• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

When a Paradigm Becomes a Prison

Jack Hays

Traveler
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
94,823
Reaction score
28,342
Location
Williamsburg, Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I have several times posted my view that defending the AGW paradigm distorts climate science. Here's a possible example of paradigm busting that's perhaps the most important science story of the decade.


‘Settled Science’ syndrome hits Astronomy and the Nobel Prize

From the UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD: The universe is expanding at an accelerating rate — or is it? Five years ago, the Nobel Prize in Physics was awarded to three astronomers for their discovery, in the late 1990s, that the universe is expanding at an accelerating pace. Their conclusions were based on analysis of Type Ia supernovae…

Continue reading →

". . . Now, a team of scientists led by Professor Subir Sarkar of Oxford University’s Department of Physics has cast doubt on this standard cosmological concept. Making use of a vastly increased data set – a catalogue of 740 Type Ia supernovae, more than ten times the original sample size – the researchers have found that the evidence for acceleration may be flimsier than previously thought, with the data being consistent with a constant rate of expansion.
The study is published in the Nature journal Scientific Reports.
Professor Sarkar, who also holds a position at the Niels Bohr Institute in Copenhagen, said: ‘The discovery of the accelerating expansion of the universe won the Nobel Prize, the Gruber Cosmology Prize, and the Breakthrough Prize in Fundamental Physics. It led to the widespread acceptance of the idea that the universe is dominated by “dark energy” that behaves like a cosmological constant – this is now the “standard model” of cosmology.
‘However, there now exists a much bigger database of supernovae on which to perform rigorous and detailed statistical analyses. We analysed the latest catalogue of 740 Type Ia supernovae – over ten times bigger than the original samples on which the discovery claim was based – and found that the evidence for accelerated expansion is, at most, what physicists call “3 sigma”. This is far short of the “5 sigma” standard required to claim a discovery of fundamental significance. . . ."
 
I have several times posted my view that defending the AGW paradigm distorts climate science. Here's a possible example of paradigm busting that's perhaps the most important science story of the decade.


‘Settled Science’ syndrome hits Astronomy and the Nobel Prize

From the UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD: The universe is expanding at an accelerating rate — or is it? Five years ago, the Nobel Prize in Physics was awarded to three astronomers for their discovery, in the late 1990s, that the universe is expanding at an accelerating pace. Their conclusions were based on analysis of Type Ia supernovae…

Continue reading →

". . . Now, a team of scientists led by Professor Subir Sarkar of Oxford University’s Department of Physics has cast doubt on this standard cosmological concept. Making use of a vastly increased data set – a catalogue of 740 Type Ia supernovae, more than ten times the original sample size – the researchers have found that the evidence for acceleration may be flimsier than previously thought, with the data being consistent with a constant rate of expansion.
The study is published in the Nature journal Scientific Reports.
Professor Sarkar, who also holds a position at the Niels Bohr Institute in Copenhagen, said: ‘The discovery of the accelerating expansion of the universe won the Nobel Prize, the Gruber Cosmology Prize, and the Breakthrough Prize in Fundamental Physics. It led to the widespread acceptance of the idea that the universe is dominated by “dark energy” that behaves like a cosmological constant – this is now the “standard model” of cosmology.
‘However, there now exists a much bigger database of supernovae on which to perform rigorous and detailed statistical analyses. We analysed the latest catalogue of 740 Type Ia supernovae – over ten times bigger than the original samples on which the discovery claim was based – and found that the evidence for accelerated expansion is, at most, what physicists call “3 sigma”. This is far short of the “5 sigma” standard required to claim a discovery of fundamental significance. . . ."

The flip side of your "paradigm busting" is the eagerness that some have to accept anything with even the least vestige of legitimacy as somehow proof positive that the overwhelming majority of the scientific community is wrong. What's more, you look at this (as-yet far from verified) example of "paradigm-busting" in such of a way as to say, "See, the scientists seem to be all wrong about dark energy, so how can we expect them to be right about AGW?" Which, of course, is a wildly different field of study...and one that affects almost every physical scientific field of study on the planet other than astrophysics.

But I've seen this line of argument before - the first time I saw it, AGW-deniers were trying to say, "Remember phlogiston? The scientists were wrong then, so how can we take their word now?" Their excuse was flimsy then, and it's just as flimsy now.
 
The flip side of your "paradigm busting" is the eagerness that some have to accept anything with even the least vestige of legitimacy as somehow proof positive that the overwhelming majority of the scientific community is wrong. What's more, you look at this (as-yet far from verified) example of "paradigm-busting" in such of a way as to say, "See, the scientists seem to be all wrong about dark energy, so how can we expect them to be right about AGW?" Which, of course, is a wildly different field of study...and one that affects almost every physical scientific field of study on the planet other than astrophysics.

But I've seen this line of argument before - the first time I saw it, AGW-deniers were trying to say, "Remember phlogiston? The scientists were wrong then, so how can we take their word now?" Their excuse was flimsy then, and it's just as flimsy now.

Phlogiston is actually quite a good example, although my favorite is the defense of Ptolemy against Copernicus.
 
I have several times posted my view that defending the AGW paradigm distorts climate science. Here's a possible example of paradigm busting that's perhaps the most important science story of the decade.


‘Settled Science’ syndrome hits Astronomy and the Nobel Prize

From the UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD: The universe is expanding at an accelerating rate — or is it? Five years ago, the Nobel Prize in Physics was awarded to three astronomers for their discovery, in the late 1990s, that the universe is expanding at an accelerating pace. Their conclusions were based on analysis of Type Ia supernovae…

Continue reading →

". . . Now, a team of scientists led by Professor Subir Sarkar of Oxford University’s Department of Physics has cast doubt on this standard cosmological concept. Making use of a vastly increased data set – a catalogue of 740 Type Ia supernovae, more than ten times the original sample size – the researchers have found that the evidence for acceleration may be flimsier than previously thought, with the data being consistent with a constant rate of expansion.
The study is published in the Nature journal Scientific Reports.
Professor Sarkar, who also holds a position at the Niels Bohr Institute in Copenhagen, said: ‘The discovery of the accelerating expansion of the universe won the Nobel Prize, the Gruber Cosmology Prize, and the Breakthrough Prize in Fundamental Physics. It led to the widespread acceptance of the idea that the universe is dominated by “dark energy” that behaves like a cosmological constant – this is now the “standard model” of cosmology.
‘However, there now exists a much bigger database of supernovae on which to perform rigorous and detailed statistical analyses. We analysed the latest catalogue of 740 Type Ia supernovae – over ten times bigger than the original samples on which the discovery claim was based – and found that the evidence for accelerated expansion is, at most, what physicists call “3 sigma”. This is far short of the “5 sigma” standard required to claim a discovery of fundamental significance. . . ."

That is rather interesting. This happens more often than one thinks and in many contexts and disciplines as well as in political as well in societal reality.
Did you ever read Thomas Kuhn on paradigm shift.
 
That is rather interesting. This happens more often than one thinks and in many contexts and disciplines as well as in political as well in societal reality.
Did you ever read Thomas Kuhn on paradigm shift.

Kuhn's work is central to my skeptical view of AGW climate orthodoxy. Thanks for noticing.
 
I have several times posted my view that defending the AGW paradigm distorts climate science. Here's a possible example of paradigm busting that's perhaps the most important science story of the decade.


‘Settled Science’ syndrome hits Astronomy and the Nobel Prize

From the UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD: The universe is expanding at an accelerating rate — or is it? Five years ago, the Nobel Prize in Physics was awarded to three astronomers for their discovery, in the late 1990s, that the universe is expanding at an accelerating pace. Their conclusions were based on analysis of Type Ia supernovae…

Continue reading →

". . . Now, a team of scientists led by Professor Subir Sarkar of Oxford University’s Department of Physics has cast doubt on this standard cosmological concept. Making use of a vastly increased data set – a catalogue of 740 Type Ia supernovae, more than ten times the original sample size – the researchers have found that the evidence for acceleration may be flimsier than previously thought, with the data being consistent with a constant rate of expansion.
The study is published in the Nature journal Scientific Reports.
Professor Sarkar, who also holds a position at the Niels Bohr Institute in Copenhagen, said: ‘The discovery of the accelerating expansion of the universe won the Nobel Prize, the Gruber Cosmology Prize, and the Breakthrough Prize in Fundamental Physics. It led to the widespread acceptance of the idea that the universe is dominated by “dark energy” that behaves like a cosmological constant – this is now the “standard model” of cosmology.
‘However, there now exists a much bigger database of supernovae on which to perform rigorous and detailed statistical analyses. We analysed the latest catalogue of 740 Type Ia supernovae – over ten times bigger than the original samples on which the discovery claim was based – and found that the evidence for accelerated expansion is, at most, what physicists call “3 sigma”. This is far short of the “5 sigma” standard required to claim a discovery of fundamental significance. . . ."

Greetings, Jack. :2wave:

Very interesting link! :thumbs: Comment taken from the link..."Sometimes the truth can be very unsettling," which certainly sums things up, IMO! *sigh* ...back to the "Science drawing board" to learn more - as required - if we are to ever understand how little we know at this time about the Dark Energy of the universe.....
 
Greetings, Jack. :2wave:

Very interesting link! :thumbs: Comment taken from the link..."Sometimes the truth can be very unsettling," which certainly sums things up, IMO! *sigh* ...back to the "Science drawing board" to learn more - as required - if we are to ever understand how little we know at this time about the Dark Energy of the universe.....

Greetings Polgara!:2wave:

Or maybe Dark Matter isn't really there.:shock:
 
The flip side of your "paradigm busting" is the eagerness that some have to accept anything with even the least vestige of legitimacy as somehow proof positive that the overwhelming majority of the scientific community is wrong. What's more, you look at this (as-yet far from verified) example of "paradigm-busting" in such of a way as to say, "See, the scientists seem to be all wrong about dark energy, so how can we expect them to be right about AGW?" Which, of course, is a wildly different field of study...and one that affects almost every physical scientific field of study on the planet other than astrophysics.

But I've seen this line of argument before - the first time I saw it, AGW-deniers were trying to say, "Remember phlogiston? The scientists were wrong then, so how can we take their word now?" Their excuse was flimsy then, and it's just as flimsy now.

The standard position in science should be that the current understanding is wrong, even if we don't know why yet.

Calling something settled science is actually anti-science. Nowhere is this more prevalent than in the use of the term "denier" by AGW defenders. The AGW defenders aren't scientists, they are cheerleaders.
 
Greetings Polgara!:2wave:

Or maybe Dark Matter isn't really there.:shock:

I find the universe fascinating, since so far nothing has seemed to be a "mistake!" :shrug: It looks like I may be reincarnating at some far future date to see for myself! :mrgreen:
 
But I've seen this line of argument before - the first time I saw it, AGW-deniers were trying to say, "Remember phlogiston? The scientists were wrong then, so how can we take their word now?" Their excuse was flimsy then, and it's just as flimsy now.

What is "flimsy" and pathetic is that anyone can believe what only constitutes a hypothesis, is settled science.

Science is all about skepticism. Only skeptics are real scientists.
 
I have several times posted my view that defending the AGW paradigm distorts climate science. Here's a possible example of paradigm busting that's perhaps the most important science story of the decade.


‘Settled Science’ syndrome hits Astronomy and the Nobel Prize

From the UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD: The universe is expanding at an accelerating rate — or is it? Five years ago, the Nobel Prize in Physics was awarded to three astronomers for their discovery, in the late 1990s, that the universe is expanding at an accelerating pace. Their conclusions were based on analysis of Type Ia supernovae…

Continue reading →

". . . Now, a team of scientists led by Professor Subir Sarkar of Oxford University’s Department of Physics has cast doubt on this standard cosmological concept. Making use of a vastly increased data set – a catalogue of 740 Type Ia supernovae, more than ten times the original sample size – the researchers have found that the evidence for acceleration may be flimsier than previously thought, with the data being consistent with a constant rate of expansion.
The study is published in the Nature journal Scientific Reports.
Professor Sarkar, who also holds a position at the Niels Bohr Institute in Copenhagen, said: ‘The discovery of the accelerating expansion of the universe won the Nobel Prize, the Gruber Cosmology Prize, and the Breakthrough Prize in Fundamental Physics. It led to the widespread acceptance of the idea that the universe is dominated by “dark energy” that behaves like a cosmological constant – this is now the “standard model” of cosmology.
‘However, there now exists a much bigger database of supernovae on which to perform rigorous and detailed statistical analyses. We analysed the latest catalogue of 740 Type Ia supernovae – over ten times bigger than the original samples on which the discovery claim was based – and found that the evidence for accelerated expansion is, at most, what physicists call “3 sigma”. This is far short of the “5 sigma” standard required to claim a discovery of fundamental significance. . . ."



I don't know if this is the same study, but the one I heard from the BBC was that they found that there are 1,000 times more galaxies than anyone thought. Sorry if I am confusing two studies, however this is science, or what science is supposed to be. What we know now is 'fact' which gets replaced with "new" facts along the way. Even Newton made some mistakes.

The problem is the global warming 'science' where something like 12 million people rely on the threat of global warming for their incomes. And that always creates corruption.

If I want to study the mating habits of the "Great Spirit Bear", or Kermode https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kermode_bear
I would have to do the study as it relates to global warming to get any $.

BTW, the Great Spirit Bear is one of those "settled science" things. For one hundred years the Kermode was dismissed as an "albino" mutation....until they "discovered" entire families of them along the Pacific coast, which the natives here already knew.

We'd have to be damnably arrogant to think we have all the answers.
 
I don't know if this is the same study, but the one I heard from the BBC was that they found that there are 1,000 times more galaxies than anyone thought. Sorry if I am confusing two studies, however this is science, or what science is supposed to be. What we know now is 'fact' which gets replaced with "new" facts along the way. Even Newton made some mistakes.

The problem is the global warming 'science' where something like 12 million people rely on the threat of global warming for their incomes. And that always creates corruption.

If I want to study the mating habits of the "Great Spirit Bear", or Kermode https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kermode_bear
I would have to do the study as it relates to global warming to get any $.

BTW, the Great Spirit Bear is one of those "settled science" things. For one hundred years the Kermode was dismissed as an "albino" mutation....until they "discovered" entire families of them along the Pacific coast, which the natives here already knew.

We'd have to be damnably arrogant to think we have all the answers.

[h=3]Hubble Finds 10 Times More Galaxies Than Thought | NASA[/h]www.nasa.gov/.../hubble-reveals-observable-universe-contains-10-times-more-...


NASA


Oct 13, 2016 - Hubble Reveals Observable Universe Contains 10 Times More ...... reveals thousandsof colorful galaxies in the constellation of Leo (The Lion).
 
I don't know if this is the same study, but the one I heard from the BBC was that they found that there are 1,000 times more galaxies than anyone thought. Sorry if I am confusing two studies, however this is science, or what science is supposed to be. What we know now is 'fact' which gets replaced with "new" facts along the way. Even Newton made some mistakes.

The problem is the global warming 'science' where something like 12 million people rely on the threat of global warming for their incomes. And that always creates corruption.

If I want to study the mating habits of the "Great Spirit Bear", or Kermode https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kermode_bear
I would have to do the study as it relates to global warming to get any $.

BTW, the Great Spirit Bear is one of those "settled science" things. For one hundred years the Kermode was dismissed as an "albino" mutation....until they "discovered" entire families of them along the Pacific coast, which the natives here already knew.

We'd have to be damnably arrogant to think we have all the answers.

And those among us who believe they do have all the answers certainly are arrogant. I'm always entertained by those who puff themselves up only to find they've been incredibly wrong. If you're correct, no puffing up is necessary.
 
We certainly don't have all the answers.

The scientific method is one of continuous refinement.

450px-The_Scientific_Method_as_an_Ongoing_Process.svg.png

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

It seems that many of the climate warming predisposition just want to skip the 'Refine, Alter, Expand, or Reject Hypothesis' with a great cry of 'the science is settled!'.

But if you look closely, that's non sequitur with the very definition of the scientific method. So anyone crying 'the science is settled!' is already mistaken that this cry is based on science. By the very definition of science and the scientific method, it's not. There is no conclusion in the above flow chart.
 
The alarmists are like a broken record:

stuck AGW hypotisis loop.jpg
 
What is "flimsy" and pathetic is that anyone can believe what only constitutes a hypothesis, is settled science.

Science is all about skepticism. Only skeptics are real scientists.

Gravity is also 'only' a hypothesis. What's flimsy and pathetic is using the words 'hypothesis' and 'theory' as if those are somehow proof that AGW doesn't exist.
 
The standard position in science should be that the current understanding is wrong, even if we don't know why yet.

Calling something settled science is actually anti-science. Nowhere is this more prevalent than in the use of the term "denier" by AGW defenders. The AGW defenders aren't scientists, they are cheerleaders.

Riiiiiight. The hundreds of thousands of PhD scientist all over the planet who agree about AGW, those are the cheerleaders...whereas the relative very few who deny AGW are the only real scientists.

Mm-hmm...got it.
 
Gravity is also 'only' a hypothesis. What's flimsy and pathetic is using the words 'hypothesis' and 'theory' as if those are somehow proof that AGW doesn't exist.

There you go again. Failure to understand and communicate well in a debate.

AGW does exist. You seem to be incapable of understanding that we skeptics know it is real.

Words have meaning, and nobody intelligent listens to remarks like yours without laughing.

AGW just isn't properly quantified in the various areas of cause.
 
Riiiiiight. The hundreds of thousands of PhD scientist all over the planet who agree about AGW, those are the cheerleaders...whereas the relative very few who deny AGW are the only real scientists.

Mm-hmm...got it.

Really?

You have actual names, or are you going with the 98% who agree AGW is real?

How many of those 98% are cheerleading the alarmist aspect?
 
Riiiiiight. The hundreds of thousands of PhD scientist all over the planet who agree about AGW, those are the cheerleaders...whereas the relative very few who deny AGW are the only real scientists.

Mm-hmm...got it.

Nice hyperbole. You don't help your argument with such drivel.

When will you people learn that the skeptical view is a matter of degree? Looking stupid for the alarmist movement doesn't have to be your mission.
 
Gravity is also 'only' a hypothesis. What's flimsy and pathetic is using the words 'hypothesis' and 'theory' as if those are somehow proof that AGW doesn't exist.

The promotion of a hypothesis to a theory is when it holds to be true all of the time you test it after you have used it to make many predictions all of which have been right and not obvious.

So gravity is a theory. That is it has never failed it's tests.

AGW has yet to make a none obvious prediction that is right and has failed it's tests often. Thus it is not a hypothesis it's drivel.
 
Gravity is also 'only' a hypothesis. What's flimsy and pathetic is using the words 'hypothesis' and 'theory' as if those are somehow proof that AGW doesn't exist.

"Gravity" is actually an observed phenomenon. A "hypothesis" or a "theory" might be an attempt to explain what it is or how it works.
 
"Gravity" is actually an observed phenomenon. A "hypothesis" or a "theory" might be an attempt to explain what it is or how it works.

AGW is also an observed phenomenon. Y'all just don't want to accept what's happening right in front of your faces.

Oh, wait - y'all are so doggone sure that (pick one):

1 - it ain't happening
2 - it's happening but there's nothing that can ever be done about it
3 - it's happening but humans have little or nothing to do with it
4 - the world's actually cooling
5 - it's a hoax, a conspiracy among most of the world's scientists to bring us to a socialist paradise
6 - it's a hoax, a conspiracy among the world's (or just America's) leftists to bring us to a socialist paradise

I could probably list more, but I have heard every one of those excuses just on DP...meaning that y'all can't make up your mind what y'all believe...so y'all choose to believe something, anything at all...as long as it isn't AGW. But of course if the right-wing powers-that-be suddenly changed their minds and decided that yeah, it really does exist, y'all would obediently fall in line to do something about it...sorta like most of y'all really didn't like Trump, but most of y'all obediently fell in line to back him up as the months wound down.
 
Back
Top Bottom