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

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

  1. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,225
    Sure it is river, and that's what people are trying to relay to you.
    So again to spell it out to you, even if there is only a 40 or 50% chance that the science of global warming is correct, and the greenhouse effect that we see on Venus [making it the hottest planet] is starting to take effect on earth, then we need to take action, even at the chance we are wrong...that's what erring on the side of caution means.
    And doing nothing to prevent or reduce global warming, within our technical capacity.
    That's why countries around the world are starting to using alternative, clean energy sources.
     
    Last edited: Oct 20, 2016
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,617
    Can you explain your use of the term "downfall"? Downfall of *what*?

    Foolishly ignoring clear warning signs could also result in our downfall, no?

    I recommend considering which is the more prudent way, continuing to release billions of years of sequestered carbon back into the atmosphere in a couple of centuries, or look for environmentally neutral sources of energy, such as solar or wind power.

    Seems to me that a "wise" person would strive for the latter .

    And lastly, when non-renewable sources are gone, and they will be gone within the next couple of centuries, they are really gone!
    A "downfall" moment.
     
    Last edited: Oct 20, 2016
    paddoboy likes this.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    The earth goes through cycles, such as the last ice age, followed by the melting of the glaciers. Say for the sake of argument, the observations of climate change is really the earth is changing, but in a natural way. Say also, for the sake of argument, this natural change is going to be of the same magnitude of doom and gloom, as is currently being predicted for manmade, by computer models.

    What would happen if we crippled business and restrict personal behavior, to reduce carbon based energy, all for nothing? In the scenario I presented, these changes in culture, do little to alter the natural course of affairs. However, they will impact humanity. Instead of a growing world economy, to help fund the migration and relocation of humans due to the natural changes, we have a depressed world, that did not change the natural course of events, but was able to cripple the human ability to deal with the huge logistic costs, that appear.

    The analogy is, before the year 2000, many people expected a great change was about to occur. If you were one of those people, who assumed this change, there were certain actions one could take, to be better prepared. Say you quit your job, and devote all your time and savings to building shelters and stockpiling provisions. When the day of expected doom finally came, and nothing happened as expected, one was left unprepared for the reality future. One was well prepared for the imaginary future, while hurting their chance to deal with the real.

    It is better to allow people to prepare as they see fit, just like with the year 2000. If the population splits, at least half will be prepared for the future, which assures humans live on. If you force all eggs in one basket, this is a crap shoot.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,617
    Well the only way we can find out if humans contribute to GW, if we stop spewing CO2 into the atmosphere.
    http://www.worldometers.info/

    This is from human activity this year.
     
  8. PhysBang Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    See, "consensus" shows that your last statement is a lie. Because we know that, when we look at actual scientists who investigate global warming in depth, the vast majority of their papers make the claim that there is a human cause. That's why consensus, at least in the form of actually looking at what the people who study the science, means something.
     
  9. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,942
    The "best explanation" is one that is extensible or able to be scaffolded in order to explain other observations. When things are observed that are not explained by the scaffolding in place to explain them, either the observation has been confounded by uncontrolled factors (like a magician's trick) or another explanation will be needed and the older ones discarded or modified to account for the new observations.

    This trial and error process is basically the same as the scientific method, analogous in some ways to the process of natural selection applied to a process for finding those ideas that best explain and are consistent with other tested ideas about explaining as much of what we observe as possible.

    And so what is the best explanation as to why hasn't this thread been flagged about a dozen or so times by a moderator for wandering so far off topic? A side track onto GW might be OK if that is what the OP wanted to use it as a "best explanation" example, but then, what is that doing in "General Philosophy". There are better places for such a discussion.
     
  10. river Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,206
    Consensus does not imply truth . Climate scientists don't use " global warming " anymore by the by . It's climate change .

    If you investigate in depth , such as Tim Ball's book . Short read . And go from there , you will be more informed on the climate change science . And the politics envolved .
     
  11. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,225
    There is plenty of evidence for human induced global warming, and governments all around the world, have recognised that evidence and consequently the move to alternative energy sources and moving away from coal and even in some places nuclear fission.
    And while certainly other causes are beyond our control, such as our orbit around the Sun, and its orbit around the galaxy, and other astronomical/cosmological issues, human induced global warming and climate change is near certain.
    And as I have told you many times, and as you have ignored many times.
    Even if there was reasonable doubt and we were going to err, Our children, and there children would demand that we err on the side of caution.
     
  12. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,525
    Why would anyone want to read a book about climate change that's written by a known liar with no background in the subject?
     
    danshawen likes this.
  13. river Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,206
    river said:

    I don't understand .
     
  14. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,942
    I'm assuming you are referring to paddo's suggestion of the climate consensus papers of Cook, et. al. If you wish to be skeptical of GW, even when the preponderance of opinion and/or evidence is against you, that's fine. So, what books have you been reading (as an alternative to all this climate consensus), or alternatively, what facts or data do you have that are inconsistent with its analysis? I'm not trying to be impertinent or troll here. This process is all simply how real science is done. The climate itself is perfectly capable of sorting out who was wrong, in any case.
     
  15. river Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,206
    Read Tim Balls book

    The climate does not communicate with us ; in the sense that it will not tell us whats really going on and why .

    CC (Climate change) not gw ; get with it . At least do that .

    The thing is here nobody will read a book by any author who has been ridiculed . At least wonder why he is being ridiculed .

    But in the end we all have to make up our own mind , by reading their thinking and why .

    Be independent people , otherwise your thinking will always be controlled .
     
  16. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546
    River,

    Why your punctuations are with a space? It is very straining to read with repelled punctuations.
     
  17. river Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,206
    Didn't notice

    Otherwise your thoughts ?
     
  18. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546
    Well the magnitude or/and timeline of impact of global warming as caused by us, may be exaggerated but it cannot be said that global warming issue is fake or certain deliberate attempts are being made to portray gloomy picture. But why are we discussing this here?
     
    danshawen likes this.
  19. river Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,206
    Climate change , not gw.

    Oh climate change is real , just not caused by Humanity .

    Why here ? It just happened that way .
     
  20. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,525
    It's quite simple.
    Ball isn't a climatologist and he lied about long he'd been a professor (28 claimed vs. 8 actual), he lied about his qualification (first climatology PhD in Canada claimed vs. being actualy a geographer)
     
  21. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    The problem is one cannot compare modern data collection, to the data collection used to define the past; satellite images in all wavelengths, versus tree rings. Modern data collection has more options, with continuous accuracy. Data collection from the past has a handful of bulk inference techniques. An analogy is looking at only the annual average temperate and rainfall in one study; old earth type data. We then compare this to second study, with continuous real time data. The former will not tell you that that the year had a dry winter, a wet spring, a dry summer and a wet fall if it averages out normal. The day by day data will make that years's weather look more unusual, so climate change appears like a more logical conclusion.

    Just because one is a climate scientist, does no mean they have common sense in psychology; calibrate their own mind. How about for the next year; 2017, we limit all climate scientists to collecting only forensic climatology data, so we can compare apples to apples? If we did that, most people would say that the climate appears to be becoming more uniform. We may need to wait to the end of the summer, for the new tree ring to appear. In the mean time, we will need to ignore all the storms and draught over the summer. By the end of the summer, when the tree ring finally appears, most people will forget all these details, and will only see the official average tree ring. If there is no official record of the storms, they did not occur, officially, based on prestige.

    As a parallel for the same dividing line, the Wikileaks data about Hillary Clinton should be the story, since it tells of a stacked deck approach between power and media, helping to define the opinion of the masses by undermining the opposition with gossip. The countering focus, is not about denying this data, rather is about trying to discredit the messenger; Russians did it. Nobody is denying the data. Rather the goal is to compare the prestige of scientists in the field, to those who have less prestige propaganda to define public opinion. This impacts the prestige equation, which becomes litmus test for truth for the liberal base.

    Prestige is subjective. Emotions are also subjective. Logic needs one to shut off the emotions, to work optimally. As long a prestige is being used, logic is never able to work properly. The mind of the mob wants something subjective, to feed their emotions, so they can feel conviction. Cold logic does not appeal to emotions, and therefore can't induce conviction as easily.

    The topic is about truth, which needs one to understand the role of subjectivity versus pure logic.
     
    Last edited: Oct 23, 2016
    danshawen likes this.
  22. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    Prestige often works the way a large government bureaucracy works. The prestige increase, as you work your way up the ladder to the top. What that often means is the people at the bottom, have little say, even if they are right. Those above them higher prestige, will weigh the new ideas, based on their own personal prestige equation. Since then wish their own prestige will increase; move up the ladder, if an idea or suggestion creates uncertainty in their future prestige, sustaining or increasing prestige decides. Often there is fear of novelty, so it never goes anywhere.

    In the 1980's the Japanese corporate model became more in vogue. This model tried to better integrate ideas from the bottom of the chain of command, where prestige is low. It was not about only prestige being important, but logical ideas being important apart from prestige equations. If was OK for management to tap into the ideas of people in the field, with prestige enhanced by being opened minded. Those who were more political; subjective skills, did not like this, since it required they understand how the science or technology works. One can't just always treat lower prestige with contempt as a calculated guess for maintaining one's own prestige, while you kiss higher prestige butt. The truth can get foggy when prestige rules.
     
    danshawen likes this.
  23. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,942
    Academic credentials of any variety only mean that you are trained to go about research in a certain way. It is a good way, for the most part, but it really gives no one a monopoly on truth, only that whatever truth is offered is traceable to a source. The source can still be wrong, or as Wellwisher pointed out, merely outdated by means of more modern, thorough, sensitive, or rigorous attempts to arrive at conclusions that are as close as we can get at the truth, the whole truth, and a truth that can be relied upon for the business of survival, which is the only truth any of us really give a damn about anyway.

    What a great thread. Thank all of you.
     

Share This Page