When I took the various science courses in high school and college, it was stressed that a critical part of doing science is coming up with repeatable experiments. I.E., no repeatable experiments = no science. So when I read about the science of AGW, it strikes me as odd, since it's something we can't repeat. There's only one earth, and we can't take it back in time.
I've asked other people about this, and they say that computer models act as substitute experiments. And I think to myself, sure, as far as those programs accurately model the universe.
Is this a naive understanding of science? Can you do science without repeatable experiments? Have I been lied to all these years?!
And does it matter if climate research is actually science?
Slashdot Mirror
I'll take this opportunity to ask the expert.
When I took the various science courses in high school and college, it was stressed that a critical part of doing science is coming up with repeatable experiments. I.E., no repeatable experiments = no science. So when I read about the science of AGW, it strikes me as odd, since it's something we can't repeat. There's only one earth, and we can't take it back in time.
I've asked other people about this, and they say that computer models act as substitute experiments. And I think to myself, sure, as far as those programs accurately model the universe.
Is this a naive understanding of science? Can you do science without repeatable experiments? Have I been lied to all these years?!
And does it matter if climate research is actually science?
Please, educate me.