Empiricism refined

A funny conicidence:

Source: <data:blog.pageTitle/>

. . .
Charles Darwin often claimed to adhere to Bacon's ideals, but he had another side. University of California professor of biology and philosophy Francisco Ayala writes in Darwin and the scientific method:

“Let theory guide your observations.” Indeed, Darwin had no use for the empiricist claim that a scientist should not have a preconception or hypothesis that would guide his work. Otherwise, as he wrote, one “might as well go into a gravel pit and count the pebbles and describe the colors. How odd it is that anyone should not see that observation must be for or against some view if it is to be of any service” But his ambivalence is seen in Darwin's advice to a young scientist:

Let theory guide your observations, but till your reputation is well established be sparing in publishing theory. It makes persons doubt your observations.The same ambivalence is seen in Einstein. Mitigation skeptics like this quote:

No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.

The quote this when the observations show less changes than the model. If the observations show more changes than the model/theory the observations, they quickly forget Einstein and the observations are suddenly wrong.
. . .​

The reason for this post is instructive for @mojo ('pearls before ') but to amplify how science advances. Science is not just a random collection of observations but the abstract, the model that allows us to design experiments, observations to test the model. That @mojo and his leaders work so hard to attack man-made, global warming from combustion CO{2}, well it makes sense. But try as they might, their 'observations' continue to fail. Still, it is a dirty job and someone has to do it. Vast wealth and riches, the Nobel Prize, awaits the experiment that disproves man-made, global warming. In the meanwhile, there are other pockets paying for their efforts ... not mine.

What I find interesting are efforts to refine the models and quantify the effect. Ice, water, and vapor in particular fascinates me because of the heats involved:

• 333 J/g ice->water
  
• 2260 J/g water->vapor

If we could see water vapor, not just fog, clouds, rain, and bodies of water, it would still be hard to see the effect. But ice is an order of magnitude more sensitive to global warming. More importantly, we can see and measure ice. Ice is sensitive to global warming and unambiguously observable.

Bob Wilson

 

Uuuhhhh! Shall we go to Kentucky ???

Before we wander off, I remember the @austingreen phrase "confirmation bias" as if that is a bad thing. CERN is a multi-billion dollar "confirmation bias" that measured the energy of the Higgs boson. Think about it but 'bias" means there is a model for what we don't know but supports "confirmation" or more accurately "disproving" (experiments can only disprove a hypothesis.) The "confirmation" part has to do with experiments to refine the model, to give more details. But the operative word is "bias" the model, the concept that drives science.

Now I am OK with discussing the obvious differences between Antarctic ice over land versus Arctic ice over salt water. I'm also OK with discussing the El Nino and La Nina effects. To suggest these are random, disconnected, 'acts of God' and thus shows the humbug of CO{2} global warming is jumping the gun. It is called raising 'Impossible Expectations.'

In reality, these questions become the subject matter for future graduate papers and expeditions. It is only a matter of time. We don't necessarily know all of the answers BUT we know how to find them and where necessary, adjust the model. Like the physics Standard Model, you still have to look in the dark corners.

Steinhauer created a sonic black hole using a quantum state of supercold fluid called a Bose-Einstein condensate. The fluid flows through a tube in which lasers constrain the flow at two different energy levels, creating a kind of waterfall. Atoms reach supersonic speeds when they spill over its edge. This serves as the model event horizon.

To measure spontaneous Hawking radiation, he measured pairs of sound particles known as a phonons, that pop into existence near the horizon – just as Hawking suggested happens near a real black hole. He then took pictures measuring the refractive index in the fluid – a method used to image waves – to track the sound particle and its partner particle as they moved toward the event horizon. He repeated the experiment 4600 times over six days.​

Bob Wilson

 

Uuuhhhh! Shall we go to Kentucky ???

Before we wander off, I remember someone's phrase "confirmation bias" as if that is a bad thing. CERN is a multi-billion dollar "confirmation bias" that measured the energy of the Higgs boson. Think about it but 'bias" means there is a model for what we don't know but require either "confirmation" or more accurately "disproving" (experiments can only disprove a hypothesis.) The "confirmation" part has to do with experiments to refine the model, to give more details. But the operative word is "bias" the model, the concept, the hypothesis, that drives science.

Bob Wilson