Certainty in a position gives people a stronger reason not to believe competing ideas. It's basic cognitive dissonance. Let's say I prepared for aliens to visit and destroy the world on a certain day. When that doesn't happen, I can either admit I was wrong or I am uncertain about whether these aliens even exist, or I can confidently believe that the aliens spared us because of our faith. It's easier to confidently believe that AGW is a big hoax than to admit the possibility that we're causing the climate to change. It's easier to believe that evolution is not real if it causes me to question my faith in the existence of God. People will do all kinds of mental gymnastics rather than admit a truth they find emotionally disturbing. Even the lamest excuse will do. The latest is the old "the science isn't settled" when there's the least little bit of uncertainty.
You can certainly be skeptical, but I see hardly anyone who is genuinely skeptical about AGW. I see lots of people who simply refuse to believe it, no matter what evidence is presented. They even argue that the evidence is all wrong. It reminds me of ID proponents who argue that all hominid fossils are fakes. As to your claim that much less work has been done on AGW, I should again point out that the hypothesis is over 100 years old, and all our observations and research are in agreement with the hypothesis. If you have some actual evidence that disagrees with AGW or a better hypothesis than AGW that explains the warming, let's have it. I have yet to see it. Don't throw a fit and say "You're not letting me be skeptical! Waaaa!" You sound like a baby. Present your argument. I have never seen a good one that suggests AGW isn't happening, but maybe you have something new.
Yes, axioms are taken to be true without proof. But given that a handful axioms are true, you can write many proofs. That's as close to a "proof" of anything that I think we can ever come up with.
All we can know for sure about reality is "I think, therefore I am." The anti-science crowd likes to point out when the science is not settled when there's a conclusion they don't like. They still don't understand that science is never settled. All we have is the best working hypotheses so far. If they want to argue that those hypotheses are not correct, they should come up with better hypotheses, instead of saying "Well, you didn't prove it, so I refuse to believe it! Neener, neener!"
Science doesn't even attempt to prove things. The best science can do is find a model that works. If you want proofs, do mathematics. If you actually want to learn about how science is done and what science is all about, you can read about it.
You sound like Bill O'Reilly. Cosmic background radiation. You can't explain that.
Your argument is just like the arguments of people who disagree with evolution or AGW. You're just making stuff up to be argumentative. If you actually want to learn something, you can read about it.
I don't understand this idea you have that the amount of the universe we can observe is getting bigger. Since the 1960s, we've observed the cosmic background radiation. It's the thing farthest away we can observe, because before the cosmic background radiation became visible the universe was opaque. We have been able to resolve galaxies that are farther and farther away, but we knew that there was universe there. We just weren't able to see physical, gravitationally bound objects there before.
No. Eiffel Software trademarked the term Design by Contract. Therefore, whatever scheme you come up with to do something similar, you cannot call it by the same name. You can do exactly what Eiffel does as long as you call it by a different name, such as Programming by Contract. Trademarks protect names. Patents protect inventions.
$53 billion over six years is chump change. We need to cut spending by $500 billion per year and raise taxes by $500 billion per year to maybe dig ourselves out of this hole in two decades. We can't simply stop spending altogether until we pay off the debt, so you can't go faulting every program that costs $9 billion per year for the debt problem.
Coal and natural gas may last a few hundred years. Wind will be available forever. We will have to switch away from fossil fuels at some point, no matter what objection to alternative energy you can produce. You can't change physics.
Because you cannot falsify the hypothesis that an omnipotent being is causing the results. If I were to claim that an omnipotent being is what causes gravity, how would you go about testing the hypothesis? If our observations are the result of some omnipotent being, then anything that occurs would be consistent with that idea. Whatever happens, it was $deity's will. It's the same with the people claiming that the climate always changes, so it's just nature causing global warming. If nature is responsible for all climate change, and all climate change is explained by nature, how could something inconsistent with that idea ever happen? It's just circular reasoning. God mysteriously did it or mother nature mysteriously did it are not testable hypotheses.
The theory of evolution set out to explain a phenomenon we already knew existed. AGW is impressive because it predicted a phenomenon we did not know was going to occur. I don't see any reasonable alternative explanations for the warming we've observed, so the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is the best explanation we have. We have over 100 years of investigation, learning, prediction, verification, experimentation, understanding and opportunities for falsification for AGW. It sounds about as well supported as evolution to me.
Darwin didn't assume anything about cells. His argument was about organisms and traits. The idea is that organisms inherit traits from their parents. He observed variation among organisms in nature, and reasoned that organisms that had a higher probability of having children would pass on their favorable traits to their offspring.
What falsification criterion are you referring to? You're being extremely vague with your critique of evolution. Could you simply present me with some sort of concrete evidence for some other explanation for how species change over time?
Yes, I understand perfectly well that natural selection is needed so that favorable mutations are selected for and unfavorable ones are selected against. But the change in genetic information is due to mutations, not some magic man in the sky designing genes. Without mutation, there would be no differences to select for.
I have no idea what you mean by your analogy. Evolution is a change in genetic information over time. Where genes are not copied properly, that is called a mutation. Therefore, all genetic change is due to the mutations. It's very simple. I think you've become horribly confused.
Details of evolution are "evolving". That evolution occurs and is due to random genetic mutation is settled. People who dislike certain inconvenient facts like to point out where squabbles over the details are taking place, and then claim that the science isn't settled as a way to make it sound like we just don't know anything for sure.
Challenging the accepted view of the world is something to do in a research environment, such as publishing a paper in a research journal. It doesn't belong in a high school classroom. That's where students need to learn the basics of science so they can challenge the accepted view some day. Einstein, for example, did his famous research after receiving his PhD in physics. He didn't develop relativity in high school.
I've heard what ID proponents have to say, and I have never heard them point out an actual scientific flaw in the theory of evolution. I've investigated the arguments, and they're all lame excuses for disbelieving evolution. There is nothing scientific about them. It's pseudo-scientific techno-babble. Behe himself admitted that if science were expanded to include ID, it would also need to cover astrology and other pseudoscience.
There is no scientific debate about evolution. There is only rhetorical debate. It can be discussed in a philosophy class or debated on the forensics team. A debate about evolution has not place in a science class.
No, it came about by asking the question, "What nonsense can I make up that will give creationists a seemingly legitimate reason to disbelieve evolution?" The rhetorical arguments about how to tell if something arose from a natural process vs. being designed by an intelligence do not provide any insights into intelligence. Instead, they mistakenly imply that intelligence cannot arise from natural processes.
No, climatologists certainly do not deny that the climate changes naturally. Feel free to point out any that make such a denial. Your claim is simply a straw man argument against global warming.
Slashdot Mirror
Certainty in a position gives people a stronger reason not to believe competing ideas. It's basic cognitive dissonance. Let's say I prepared for aliens to visit and destroy the world on a certain day. When that doesn't happen, I can either admit I was wrong or I am uncertain about whether these aliens even exist, or I can confidently believe that the aliens spared us because of our faith. It's easier to confidently believe that AGW is a big hoax than to admit the possibility that we're causing the climate to change. It's easier to believe that evolution is not real if it causes me to question my faith in the existence of God. People will do all kinds of mental gymnastics rather than admit a truth they find emotionally disturbing. Even the lamest excuse will do. The latest is the old "the science isn't settled" when there's the least little bit of uncertainty.
You can certainly be skeptical, but I see hardly anyone who is genuinely skeptical about AGW. I see lots of people who simply refuse to believe it, no matter what evidence is presented. They even argue that the evidence is all wrong. It reminds me of ID proponents who argue that all hominid fossils are fakes. As to your claim that much less work has been done on AGW, I should again point out that the hypothesis is over 100 years old, and all our observations and research are in agreement with the hypothesis. If you have some actual evidence that disagrees with AGW or a better hypothesis than AGW that explains the warming, let's have it. I have yet to see it. Don't throw a fit and say "You're not letting me be skeptical! Waaaa!" You sound like a baby. Present your argument. I have never seen a good one that suggests AGW isn't happening, but maybe you have something new.
Yes, axioms are taken to be true without proof. But given that a handful axioms are true, you can write many proofs. That's as close to a "proof" of anything that I think we can ever come up with.
All we can know for sure about reality is "I think, therefore I am." The anti-science crowd likes to point out when the science is not settled when there's a conclusion they don't like. They still don't understand that science is never settled. All we have is the best working hypotheses so far. If they want to argue that those hypotheses are not correct, they should come up with better hypotheses, instead of saying "Well, you didn't prove it, so I refuse to believe it! Neener, neener!"
Science doesn't even attempt to prove things. The best science can do is find a model that works. If you want proofs, do mathematics. If you actually want to learn about how science is done and what science is all about, you can read about it.
You sound like Bill O'Reilly. Cosmic background radiation. You can't explain that.
Your argument is just like the arguments of people who disagree with evolution or AGW. You're just making stuff up to be argumentative. If you actually want to learn something, you can read about it.
I don't understand this idea you have that the amount of the universe we can observe is getting bigger. Since the 1960s, we've observed the cosmic background radiation. It's the thing farthest away we can observe, because before the cosmic background radiation became visible the universe was opaque. We have been able to resolve galaxies that are farther and farther away, but we knew that there was universe there. We just weren't able to see physical, gravitationally bound objects there before.
Assert detects errors a runtime. Java has had those for years. Design by Contract finds errors at compile time.
No. Eiffel Software trademarked the term Design by Contract. Therefore, whatever scheme you come up with to do something similar, you cannot call it by the same name. You can do exactly what Eiffel does as long as you call it by a different name, such as Programming by Contract. Trademarks protect names. Patents protect inventions.
$53 billion over six years is chump change. We need to cut spending by $500 billion per year and raise taxes by $500 billion per year to maybe dig ourselves out of this hole in two decades. We can't simply stop spending altogether until we pay off the debt, so you can't go faulting every program that costs $9 billion per year for the debt problem.
I don't think you're aware of the latest plan for alternative energy.
That's why we're developing grid energy storage.
Coal and natural gas may last a few hundred years. Wind will be available forever. We will have to switch away from fossil fuels at some point, no matter what objection to alternative energy you can produce. You can't change physics.
Evolution doesn't try to explain how life came to be in the first place. Your doubts are outside the framework of the theory of evolution.
Because you cannot falsify the hypothesis that an omnipotent being is causing the results. If I were to claim that an omnipotent being is what causes gravity, how would you go about testing the hypothesis? If our observations are the result of some omnipotent being, then anything that occurs would be consistent with that idea. Whatever happens, it was $deity's will. It's the same with the people claiming that the climate always changes, so it's just nature causing global warming. If nature is responsible for all climate change, and all climate change is explained by nature, how could something inconsistent with that idea ever happen? It's just circular reasoning. God mysteriously did it or mother nature mysteriously did it are not testable hypotheses.
The theory of evolution set out to explain a phenomenon we already knew existed. AGW is impressive because it predicted a phenomenon we did not know was going to occur. I don't see any reasonable alternative explanations for the warming we've observed, so the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is the best explanation we have. We have over 100 years of investigation, learning, prediction, verification, experimentation, understanding and opportunities for falsification for AGW. It sounds about as well supported as evolution to me.
Darwin didn't assume anything about cells. His argument was about organisms and traits. The idea is that organisms inherit traits from their parents. He observed variation among organisms in nature, and reasoned that organisms that had a higher probability of having children would pass on their favorable traits to their offspring.
What falsification criterion are you referring to? You're being extremely vague with your critique of evolution. Could you simply present me with some sort of concrete evidence for some other explanation for how species change over time?
Yes, I understand perfectly well that natural selection is needed so that favorable mutations are selected for and unfavorable ones are selected against. But the change in genetic information is due to mutations, not some magic man in the sky designing genes. Without mutation, there would be no differences to select for.
No, but they should be fired for presenting ID as science. That's clearly what the law is about.
I have no idea what you mean by your analogy. Evolution is a change in genetic information over time. Where genes are not copied properly, that is called a mutation. Therefore, all genetic change is due to the mutations. It's very simple. I think you've become horribly confused.
Details of evolution are "evolving". That evolution occurs and is due to random genetic mutation is settled. People who dislike certain inconvenient facts like to point out where squabbles over the details are taking place, and then claim that the science isn't settled as a way to make it sound like we just don't know anything for sure.
Challenging the accepted view of the world is something to do in a research environment, such as publishing a paper in a research journal. It doesn't belong in a high school classroom. That's where students need to learn the basics of science so they can challenge the accepted view some day. Einstein, for example, did his famous research after receiving his PhD in physics. He didn't develop relativity in high school.
I've heard what ID proponents have to say, and I have never heard them point out an actual scientific flaw in the theory of evolution. I've investigated the arguments, and they're all lame excuses for disbelieving evolution. There is nothing scientific about them. It's pseudo-scientific techno-babble. Behe himself admitted that if science were expanded to include ID, it would also need to cover astrology and other pseudoscience.
There is no scientific debate about evolution. There is only rhetorical debate. It can be discussed in a philosophy class or debated on the forensics team. A debate about evolution has not place in a science class.
No, it came about by asking the question, "What nonsense can I make up that will give creationists a seemingly legitimate reason to disbelieve evolution?" The rhetorical arguments about how to tell if something arose from a natural process vs. being designed by an intelligence do not provide any insights into intelligence. Instead, they mistakenly imply that intelligence cannot arise from natural processes.
No, climatologists certainly do not deny that the climate changes naturally. Feel free to point out any that make such a denial. Your claim is simply a straw man argument against global warming.