyone has ever displayed)...

You have no valid observations of miracles, of his mastery of scriptures or of his resurrection. If you want to claim that you do because you learned of them from a book you assume to be infallible, it is YOU that have indulged in circular reasoning.

Does that PROVE Jesus' divinity? NO, it does not. It's merely evidences of it. One can only accept/reject his divinity purely on a faith basis.

Faith was all anyone who chooses to believe in the supernatural has because, by definition, there is no evidence for the supernatural.

Is there a preponderance of evidence supporting Catholic hagiogrphy's contentions of miracles? The answer to all of these is no.

Argument From Ignorance Fallacy (for all of your examples). Absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence.

Umm, no. The actual definition of argumentium ad ignorantium is the assertion that a thing is true because it has not yet been shown false. Sound familiar? It is precisely what you have been claiming to be the essence of the scientific method.

Religion tells stories and asks the listener to accept their truth on faith or desire or because of their alignment with the listener's social paradigm.

Religion is accepted/rejected purely on a faith basis. Any other reasoning seems to lead to logical fallacies, like your above-mentioned argument from ignorance fallacy...

See above

Loch Ness and Bigfoot are not religions. They are apocryphal stories that may or may not involve supernatural elements.

Yes, they ARE religions.

No, they are not.

They are initial circular arguments with other arguments stemming from them

I reject the definition you have provided for religion. You can find NO reference providing anything remotely similar. And what circular argument do you believe is involved in a belief of the Loch Ness monster or of Bigfoot?

Religion need not involve god(s), ghosts, angels, nor any other "supernatural" elements.

It's meaning, its definition, is provided by its usage by speakers of the language and the vast, vast majority of them understand the term to involve a belief in a supernatural being or beings.

Many theories typically masqueraded as science are also religions. The Big Bang Theory is one such example. The Theory of Abiogenesis is another. The Theory of Evolution is another. Global Warming/Climate Change is another. Those are all religions. They all have an initial circular argument with additional arguments stemming from that initial circular argument.

That is incorrect. None of the theories you've mentioned are founded on circular arguments.

Show me the circularity:

Okay. I will put into bolded text the parts of the attempted definition that are circular with regard to the below all-caps word that is attempting to be defined properly...

ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING: a gradual increase in the overall temperature of the earth's atmosphere generally attributed to human activity enhancing the action of the greenhouse effect via emissions of carbon dioxide, methane, chlorofluorocarbons and other greenhouse gases.

"increase in the overall temperature" is simply another way of saying 'warming', and "earth's atmosphere" is simply another way of saying 'global'. You are essentially saying that 'global warming' IS 'global warming'. That is a circular definition. Global Warming MUST be defined by something outside of itself.

Sorry dude. The definition of any word is "simply another way of saying" the word being defined. I was correct. You do not understand circular definition. To be circular, I would either have to use the term itself in my definition (which I did not do), have used terms in my definition whose own definitions would include the term AGW (which I did not do) or have presupposed the audience is already familiar with the term (which I did not do).

My comment referred to the items I listed for falsification: that atmospheric gases that absorb IR produce the greenhouse effect, that CO2 and methane absorb IR, that the excess CO2 and methane are of human origin and so forth. To what things do you refer that you claim show a denial of science and mathematics?

The claims of "we can measure global temperature" denies statistical mathematics since the location and time biases were not addressed, variances were not declared, and margins of error were not calculated.

That, I am afraid, is utter nonsense. All of those issues and dozens more were dealt with in fine-grained detail. You act like these climate programs were being operated by school children.

I've shown that about 200 million thermometers would be required to even BEGIN such a statistical analysis, yet "climate scientists" supposedly "know" what the global temperature is...

As has been demonstrated to you previously, sampling theory allows for a determination of the accuracy of the available resources. Your complaint that it have some particular and extreme level of accuracy before the measurements have any value at all is nonsense, particularly since the desired information is CHANGE OVER TIME and not absolute value.

The greenhouse effect models presented outright deny the laws of thermodynamics and the stefan boltzmann law because they attempt to create energy out of nothing (perpetual motion machine), attempt to make heat flow backwards (from cold to hot, rather than hot to cold), and attempt to decrease radiance while increasing temperature (the SB equation shows that radiance is directly proportional to temperature).

Unlike you, I have studied thermodynamics and heat transfer in college. Every statement in the above paragraph is demonstrably false.

Eh? This seems an odd time to admit you are unfamiliar with the greenhouse effect. Atmospheric gases trapping IR is the core of the greenhouse effect

I'm familiar with the claims, but heat [the flow of thermal energy] can't be "trapped", Crick... That goes against the laws of thermodynamics...

Hahahahaaaa tell that to your blanket, your thermos or to your dog's fur coat.

CO2 and other greenhouse gases slow the escape to space of infrared radiation emitted by the land, sea and air.

Heat cannot be trapped, Crick... See the laws of thermodynamics.

I do know the laws of thermodynamics. You, quite obviously, do not.

That raises the equilibrium temperature of the planet.

You cannot decrease radiance (see your above argument) WHILE increasing temperature (the argument you are making here), Crick. See the stefan boltzmann law.

Where do you believe I suggested we had decreased the Earth's radiance? And how would you know such a thing without making one of those dreaded and worthless OBSERVATIONS?

That is the cause of the warming observed over the last 150 years.

No, it's not...

Yes it is

Have you falsified the laws of science which you violated above? Have you done a proper statistical analysis on global temperatures (as I described above)? It is impossible to measure global temperature.

I did not collect the data to which I refer. They are the product of mainstream science and I am quite certain none of the actual "laws of science" were violated in their acquisition.

Also, WHY is 150 years such an important time frame? Why is that time frame significant and any other time frame insignificant?

I believe it has to do with the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, when fossil fuel combustion really took off.

That is NOT a violation of the Second Law. (with which I am familiar).

I don't believe you, especially since you violated it with that argument.

You have clearly demonstrated with this and your other posts that you're unfamiliar with thermodynamics or, more generally, science and the scientific method.

Why do YOU think the planet has warmed?

Attempted Force of a Negative Proof Fallacy. YOU are the one asserting that it is warming. YOU need to come up with a valid argument...

I don't know whether the planet has warmed, cooled, or stayed the same, relative to ANY point in time. It is impossible to measure global temperature.

I disagree with everything you've just said. So do over 60,000 climate scientists who depend on the accuracy of that data and have been for decades.

Appeal to False Authority Fallacy. Appeal To The Masses Fallacy.

How badly did you fail Logic 101? It really seems to have locked itself into your psyche.

There is no point in carrying on with you. I had some hope that you had some valid arguments to debate, but that is obviously not the case and I have carried this on with you far longer that you deserved. I suggest you actually read up on what you've been spouting before you try spouting any more of it. It'll do wonders for your reputation.

 

[gfm7175]

Those weren't my definitions. They were Merriam-Webster's and forgive me if I take their opinion over yours.

Appeal to False Authority Fallacy. Merriam Webster is NOT an authority over any word definition.

Bulverism Fallacy. You are rejecting my argument because I am the one making it.

I agree that valid theories are falsifiable and that falsification is the end of a theory. But you have completely skipped science's exploration of the unknown. There are an infinite number of phenomena for which no theory exists. To develop theoretical explanations or frameworks for such things requires observations and experimentation. Those observations produce evidence from which researchers learn.

Science does not make use of supporting evidence, Crick... ONLY conflicting evidence. THAT is how theories are falsified...

A single researcher conducts an experiment that he believes falsifies a theory. He may well be convinced but until he has repeated his work, gotten it published in a peer reviewed journal and the work has been successfully repeated by other researchers, there will be no consensus among the experts of that falsification. Till then, the original theory will still be the accepted explanation. It is a consensus among experts that a theory has been falsified that nullifies it as an explanation.

Science is NOT a publication, peer-review, journal, consensus, nor an elite voting bloc of "experts", Crick... It is a set of falsifiable theories. That's IT. ALL. EVERYTHING. It truly is THAT simple...

I'm sorry, but you just don't know what you're talking about.

Argument of the Stone Fallacy.

Perhaps that is why research labs are filled with accurate measuring devices.

Doesn't change anything...

You seem to want to throw out all observations. Why do you think they built the Large Hadron Collider at CERN? To test existing theories? Do you think the Higgs Boson was discovered by falsification?

Strawmen and Red Herrings...

You are incorrect on every count.

Argument of the Stone Fallacy.

From whatever dictionary Google uses:
SCIENCE: the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

Can you put that into your own words please?

RELIGION: the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal god or gods.

How is this definition any different from Theism? Religion is NOT Theism, Crick...

Faith is not circular reasoning.

It quite literally IS, Crick... They are synonymous terms...

It is belief without, or in spite of, evidence.

So faith is [the acceptance of an argument as a true] without, or in spite of, [any statement that supports an argument]?? HUHHHHH???

You're trying to define religion and faith in a way that claims that there is no evidence for god(s)... That is committing the Argument From Ignorance fallacy, Crick...

Google says "strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof."

So faith only applies to god(s)?? It doesn't apply to any other aspect of life?? ... God cannot be proven or disproven, so I'm not sure how Google expects someone to prove or disprove God...

Nowhere do I see circular reasoning mentioned and I have to say after your attempt to accuse me and others of using circular logic, that you do not seem to understand what the term means.

Appeal to False Authority Fallacy. Google is not the final arbiter of word definitions...

Circular reasoning is concluding with the initial predicate. That's all circular reasoning is. [ex... God exists, therefore God exists].

But there's those damned phenomenological issues you mentioned. Life could be considered evidence for any religion with a deity(ies) credited with creating life. The Bible, the Quran, the Torah, the Bhagavad Gita, the Egyptian Book of the Dead... there are damned few religions without holy books. There are almost as many people that believe in Allah as Jesus, Jehovah and the Holy Ghost.

You are correct here.

These are NOT evidence for Christianity.

YES, they are, Crick. You argue yourself into a paradox here (the bolded text is where I am pulling your paradox from)...

[1] Life could be considered evidence for any religion with a deity(ies) credited with creating life.
[2] Life is NOT evidence for Christianity (a religion with a deity credited with creating life).

Which is it, Crick??

You have no valid observations of miracles, of his mastery of scriptures or of his resurrection. If you want to claim that you do because you learned of them from a book you assume to be infallible, it is YOU that have indulged in circular reasoning.

Yes, I do indeed believe those things based on circular reasoning (faith), Crick. Precisely correct!!! You seem to think that is an issue, however... Why is that, Crick??

That is precisely what a religion is, Crick, and why my definition for it fits perfectly. These arguments all stem from the initial circular argument of Christianity, that Jesus Christ exists and is who he says he is. I'm not trying to prove Christianity in any way. Circular reasoning is NOT a fallacy in and of itself, Crick... Only when one attempts to PROVE it is when it becomes a fallacy...

Faith was all anyone who chooses to believe in the supernatural has because, by definition, there is no evidence for the supernatural.

Define "supernatural"... Is it simply something natural that we don't yet understand?? That would mean that the "supernatural" thing is actually "natural"...

Umm, no. The actual definition of argumentium ad ignorantium is the assertion that a thing is true because it has not yet been shown false.

That's EXACTLY what I just said, Crick... You AGREE with me and aren't even realizing it... That is the SAME THING as "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"... or, in other words, "lack of evidence is NOT a proof".

Sound familiar? It is precisely what you have been claiming to be the essence of the scientific method.

Science is NOT a "method", Crick... It is a set of falsifiable theories. YOU have been claiming that a scientific method exists, and that supporting evidence is used in science, and that a holy consensus of science czars can "make holy" a theory. Inversion Fallacy.

I reject the definition you have provided for religion.

Okay. The one you provided merely re-defined religion into "theism" though...

You can find NO reference providing anything remotely similar.

Philosophy is my reference. Religion is defined by Philosophy, NOT by Google or any "holy" dictionary...

And what circular argument do you believe is involved in a belief of the Loch Ness monster or of Bigfoot?

[insert creature here] exists, therefore [insert creature here] exists.

Same with unicorns, fairies, or anything else of the sort...

It's meaning, its definition, is provided by its usage by speakers of the language and the vast, vast majority of them understand the term to involve a belief in a supernatural being or beings.

Yup, that is the common definition. It is not the most sound definition, however, as it is attempting to make religion synonymous with theism.

That is incorrect. None of the theories you've mentioned are founded on circular arguments.

Argument of the Stone Fallacy. They all are founded on an initial circular argument.

Sorry dude. The definition of any word is "simply another way of saying" the word being defined.

No, it's not. A "fact" is an "assumed predicate". That is making reference to something else. When claiming that "global warming" is "a worldwide increase in temperature", that is just restating the word you are trying to define. You are not making reference to anything outside of that word itself.

I was correct. You do not understand circular definition.

Inversion Fallacy.

To be circular, I would either have to use the term itself in my definition (which I did not do),

That's PRECISELY what you did, and what a circular definition entails...

That, I am afraid, is utter nonsense. All of those issues and dozens more were dealt with in fine-grained detail. You act like these climate programs were being operated by school children.

They'd probably be much better off if they WERE run by school children. They might actually adhere to logic, science, and mathematics then...

As has been demonstrated to you previously, sampling theory allows for a determination of the accuracy of the available resources. Your complaint that it have some particular and extreme level of accuracy before the measurements have any value at all is nonsense, particularly since the desired information is CHANGE OVER TIME and not absolute value.

Continued denial of science and mathematics which has already been addressed ad nauseum...

Unlike you, I have studied thermodynamics and heat transfer in college. Every statement in the above paragraph is demonstrably false.

I don't believe you. (You might now see why credentials are meaningless on an internet forum).
Argument of the Stone Fallacy.

Hahahahaaaa tell that to your blanket, your thermos or to your dog's fur coat.

None of those things trap heat, Crick... It is impossible to trap heat. Those things simply reduce the coupling between a particular object and the outside air. In the case of a blanket, for example, the coupling between our body and the outside air is reduced, so it takes less energy from our bodies to warm the air underneath the blanket. Heat is still flowing from ourselves to the outside air; it has not been trapped in any way.

This also leads me to further believe that your "credentials" cited above are absolute bullshit...

I do know the laws of thermodynamics. You, quite obviously, do not.

Inversion Fallacy.

Where do you believe I suggested we had decreased the Earth's radiance?

By your attempt to trap photons from escaping...

I did not collect the data to which I refer. They are the product of mainstream science and I am quite certain none of the actual "laws of science" were violated in their acquisition.

Yes, they were. I told you how they were.

I believe it has to do with the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, when fossil fuel combustion really took off.

We don't use fossils for fuel, Crick... They don't burn very well...

You have clearly demonstrated with this and your other posts that you're unfamiliar with thermodynamics or, more generally, science and the scientific method.

Inversion Fallacy.

How badly did you fail Logic 101? It really seems to have locked itself into your psyche.

Insult Fallacy. Inversion Fallacy. Psychoquackery.

There is no point in carrying on with you. I had some hope that you had some valid arguments to debate, but that is obviously not the case and I have carried this on with you far longer that you deserved. I suggest you actually read up on what you've been spouting before you try spouting any more of it. It'll do wonders for your reputation.

Inversion Fallacy.

 

[Crick]

Avoiding all debate by rattling off every logical fallacy you can think of is not the reason this forum exists. Neither are discussions of religion.

Science depends to a great extent on observations. It does not restrict itself to attempts to falsify theories.

Global temperature is discernible with more than sufficient accuracy to determine that the planet has been warming for some time. No one has violated the axioms of statistics (or even "Statistical Mathematics") or ignored time and location bias. The only viable cause for that warming is the greenhouse effect enhanced by levels of CO2, CH4, CFCs, and NO increased by human activity.

 

[SSDD]

A
Science depends to a great extent on observations. It does not restrict itself to attempts to falsify theories.

Great...lets see a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...just one...

 

[Crick]

These two comments deserve a response

None of those things trap heat, Crick... It is impossible to trap heat. Those things simply reduce the coupling between a particular object and the outside air. In the case of a blanket, for example, the coupling between our body and the outside air is reduced, so it takes less energy from our bodies to warm the air underneath the blanket. Heat is still flowing from ourselves to the outside air; it has not been trapped in any way.

You have an odd habit of demanding definitions from your debating opponents while frequently using very non-standard definitions yourself; 'science' and 'religion' for example. I can only think that you are using some unintuitive definition for "trapped" in rejecting this concept.

When I catch a rat in a trap in my basement, I have "reduced its coupling" with my home.

The process I am describing as trapping heat is the simple absorption of portions of the spectrum of energy radiated by the land, sea and air of the planet warmed by the sun. If there were no GHGs, no gases that absorbed IR radiation, that energy would leave the planet at the speed of light. Fortunately for us and all life here, we do have GHGs and a portion of that energy gets absorbed in the atmosphere. Once there, it will continue to move by radiation, conduction and convection. The direction these transfers take is random, so roughly half of that energy actually heads back down towards the surface. The net effect of all that is to force a rather tortuous path on a portion of the planet's thermal radiation. That slows its escape to space; increases the amount of energy in 'the pipeline' and raises the equilibrium temperature of the Earth.

Here is an analogy I have used several times for the greenhouse effect. It is not mine.

Imagine a water tank being filled by a steady stream of water. At its bottom there is a drain pipe with an adjustable, restricting valve that lets water out. These two flows (in and out) represent energy from the sun striking the Earth and energy from the Earth escaping to space). The restrictions on the drain represent greenhouse gases which absorb IR radiation from the planet's surface and thus slow its escape to space.

At first, the incoming flow is greater than the amount escaping out the drain and the tank's water level rises. But as the tank fills, the pressure at the drain increases and so the escaping flow increases. When the water in the tank reaches a certain depth, the pressure at the drain will be great enough that the outflow will equal the inflow and the depth will stabilize. That depth represents the equilibrium temperature of the planet.

But now, more GHGs are added to the atmosphere. This further slows the escape of heat from the planet (land, sea and air) to space. The restricting valve gets closed a little bit. This reduces the rate of water coming out the drain and the depth of water in the tank begins to increase. Eventually, the pressure at the tank's bottom will be enough to bring the drain's outflow to a rate once again matching the inflow. The depth stabilizes again, but at a greater depth. This, of course, represents the Earth stabilizing at a higher temperature.

This is to what I referred when I described GHGs trapping outgoing energy.

We don't use fossils for fuel, Crick... They don't burn very well...

On its own, I would have passed this aside as an attempt at humor. However, you have repeated it now and without any sort of humor-emoticon. Do you understand the term "fossil fuels" and do you understand how the nature of fossil fuels allows the differentiation of their combustion products, in the Earth's atmosphere, from other CO2 sources?