Science is limited

[livingwordlabels]

Science, by definition, can only accept something which can be proven or tested in some way. It is therefore limited to making conclusions about physical things.
I'm not saying this limitation undermines science as a valid and extremely useful source of knowledge. However, what does undermine its reliability is when people use it to make assumptions and conclusions without acknowledging this limitation.

For example, when people try to use their scientific way of thinking to decide whether God exists or not. God is spiritual, not physical - a concept completely alien to science.

Also when people use only what they can observe to explain how mankind was created. This inevitably fails, as they have to limit life to something physical and we get the absurd idea of life evolving out of matter. The Bible offers us a more plausible explanation - that God created man from the dust of the ground and breathed into him the breath of life. If we believe the Bible, we can see that humans are spiritual as well as physical.

My conclusion? If you want to understand God, how we were made, our purpose for living, our relationship with God and even our future, then you need something more than science.

[Goat]

Howie, it's conjecture. There are way too many variables that can not be observed and/or isolated for either of these to be true beyond a reasonable doubt, let alone fact.

On the contrary, a lot of it has been known for over 50 years. The progression of global warming, using the level's of CO2 predicted in the atmosphere, is extremely close to actual observations.. the predictions of the 1970's and the current temperature of the world is damn close.

Oh, like the following:

West Antarctic ice sheet and CO2 greenhouse effect: a threat of disaster – Mercer (1978) “If the global consumption of fossil fuels continues to grow at its present rate, atmospheric CO2 content will double in about 50 years. Climatic models suggest that the resultant greenhouse-warming effect will be greatly magnified in high latitudes. The computed temperature rise at lat 80° S could start rapid deglaciation of West Antarctica, leading to a 5 m rise in sea level.�

In response to this we see in Oct. 9, 2009 Nature, Hamish D. Pritchard

Ice loss as a result of accelerated flow, known as dynamic thinning, is so poorly understood that its potential contribution to sea level over the twenty-first century remains unpredictable

A Non-Equilibrium Model of Hemispheric Mean Surface Temperature – Bryson & Dittberner (1976) “By more completely accounting for those anthropogenic processes which produce both lower tropospheric aerosols and carbon dioxide, such as fossil fuel burning and agricultural burning, we calculate an expected slight decrease in surface temperature with an increase in CO2 content.�

Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols: Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate – Rasool & Schneider (1971) “It is found that, although the addition of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does increase the surface temperature, the rate of temperature increase diminishes with increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. For aerosols, however, the net effect of increase in density is to reduce the surface temperature of Earth. Because of the exponential dependence of the backscattering, the rate of temperature decrease is augmented with increasing aerosol content. An increase by only a factor of 4 in global aerosol background concentration may be sufficient to reduce the surface temperature by as much as 3.5 ° K. If sustained over a period of several years, such a temperature decrease over the whole globe is believed to be sufficient to trigger an ice age.�

Lately there have been papers that say that "the global cooling myth" was not being posited in the 1970's. That may be true among certain scientists, but the public argument by the environmental movement was global cooling. I was there and it was as clearly stated as the space program.

I am not arguing for global cooling. May point is that there are too many variables to establish a direct causal link and presume that natural factors will not compensate. Science is good at direct observation in a controlled environment. However, it is technology that is the acid test and the technology necessary to control climate does not exist. That has been the holy grail of weather men since before the tribal peoples thought dancing would cause it to rain.

Out of context quotes , and some unknown items does not mean that AGW is not established, what is not established is some of the effects.

[bluethread]

I am not arguing for global cooling. May point is that there are too many variables to establish a direct causal link and presume that natural factors will not compensate. Science is good at direct observation in a controlled environment. However, it is technology that is the acid test and the technology necessary to control climate does not exist. That has been the holy grail of weather men since before the tribal peoples thought dancing would cause it to rain.

Out of context quotes , and some unknown items does not mean that AGW is not established, what is not established is some of the effects.

Yes, we have statistics. My point is stated at the end of the post, see above.

[Goat]

I am not arguing for global cooling. May point is that there are too many variables to establish a direct causal link and presume that natural factors will not compensate. Science is good at direct observation in a controlled environment. However, it is technology that is the acid test and the technology necessary to control climate does not exist. That has been the holy grail of weather men since before the tribal peoples thought dancing would cause it to rain.

Out of context quotes , and some unknown items does not mean that AGW is not established, what is not established is some of the effects.

Yes, we have statistics. My point is stated at the end of the post, see above.

And, your point is wrong. We not be able to predict specifics, but the trends are predicted, and are following the trends. SO, again you are wrong.

[bluethread]

I am not arguing for global cooling. May point is that there are too many variables to establish a direct causal link and presume that natural factors will not compensate. Science is good at direct observation in a controlled environment. However, it is technology that is the acid test and the technology necessary to control climate does not exist. That has been the holy grail of weather men since before the tribal peoples thought dancing would cause it to rain.

Out of context quotes , and some unknown items does not mean that AGW is not established, what is not established is some of the effects.

Yes, we have statistics. My point is stated at the end of the post, see above.

And, your point is wrong. We not be able to predict specifics, but the trends are predicted, and are following the trends. SO, again you are wrong.

Yes, we have trend analysis, but that does not establish a direct exclusive causal relationship. Correlation does not equal causation, especially in an uncontrolled dynamic environment.

[WinePusher]

Firstly, You do not seem to understand the definition of faith. Faith is holding cognitive content as true, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof or evidence. What you proposed above is that Faith is assuming an un provable assumption. That is just blatantly absurd.

Your definition of 'faith' is totally wrong, plain and simple. Faith is simply believing in something without evidence. When you perform a lab experiment you assume that certain variables will react to each other in a certain way. You assume that the materials will behave lawfully, rationally and uniformly. This is an assumption that is un provable, yet scientists must accept it and believe in it in order to proceed. There is no proof for this assumption, yet people still believe in it. This is called faith. It's a very simple concept so I don't understand why you're having such a difficult time understanding it.

Secondly, These assumptions that you refer to are assumptions that Philosophers make. Do not believe me? Check your own link, it is about Philosophy of Science. Philosophy is not science. Philosophy can not prove / disprove anything so it is only natural for them to try and impose unprovable assumptions on science.

I get it, you're one of those people that has no appreciation for philosophy. That's unfortunate for you, but it really has no bearing on this topic. Philosophy of science is simply a subset category of philosophy that focuses on trying to understand the basis for scientific knowledge. If you've ever been to college you'll notice that there are philosophy of religion courses, philosophy of mind courses, philosophy of mathematics, etc. The point of philosophy IS NOT to impose un provable assumptions on science. Science is based upon un provable assumption and philosophers take notice of this.

Lastly, These Philosophical Assumptions are placed on Scientific Knowledge, the knowledge accumulated and gained by science, not on the scientific method or process itself and certainty not on the scientists. Scientists ignore these Assumptions since as you stated they can not be proved or disproved so they are actually meaningless. The Scientific process caters for testing of assumptions to destruction. There are no assumptions in scientific theories, facts or laws. NONE.

Doesn't matter. The fact is that science rests upon un provable axiomatic assumptions and without these assumption science would not be possible. This is the definition of faith, which is accepting something to be the truth without any evidence or proof. You admit this, but you just don't like it when I use 'science' and 'faith' in the same sentence.

I want to let in onto a little secret here. Science is not an authority or Institution or Ideology or Sect or Cult or Denomination. A group/collection of scientists are not an entity called Science. Science is merely a process how to get to knowledge of the real world. People take this knowledge and build stuff. You and I use the stuff. When you criticize science you are criticizing your own stuff that you decided to buy yourself; you are criticizing yourself. So, you are kicking in the wind with your false accusations on science. Not only are your accusations false, you have completely neglected to understand that you are not accusing anyone here because there is nobody to accuse (authority or Institution or Ideology or Sect or Cult or Denomination) but yourself.p.

I never said ANYTHING about science being an authority or an institution or an ideology or a sect or a cult. The fact that you now have to resort to making up stuff pretty much shows you've lost the argument.

Also, here is my answer to your little bogus article on faith.
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 219#607219

LOL am I supposed to care about a little bogus critique written by some random over the internet? I'm supposed to believe YOU over a respected scientist with multiple publications? No thanks.

[WinePusher]

This assumption is that the universe behaves lawfully, rationally and uniformly.

As was already addressed in one of the critiques I posted, this isn't an assumption. Rather, it's an observation. We can actually see the entire visible universe. It doesn't matter how far back in distance and time we look, or what direction we look, we see the universe behaving exactly the same way, and haven't once seen otherwise.

You're completely wrong. Just because we observe something over and over again does not mean it will behave the same way. There is no absolute certainty that the sun will rise again tomorrow just because we have observed it rising for the past two hundred centuries. Yes, there is a high probability that the sun will rise but the probability is never equal to 100%. This was David Hume's point, just because something occurs repeatedly does not mean it will occur again.

And you said we observed how the universe behaved in the past. Do you see how absurd this is? We have not physically observed anything in the distant past. We also have not physically observed the space at the far ends of the universe. Yet, we assume that the laws the govern our solar system also govern those other galaxies and systems even though we've never physically observed it. We assume, we believe without any evidence, that the physical laws that govern the universe are applied uniformly throughout the entire universe. This is an unproven tenant of science that we all believe.

[Goat]

I am not arguing for global cooling. May point is that there are too many variables to establish a direct causal link and presume that natural factors will not compensate. Science is good at direct observation in a controlled environment. However, it is technology that is the acid test and the technology necessary to control climate does not exist. That has been the holy grail of weather men since before the tribal peoples thought dancing would cause it to rain.

Out of context quotes , and some unknown items does not mean that AGW is not established, what is not established is some of the effects.

Yes, we have statistics. My point is stated at the end of the post, see above.

And, your point is wrong. We not be able to predict specifics, but the trends are predicted, and are following the trends. SO, again you are wrong.

Yes, we have trend analysis, but that does not establish a direct exclusive causal relationship. Correlation does not equal causation, especially in an uncontrolled dynamic environment.

Except, the trend is predicted on the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Your objection is noted, as well as the fact that the trend was predicted, on the basis of the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. and how much is being put out by human activity.


Yes, there are places that deny it, but look at WHO is doing denial. Conservative thing tanks that are being funded by the oil industry... including the think tank in the 1970's that was funded by Phillip Morris that said there was no link between lung cancer and smoking. The heartland institute is funded by the Koch Brother and Exxon Mobile... etc etc etc.

Then, you take a look at the climate scientists that actually work in the field. 99% of them say that global warming is highly linked to human activity.

Who do I trust?? Think tanks funded by the oil industry?? Or the scientists?

[bluethread]

Who do I trust?? Think tanks funded by the oil industry?? Or the scientists?

Who do I trust?? Think tanks funded by the oil industry?? Or the scientists funded by EPA grants?? Neither. However, I do find it interesting that people who deny global catastrophes in the past are warning of one in the future.

[Goat]

Who do I trust?? Think tanks funded by the oil industry?? Or the scientists?

Who do I trust?? Think tanks funded by the oil industry?? Or the scientists funded by EPA grants?? Neither. However, I do find it interesting that people who deny global catastrophes in the past are warning of one in the future.

And what global catastrophe are you talking about?? The global flood? The one that there is no evidence for, verses the tons of peer reviewed articles on global warming??

[bluethread]

Who do I trust?? Think tanks funded by the oil industry?? Or the scientists?

Who do I trust?? Think tanks funded by the oil industry?? Or the scientists funded by EPA grants?? Neither. However, I do find it interesting that people who deny global catastrophes in the past are warning of one in the future.

And what global catastrophe are you talking about?? The global flood? The one that there is no evidence for, verses the tons of peer reviewed articles on global warming??

Let's look at more neutral ground, the volcanos of the 1200's that are thought by some to have put into motion the Dark Ages.