Can't we all.. get alone?

For me, right and the correct answer ar ethe same thing. Maybe a consequence of having been immersed in science for a long time? Anyway, we can start from the notion that truth exists, and that people are looking for it. They use fallible tools, make fallible observations, and from that draw fallible conclusions.

But then it's lather rinse repeat. more people, more observations, more conclusions. The idea is to more closely approach the truth (=right = correct) over time. The procedures of science, with hypothesis, theory, tests, and reading the literature, are widely considered to represent a relatively efficient way to make this trip.

Not the only possibility, to be sure. But the process does have a track record in technology. You know, agriculture, bridges, airplanes, rocketry - those sorts of things.

There are other processes (take revelation for example), but I can not readily name instances where they have led to technological innovation.

Science is also full of examples of mistakes being made, being recognized as 'signals emanating from truth land', and leading a prepared mind to make a major leap. Really tough to teach. However, some of the time when students (among others) do an experiment and say 'hmmm, that wasn't supposed to happen', they are poised just before the leap. Whether they make the leap or not depends on preparation, and (in a way that's hard to explain) the frame of mind.

Personally, I am very fond of mistakes. But not when flying airplanes for example

 

Mistakes that give us opportunities to learn are great. Fatal errors, not so much.

 

"Get ALONE"?
Please investigate what you believe in.
You believe in AGW because everyone else does.
Just as you believe this thread says "get along"

 

Oh, come on, it was a simple typo most of us have been willing to let slide. It's not a 'belief system'.

 

Concur.

But.....maybe it does tie into the OP's original question...

 

A little off-topic but I'm reminded of the saying that artists search for what is beauty, politicians (in theory) search for what is right, and scientists search for what is truth.

What is true can be used to support/decide on what is right, but it's not the same thing.

There are multiple instances of people making a leap that leads to a useful invention, although they start from an understanding of the science involved. For instance, Philo T. Farnsworth was plowing a potato field when he came up with the idea of scan lines to produce an image, leading to the practical electric television (mechanical systems were having limited success before that point).

Good thoughts. Your students are lucky to be in your classes.

There's another forum I'm on where a signature reads: If at first you don't succeed, sky-diving is not for you.

 

The point of the PO (IMO) is that even though we may interpret science differently, or read different reports/analyses of the science (one looking at the general conclusion, the other looking at the caveats for instance), there are some things that are still common to almost all of us:

• We want a secure financial future.
• We want an environment that provides us with food and water and recreational opportunities.
• We want to be healthy.
• We want our children and grandchildren to live as well as we have, if not better.

You may think the environment is not at risk, and attempts to reduce CO2 emissions will ruin our financial future. I think saving energy is the same as saving money in the long term and is an economic win-win (particularly when you throw in tying our economy to OPEC's goodwill).

So maybe we shouldn't bicker about individual climate reports so much, and instead find out why we think so differently about reaching our common goals. Maybe not in this thread, but is reducing CO2 really the same as saving energy, and what options will have a cost-benefit down the road?

After all, why do we both drive a Prius? It probably wasn't the same original purpose (reduce air pollution, save money, keep money away from terrorists, protection from peak oil scenarios), but whatever the reason, it brought us to the same answer. Hopefully we can find more answers like that.

 

I (heart) Philo T. Farnsworth! He had a very rough time vs. RCA though. Did not die a happy man.

Some of the others, like Fleming and penicillin, had happier stories.

The thing about inspiration is that your mind has to be ready for it. Or else when the unexpected result pops up, it just sails right by. "Chance favors the prepared mind".

Usually my students don't feel all that lucky. I tell them to read, read, read! but they read SLOWLY because their first language is Chinese and most of the leading scientific publications are not.

We're planning to attend the American Geophysical Union meeting in San Francisco in December. Before then, one student has a lot of preparation and I have to be careful not to explode her head.

AGU, as always, will have lots of climatology and glaciology sessions, but I'll need to focus on soil carbon. So, inspiration! There are some San Franciscans here, why not drop by and see whether the 'clims and glacs' really appear to be fooling themselves.

Wish you wouldn't bring a noose though. That recently happened in Australia, and I thought it rather in poor taste. Instead, let's try to get along. Or alone. Whatever.

 

right = correct, understood. but are we ever correct in science, or are we simply at a point where we have been unable to disprove something to date?

 

You see, if one Climate Scientist who has solid data showing climate change has one little typo in their paper, that invalidates not only the whole paper, but all of their lifetime work, and probably every paper ever presented by the University.

However, if Exxon-Mobile publishes a paper that says "Climate change is false becuse earth is teh center of the univerze and theirfour it can't change it's climate", it MUST be entirely true because it says right there "CLIMATE CHANGE IS FALSE".

Geez, don't you guys know ANYTHING?

 

AGW science knows all there is to know.If you question it you are a denier.If you disprove it you will be ignored.
That's the state of science.
Politics has conquered science.Or at least bought off 97% of all the climate scientists.

 

Can anyone see what's howlingly wrong in this sentence? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

 

Politics is trying to conquer science. Thankfully it has not succeeded, and hopefully never will.

 

"AGW science knows all there is to know."

I have certainly spoken against that presumption here recently.

I would not spend USD$5000 of Chinese NSF (they have one too) grant money to attend the AGU meeting in San Francisco, if I thought this to be the case. Instead, I'll tell some people what we have found out (that they don't know). They'll tell what they have found out (and I don't know). We hope to discuss what nobody knows, and how to fill in those gaps.

There is something called the Critical Zone Observatory, largely in the US, that examines the value and sustainability of soil resources. It should be a topic of discussion at AGU, and I'd like to see it expand its activities - To China for example

But of course most major economies now have little spare cash for new initiatives to find out what we don't know. Even about something we completely depend upon for our lives. Like dirt, that lowly stuff you are admonished to not track into the house.

There is much better 'purple prose' (youse guys know that that is?) at the CZO website. It's easy enough to find.

Soil/climate/water/atmosphere - we don't know everything about them, and their inter relationships. How odd it would be to assert that we have nothing to gain from understanding them better.

 

with a daughter in farming, and a penchant for eating, drinking and breathing, i hear you brother.

 

rs, I'm not sure what you mean. Sure, the up front costs are high ... but in the long run costs amortize. You go solar ... and 5 or 8 years later, the system pays for itself. You buy an EV, and not only do your energy costs go down, your PV can provide energy for THAT ... decreasing the PV's ROI. New low e-windows ... insulation, efficient AC, etc. Even major air lines opt to buy multi million dollar new planes ... less energy/operating costs.

 

Are you suggesting Americans do any sort of long-term planning?


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA *wheeeze* HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAH hahahahahahahaha

excuse me.

Americans doing long-term planning!

HAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA

 

are we different than other cultures? and, if so, why?