Denialism, What is it, and how should scientists respond

[sharper]

Care to compare the predictive abilities of the theory of gravitation and the Dangerous Anthropogenic Climate Change Hypothesis?

Sure. For example our current theory of gravity can't explain the rotation of galaxies without a need for about 99% of matter to be invisible

Galaxy rotation curve - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Stars revolve around the center of galaxies at a constant speed over a large range of distances from the center of the galaxy. Thus they revolve much faster than would be expected if they were in a free Newtonian potential. The galaxy rotation problem is this discrepancy between the observed rotation speeds of matter in the disk portions of spiral galaxies and the predictions of Newtonian dynamics considering the visible mass.

Nor can it explain why gravity has the weak force that it does

purl]http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20227122.900-gravity-mysteries-why-is-gravity-so-weak.html[/url]

As theories go gravity is an extremely poor state without even a consensus view on what it is, where it comes from or why it behaves the way it does. I hope I'm not going to have to explain (again) what "prediction" means in the context of a scientific theory.

[Tombo]

Sure. For example our current theory of gravity can't explain the rotation of galaxies without a need for about 99% of matter to be invisible

Galaxy rotation curve - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Nor can it explain why gravity has the weak force that it does

purl]http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20227122.900-gravity-mysteries-why-is-gravity-so-weak.html[/url]

As theories go gravity is an extremely poor state without even a consensus view on what it is, where it comes from or why it behaves the way it does. I hope I'm not going to have to explain (again) what "prediction" means in the context of a scientific theory.

I said a comparison.

Are you deliberating pretending you can't read properly?

[Wakeupcall]

I said a comparison.

Are you deliberating pretending you can't read properly?

Maybe he simply cannot read properly?

[sharper]

I said a comparison.

Are you deliberating pretending you can't read properly?

Since you're the proponent of the claim that AGW theory is weaker than the theory of gravity and have yet to show any actual problems in AGW theory I rather thought now would be your time to do so. I provided three problems with the theory of gravity above and now is your time to actually participate substantively.

[Akrasia]

Consider this person...
Person D flat out accepts the theory of gravity.
Person D totally ignores scientist C's ideas and goes on a rant about how there is this thing called gravity and doesn't matter how its caused, as it's a fact of life so don't even bother trying to question it....

This is the person I was alluding to.. The flat out acceptance of a theory I was referring to was meant to imply no questions were asked or will be asked with regards validity... (a complete opposite stance of Person B, but quite similar in attitude all the same) Holding an unquestioned belief, because some person reading the news told them so... Who takes no account of scientific evidence when making up their steadfast minds on a particular finding...

I see it as the same thing... But even Person A's stance is wrong.. Flat out acceptance of any scientific theory is unscientific, and ignores the fact the every theory is built on a base of unknowns... It's unhealthy for us as a society to expect science to provide us with absolutes..

I'm not sure that person d would be bothered in participating in discussion on a topic he feels is a 'fact of life that should not be questioned'

As such if people have that attitude, it has zero effect on the scientific debate as they do not get involved, rather, they would get carried along as advancements in science progress. (if they have no interest in the details of a theory, they would continue to believe the most up to date theory without even being aware of it.

If these are people who just believe whatever they see on the news and don't ever even try to question it, then similarly, they are not active participants in the debate and therefore have very limited effects on how science is done.

Compare this with denialists who are typically highly evangelical and anti-intellectual, who specifically go out of their way to make their views heard and to prevent real scientists from going about their business.

I don't believe the two extremes are equally damaging. Science denialism has led to widespread acceptance of demonstrably false beliefs that have very real negative consequences (such as the link between autism and the MMR vaccine, or the AIDS denialism in Africa, or the creationist denial of evolution)

[Tombo]

Since you're the proponent of the claim that AGW theory is weaker than the theory of gravity and have yet to show any actual problems in AGW theory I rather thought now would be your time to do so. I provided three problems with the theory of gravity above and now is your time to actually participate substantively.

What would be the most basic of comparative predictive challenges?

e.g.

1. predicting the time in free fall of an object dropped from a specified height.
   versus
2. predicting the average trend increase in glboal temperatures over a devadal time period.

under a) we can get extremely damn close to predicting the outcome.In fact despite the shortcoming in the theory as is, we can make some amazingly precise predictions that we might require, say, to get a man on the moon and back safely.

under b) under any predictions we have error bands so wide to make the predictions of dubious value. And what actual testable predictions we have tend to fail badly even after accounting for their ludicrous error bands. (Hansen 1988, AR4).

_______________

I love you tombo.

[sharper]

1. predicting the time in free fall of an object dropped from a specified height.
   versus
2. predicting the average trend increase in glboal temperatures over a devadal time period.

In the case of our theory gravity so long as you're dealing with small masses at low speeds outside of strong gravity wells then it does pretty well. In other words, it only works for an extremely narrow range of reality and then breaks down completely consequently the theory of gravity is not very good because every time we make a new observation it tends to be inconsistent with what we thought it would be.

You haven't demonstrated that an AGW decadal temperature prediction is out of line with reality.

[sharper]

The real value of scientific theories is in predicting the patterns in future data not specific data points.

For example, a test which AGW passed was the discrepancy between model predictions and satellite data being resolved in favour of climate models:

Satellite temperature measurements - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For some time, the UAH satellite data's chief significance was that they appeared to contradict a wide range of surface temperature data measurements and analyses showing warming in line with that estimated by climate models. In April 2002, for example, an analysis of the satellite temperature data showed warming of only 0.04 °C per decade, compared with surface measurements showing 0.17 ± 0.06 °C per decade. The correction of errors in the analysis of the satellite data, as noted above, have brought the two data sets more closely in line with each other.

[Tombo]

The real value of scientific theories is in predicting the patterns in future data not specific data points.

For example, a test which AGW passed was the discrepancy between model predictions and satellite data being resolved in favour of climate models:

Satellite temperature measurements - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Don't post the William Connelly bullsh1t here.

That was historical data.

Cite real predictions. AR4 trend or 1988 Hansen are a couple of accessable ones.

Fail.

Fail.

[Wakeupcall]

Don't post the William Connelly bullsh1t here.

That was historical data.

Cite real predictions. AR4 trend or 1988 Hansen are a couple of accessable ones.

Fail.

Fail.

hehe