Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: [Phys-l] why vs how; fact vs theory; panic vs non



Hi all;

I'm going to try to say something coherent about fact versus theory and alarmist versus non (ie. rational behavior).

One way to draw the line between science and non-science is that science makes falsifiable predictions (Popper's argument). In other words we use empirical data to eliminate contending theories. But this is never a finished business; it is always possible that, for any given theory, tomorrow some clever soul may think of a way to test the theory empirically and find out it is wrong. So what do we do? The rational thing to do (and the route taken by science historically) is to stick with the current theory, treat it as if it is (at least provisionally) true, teach it to students, act based on the information we have UNTIL some clever soul figures out a way to show that it is wrong.

Periodically I have students who say they don't believe in evolution or quantum theory or relativity or climate change. Fine I say. You don't have to believe it. But if you want to maintain a rational position you have a two part obligation. First you have to learn, in detail, what the theory says (blathering on about something you don't understand isn't acceptable). Second, if you still don't think it is right once you understand it, you have the obligation to work to be the clever person who shows that it is wrong. Your opinion is not what is important, your efforts to disprove what you don't like are important.

A third feature of science (after falsifiability and rationality) is that it involves a community of informed practitioners who check up on each other. This involves a healthy amount of skepticism, a fourth component of science. Most biologists think evolution is the best explanation for the evidence available. However, I wager that any one of those biologists would jump at the chance to disprove evolution (think of the Nobel prize if you found clear evidence of mammal fossils from the Paleozoic period!). So far what we see with evolution and climate change is, the more people investigate, the more evidence in favor of these theories they find. I hope (and suspect) that at least some of those scientists are skeptical; that they don't believe in the theories; that they are trying hard to disprove those theories.

Science depends on skepticism but we also have to accept the current theory as the best we have; the one we are fighting to disprove or at least improve. Pure skepticism means we don't believe in anything and have to start over from scratch every day. This is not rational. It is sometimes even rational to act as if a theory is true even though we know it is false. I am willing to think that Newton's laws are good enough for bridge building, even though we know there are problems with these laws for very small or very fast objects.

How should we act? The rational way to act is to assume our information is correct (or at least good enough) until proven otherwise. If you are in a movie theater and you see smoke and someone says "fire!" it isn't rational to sit still and say, "well, I need more proof before I'm going to give up my seat". It also isn't rational to climb over people in a panic to get out. It IS rational to assume there is a fire (until you have better data) and leave the theater. I think we are at that stage with human caused climate change. All the evidence we have points to a problem. The rational thing to do is to try to do something about it (shift away from fossil fuels).

We know CO2 is 35% higher than the last 800,000 yrs (empirical "fact"); we know this comes from fossil fuels (a calculation of emissions plus radiocarbon dating matches the atmospheric levels (minus a little going into the ocean)); we know CO2 and water vapor are major players in global surface temperatures (from relatively simple calculations on earth and Venus and laboratory absorption data); we have pre-historical evidence that CO2 affects climate (eg. Middle Eocene Climatic Optimum events); and we have some recent evidence that the earth is warming. Can we "prove" that the recent warming is caused by the CO2? Can we predict what is going to happen for sure? Probably not (and since we don't know exactly what might happen we should be worried). But the rational thing to do is to try to figure out how to stop CO2 emissions. We have enough evidence to say the rational thing is to leave the theater.

Panic? No. Do something now? Yes. We are preforming a huge experiment on the atmosphere, the results of which are at the very best not entirely clear (and from all indications not good).

kyle

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

Message: 19
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2010 19:03:13 -0800
From: Bernard Cleyet<bernardcleyet@redshift.com>
Subject: Re: [Phys-l] About the "why" and "how questins."
To: Forum for Physics Educators<phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu>
Message-ID:<320607CC-C2F7-4164-B3C9-C4125E62C453@redshift.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

Right! Warnings of Meteorite Impacts are also a no, no.

bc

p.s. last "I heard", no such thing as AMI.


On 2010, Dec 21, , at 08:37, John Mallinckrodt wrote:

In any event am I correct in understanding that you would have us, under *no* circumstances, predict catastrophe?


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

Message: 20
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2010 20:09:18 -0700
From: William Robertson<wrobert9@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: [Phys-l] About the "why" and "how questins."
To: Forum for Physics Educators<phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu>
Message-ID:<51C9F638-AE98-4780-BCF1-A350D080467D@ix.netcom.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252; format=flowed;
delsp=yes

I also think the phrase "in any given period" is important. As I have
pointed out in other posts, Phil Jones found an increase in
temperature in statistically insignificant data. Again, I have no
doubt that the planet is warming. An extended period of flat line
temperatures would be no big surprise based on the ice core data, even
though we are warming overall. An extended period of flat line
temperatures does, however, cast doubt on the cause. CO2 content in
the atmosphere has no flat line. Look, I'm on the side of reducing
CO2 emissions. I just don't want scientists to overstate their case.

Bill




On Dec 21, 2010, at 7:59 PM, William Robertson wrote:

From your link: ?Given the controversy over the veracity of climate
change data,? Sammon wrote, ?we should refrain from asserting that the
planet has warmed (or cooled) in any given period without IMMEDIATELY
pointing out that such theories are based upon data that critics have
called into question. It is not our place as journalists to assert
such notions as facts, especially as this debate intensifies.?

There is a big difference between stating that no MENTION be made of
climate change effects without the disclaimer (your words), and
stating that one should refrain from ASSERTING that the planet has
warmed or cooled without the disclaimer.

Seems to me they're just being careful about making assertions.


Bill



On Dec 21, 2010, at 7:51 PM, brian whatcott wrote:

the managing
editor of the FOX news
programs has issued a directive, that no mention is to be made of
climate
change effects by FOX news presenters, unless mention is made
immediately
that the science behind such warnings is suspect.
_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l


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

Message: 21
Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2010 08:36:03 -0500
From: "Robert Cohen"<Robert.Cohen@po-box.esu.edu>
Subject: Re: [Phys-l] About the "why" and "how questins."
To: "Forum for Physics Educators"<phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu>
Message-ID:
<47F49E5A3B3AA84F8DD701A3C515BF7B05D43820@tigger.admin.esu.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

It seems to me that stating either "evolution is a fact" (BW) OR
"evolution is not a fact" (WR) is to be avoided because the word
"evolution", without qualifiers, is too ambiguous.

Perhaps what Bill wanted to write was that, while we may debate the
proper wording, scientists should be clear that "evolution on a small
scale" is a fact but "global evolution of species over the history of
the Earth" is not. Is there consensus on that?

Also, can we agree that the theory of biological evolution (which
consists of natural selection as well as other processes) is, as
scientific theories go, a very strong theory for explaining the "global"
diversity of species?

----------------------------------------------------------
Robert A. Cohen, Department of Physics, East Stroudsburg University
570.422.3428 rcohen@po-box.esu.edu http://www.esu.edu/~bbq

-----Original Message-----
From: phys-l-bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
[mailto:phys-l-bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu] On Behalf
Of William Robertson
Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2010 9:46 PM
To: betwys1@sbcglobal.net; Forum for Physics Educators
Subject: Re: [Phys-l] About the "why" and "how questins."

If you read what I wrote, then you would know that I
acknowledge that the process of natural selection has been
demonstrated in the lab. And yes, evolution on a small scale
is a fact. I'm talking about global evolution of species over
the history of the Earth. Not a fact. A reasonable inference
from the data, and hence a good theory, but not a fact.
Scientists should not be afraid to use proper language in
explaining their findings. If you understand science, then
you would properly explain the laboratory findings as solid
evidence for the mechanism of natural selection. You would
not use that evidence to state that the global theory of
evolution is a fact. One cannot prove a theory, so theories
should not be labeled as facts.

We have enough arrogance and condescension in this forum, so
why add to it?

Bill


William C. Robertson, Ph.D.
Bill Robertson Science, Inc.
Stop Faking It! Finally Understanding Science So You Can Teach It.
wrobert9@ix.netcom.com
1340 Telemark Drive
Woodland Park, CO 80863
719-686-1609

On Dec 21, 2010, at 6:50 PM, brian whatcott wrote:

On 12/21/2010 6:51 PM, William Robertson wrote:
This is why reading and comprehension skills are so very
important. I
never said that evolution was controversial. I just said
that it is a
theory (a good one) rather than a fact.

Bill


On Dec 21, 2010, at 5:17 PM, William Robertson wrote:

evolution,
which is about as controversial as the fact that matter has mass.

Can't help with the reading or comprehension skills, I'm afraid.

But if you'd care to run an experiment on evolving an
organism over
say 10,000 lifetimes (is that time scale good enough?) I
could share
details of the agar, petri dish, agricultural antibiotic for the
challenge, and incubator materials which are not expensive.

I suppose it's possible to FAIL to demonstrate/confirm
evolution in
this way, but you would need to be really, really determined.

Brian W
_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l
_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l


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

_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l


End of Phys-l Digest, Vol 71, Issue 24
**************************************

--
------------------------------------------
'Before you open your mouth, just remember,
the empty wagon rattles the loudest.'
-- my dad

kyle forinash 812-941-2039
kforinas@ius.edu
http://Physics.ius.edu/
-----------------------------------------