How do we find the ''best'' explanation?

Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by wegs, Oct 14, 2016.

  1. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    Manmade global warming was made mainstream by Al Gore. He is not a scientist, but he had a lot of prestige mojo as a former vice president. Being a vice president does not make him an expert in science, but his prestige was able to bridge the gap.

    The man made climate change theory is based on using the prestige of a consensus to add subjectivity to science. Consensus is not the same as a logical conclusion. Like in a magic trick, prestige help to create a subjective distraction.

    The basis for the trick, is connected to comparing apples to oranges. The older historical climate data is thin and indirect, compared to the modern data. The modern data is direct and real time and has so much extra advance technology, compare to the older historical data. The modern apple data makes use satellite data, while the old historical orange data has tree rings and core samples. The result is, this is more data recorded, today , with higher resolution between data. This looks like more is happening.

    As a home experiment, to demonstrate how this trick works, say we had a group of 20 students, all with cell phone cameras. We tell them, for the next couple of weeks we want them to photograph every bird in the city park. After they are done, we will have thousands of photos of birds. With this data in hand, I will make the claim that there are now more birds in that park, due to man, than any time in history.

    I can't conclusively prove this claim, because we can't fairly compare our data to the thin data from the past. It is not a fair fight, since the past was never addressed in the same exhaustive data collection way as I did. However, nobody can deny the validity of these pictures, as being hard data to support my claim of so many birds. If we assume science needs to be based on the preponderance of the hard data, my claim, wins, by default. The past data from the old timers is very thin and has to relay on premises and extrapolations which does not weight as much as direct data.

    This is not 100% kosher in terms of logic and common sense, however, it may be enough to form the prestige of a consensus, who are asked to decide based on the weight of the evidence. If can get that, we can to add their subjective weight to the claim. This will allow a distraction so very few will be able to see the hidden wires; apples and oranges. If anyone claims this is not fair; comparing apples to oranges, we use the prestige of the consensus to silence them, since they must be kooks.


    Magic was one of the first areas of science. It essentially uses science and engineering to set up theatrical experiments, that can appear to prove, that which is not real; levitation. The audience sees the data and forms a consensus.

    For example, I can use various mineral salts and a campfire, to make different colors; like in fireworks. This is based on chemistry and electron transitions. The ancient magician may know these minerals and colors from experience.

    He will create an experimental trick where he will use these colors to appear to be summoning the spirits of the dead. He will use the different salts, in different amounts, to parallel answers to questions.

    The consensus may say he appeared to talk to the dead, since they all saw the color change and flame go up and down, when he asked questions. They are still not sure, so they will look to the elders; prestige, to help them decide whether to agree or disagree. Nobody wishes to be fooled so the masses will look for the safe bet; prestige. Who will believe the prestige of the little boy who says the dirt is talking.
     
    Last edited: Oct 18, 2016
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,703
    I'm already used to learn that I have claimed many things I have never claimed. Now I learn to see that I have done something (whatever this may be) about some GMOs. Interesting. A link would be nice.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,094
    IMO, the best explanation for the existence of the universe itself can be found in exploring a simple equation of known common denominators.

    I like the word and implications of the term *potential* (that which may become reality) as a common denominator to everything that ever existed, exists now, and will exist in the future.
    It also satisfies a probabilistic (mathematical) function. IMO. Potential preceded the birth of the universe.

    This concept can be used for all communication. Find common denominators and establish translation for *best* understanding of what is said.

    The mirror neural network in our brains will be able to construct an abstraction of what is being said, not how it's being said.

    p.s. Body language of the observer has immediate impact on the physical response of the observed.
     
    Last edited: Oct 19, 2016
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    If you look at the standard model of Physics, versus say String Theory, both do the same thing. However, String Theory is more complicated in terms of its assumptions and math. If two explanations work, the best explanation is the simpler of the two.

    The value of simplicity is, simplicity allows more people to independently understand and participate. That means more independent minds can toy with the theory, helping to find new connections and applications. The more complicated things get, even if the theory is useful and functional, means that fewer people can fully participate. With less people able to participate in a direct way, that means that the prestige of the few, will become the deciding factor for most people. The average Joe will not even try to understand, if it gets too complicated, less he look foolish. Instead, he will seek a summary from those with prestige so he can appear to be knowledgeable.

    Another factor is logical versus abstract. Logic and data will parallel common sense; converge. While abstractions and data can defy common sense and therefore might diverge for different people; activate the imagination in different ways. This divergence causes further confusion and causes more people to depend on prestige to help their mind converge the way the experts tell them.


    For example, it has been know for over 50 years that protein, which makes up 55% of the dry weight of cells, fold with exact folds. Protein folding has a probability of 1.0, even though protein are help together with weak binding forces, equivalent to a few hydrogen bonds. In spite of this, the consensus theory still assume protein fold with average folds, due to the randomness theory used for biology. Data, logic and common sense all says the bulk of a cell's mass will follow rational principles; perfect folding of active biomaterials. However, the prestige of biology continues to use a random abstraction, even though this is not observed with protein folds which is the lions share of the cell's mass responsible for most of its chemical reactions.

    Logic makes more sense, based on these 50 year old observations, yet prestige and a random abstraction, still rule. When things narrow down to the prestige of the few, things change very slow, because prestige seeks to serve itself, not science.

    The next question is, if life is based on logic and not throwing dice, as evident by perfect protein folding held together with weak forces, what logical drives protein folding to overcome the expected randomness, supported by the prestige? It comes back to water. Just like lipids in water will form a bi-layered membrane, protein in water will create perfect folds, so the potential of water and protein is minimized.

    The random approach to life is more for applied science, since this approach is like an assembly line, that can lead to good results for industry. But it is not pure science, since it is not able to explain why proteins shapes gets to escape the assumptions of statistics. Protein folding follows logical laws since the probability is 1.0. The downside of prestige is, science can get stuck, because prestige; big dog affect, can become a psychological drug, for those who get to acquire it, and wish to retain it. It can cloud the minds of those in charge, until ego-centricity means more than truth and prestige can trump logic.
     
    Last edited: Oct 19, 2016
  8. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    There is another problem with knowing which is the best theory. You can't always depend on math to help you decide. Math is a tool. A tool does not have to be natural to be useful. There is no such thing as a natural hex wrench, yet these are useful tools with many applied applications.

    Math can be used to model reality. Math can also be used to model the physics of game engines, where reality can be defied to make a game more fun. Math does not care what it models. It can be used to model reality or fantasy. One cannot look at math a face value and make a decision based on how pretty the math looks or how well it makes the game flow. One needs to go back to the assumptions behind the math, to make sure the math tool is modeling reality, and not the assumptions of a game or prestige engine.

    The analogy is like buying a new house. Most people will look at the surface of the house, inside and outside. They may see that it is all look clean and painted. You will then call in a building inspector, to go into the basement and look at the underlying structures and utilities which support the functional weight of the house. With math you need to question the assumptions before buying the house.

    There is another special affect, connected to math, that is less obvious than the assumptions of game engine math. This special affect was originally inferred by an artist Escher, in a work of art he called relativity. This is shown below;

    In this work of art, each staircase, if looked at by itself, appears to be a proper reference. Yet when we look at all the reference side-by-side, we realize they all can't exist at the same time, in a 3-D world. However, they do appear to exist in the 2-D world of paper and computer screens. This art work, show us that there is an illusion of 3-D, that can exist in a 2-D world. This work of art is not math per se. However, it is more like a raw data plot; curve, that can modeled with math if you needed to. Then the math will satisfy the needs of pseudo-3-D, using 2-D assumptions.

    In physics, relative reference is based on velocity which is v=d/t; 2-D concept. In the 2-D concept of velocity, all references appear relative, like in the photo. Each by itself seems valid, based on how we look at it. Energy conservation, on the other hand is based on kinetic energy, which is 1/2MV2. This is 3-D since it is based on the variables of m,d,t. Relativity does not work if you do an energy balance. If we have two different masses, at relative velocity V, each reference will appear to see different kinetic energy. Those who are not sure, will bet on the prestige of favorites, perpetuating the math illusion.

    In science forums, the use of prestige is very common and usually the reason for stonewalling common sense. If you try to reason and illustrate, unless you show prestige credentials, you are wrong by default, and truth is put on the shelf until prestige says so.


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  9. PhysBang Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    Sure, but the "consensus" is a fact of the matter about what scientific papers conclude. To merely say, "Consensus is not the same as a logical conclusion," is to lie about the science in a way equivalent to saying that Republicans are currently good for black people because Lincoln was a Republican.
     
  10. river

    Messages:
    9,793
    Actually consensus means nothing .

    Who wrote these papers ? And who were they affiliated with .

    Climate change is real but the nonsense of Human cause is just that nonsense .

    Anybody that delves into the depth of this , climate change , will know.
     
  11. Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,387
  12. river

    Messages:
    9,793
    Such nonsense .
     
  13. river

    Messages:
    9,793
  14. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,647
    I don't believe you are qualified to say that.
    Yep, it's still debatable in certain quarters, but I also remember during the Nazi regime, a book entitled "100 Scientists against Einstein" Einstein retorted, "if I was wrong, then one would be enough"

    Global Warming, shamefully I'm not that much into the real evidence, but something I have said in the past still should be the number one concern....
    If we are going to err, I would certainly hope we err on the side of caution.
     
  15. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,647
    https://insideclimatenews.org/news/...d-NOAA-study?gclid=CP2EwerO6M8CFYSVvAodN_MGvw

    Global Warming's Great Hiatus Gets Another Debunking
    Scientists had struggled to understand a slowdown in the world’s warming starting 15 years ago. A new study says it never happened.
    BY KATHERINE BAGLEY, INSIDECLIMATE NEWS
    JUN 4, 2015

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Credit: NOAA's National Centers for Environmental Information

    The long-debated hiatus or pause in global warming, championed by climate denialists who tried to claim it proved scientists' projections on climate change are inaccurate or overblown, probably did not happen at all.

    A new study by researchers at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration finds that the world's warming never really stalled during the last 15 years—it was just masked by incomplete data records that have been improved and expanded in recent years.

    "The rate of temperature increase during the last half of the 20th century is virtually identical to that of the 21st century," said Tom Karl, director of NOAA's National Centers for Environmental Information and lead author of the study.

    The research, published in the peer-reviewed journal Science this week, is just the latest in a growing number of studies refuting the idea of a slowdown or stop in global warming.

    "Tom Karl and colleagues have done solid work here, but they've mostly just confirmed what we already knew," said Michael Mann, a climate scientist and director of the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University. "There is no true 'pause' or 'hiatus' in warming."


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Global temperature trends are calculated using measurements from weather stations on land and by ships at sea. Until recently, stations in regions including Asia, South America and Africa were scarce. Ships collecting temperatures did so first by gathering water either in wooden buckets, in canvas buckets, by thermometers positioned near engine intake valves, and later buoys—resulting in temperature measurements that varied slightly by collection method and requiring correction.

    Previous calculations estimated the world had warmed 0.113 degrees Celsius per decade from 1950 to 1999, and 0.039 degrees Celsius per decade from 1998 to 2012, according to the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Global surface temperature "has shown a much smaller increasing linear trend over the past 15 years [1998-2012] than over the past 30 to 60 years," the IPCC concluded in its Fifth Assessment report.

    Within the last decade, thousands of new weather stations have been built in previously under-reported areas on land and a vast network of buoys have been deployed that more accurately measure sea surface temperatures. Karl and colleagues reanalyzed global temperature trends with the new data and corrected for ocean temperature discrepancies.

    The NOAA scientists found that the world warmed 0.086 degrees Celsius per decade between 1998 and 2012, more than double the previous estimates. When the researchers included 2013 and 2014—when record-breaking heat spread across the globe—warming per decade jumped to 0.116 degrees Celsius.

    The "newly corrected and updated global surface temperature data from NOAA's NCEI do not support the notion of a global warming 'hiatus,'" wrote the study authors.

    The scientists argue the findings even underestimate the world's warming because they don't consider what has happened in the Arctic, where temperatures have increased rapidly in recent decades, but where there is a limited number of weather recording stations.

    "The fact that such small changes to the analysis make the difference between a hiatus or not merely underlines how fragile a concept it was in the first place," said Gavin Schmidt, a climate scientist and director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies who was not involved in the research.

    Mann said the study doesn't prove that warming never slowed, but rather that when it did, it was short-lived, localized and had little impact on the world's overall warming trend over the last century.

    "There was definitely a slowdown in warming from around 2000-2012 centered in the Pacific, but leading to a slowing of warming over the Northern Hemisphere," said Mann. That local event barely impacted the global mean temperature at the time.

    "There certainly is variability from year to year, and one can find periods in the record where there are small changes," but over the long term, the world is still warming at an alarming rate, Karl said.

    Scientists aren't holding their breath that the findings published this week will sway climate denialists from claiming there is a hiatus or pause in warming.

    "There will be a very predictable chorus of 'data manipulation' and 'fraud' as they see a talking point disappear, and so it will just continue as before," said Schmidt. "Just remember, their objections have little or nothing to do with science."
     
  16. river

    Messages:
    9,793
    How little you know pad .

    So the list given by me in post # 90 means nothing ; not even a pause of thought ?

    Ignorance .
     
  17. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,647
    You mean I don't swallow the nonsense you are so eager to swallow?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    So the evidence given by me in post 92 means nothing to you river?
    See that's the crux of the matter: You are really not qualified to make a judgement call.
    Again, as I said, and I'll highlight it this time.....
    "If we are going to err, I would certainly hope we err on the side of caution"
    Think about it.
     
  18. river

    Messages:
    9,793
    Read the list in my post # 90 pad .
     
  19. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,647
    You are avoiding the issue again river.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    "If we are going to err, I would certainly hope we err on the side of caution"
    Think about it.
     
  20. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,647
  21. river

    Messages:
    9,793
    Such BS . BUT of course you wouldn't know better .

    Because you don't read about those who disagree and why they do .
     
  22. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,647

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Is that the best you can come up with river?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    "While any doubt exists at all, If we are going to err, I would certainly hope we err on the side of caution"
    Or are you going to keep fanatically ignoring that?
     
  23. river

    Messages:
    9,793

    In the end pad , the health of the Earth will decide .

    Foolishness by us , political nonsense , will be our down fall.
     

Share This Page