‘Proof? We don’t need no steenkin proof’*
*With apologies to Treasure of the Sierra Madre.
Rich Trzupek writes:
In a post over at Peter Guest’s blog, Michael “Hockey Stick” Mann is quoted making one of the most remarkable statements that I’ve ever heard coming out of a supposed scientist’s mouth:
“Proof is for mathematical theorems and alcoholic beverages. It’s not for science.”
He goes on to explain that science is all about “credible theories” and “best explanations” and his gosh-darn critics supposedly don’t offer up any of those.
Now it seems pretty obvious that Mann’s attempt to separate proof from science stems from increasing public awareness that the warming predicted by the high-sensitivity models that Mann and others have championed just hasn’t occurred over the last fifteen years. No matter. You don’t need “proof” when you have “credible theories”.
Read more here
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
These days, when I see ‘Michael Mann says…’ all I can think of are the Martians from Mars Attacks. “Ack ack! ACK ack ack!”
Well, he may be distinguishing “proof” in the mathematical sense versus “evidence” in the empirical science sense. Science cannot be “proven” like a mathematical theorem, only disproven by observations. That at least might be the defense he would take to this. If he also thinks that “evidence” is not useful, then he truly is misguided…
Maybe ‘proof’ isn’t for Science, but ‘disproof’ certainly is.
As in when the predictions of a hypothesis are not substantiated by the observations, the hypothesis is usually deemed disproven..
Mann tweeted the other day,
https://mobile.twitter.com/MichaelEMann/status/362616608251842560
OT
Russian Ice breaker was breaking up the Ice at the north pole yesterday.
What’s the reason for this, http://www.sailwx.info/shiptrack/shipposition.phtml?call=UGYU
http://www.marynarz.pl/grafika/jednostki_specjalne_foty/1750letpobedy.jpg
Science is not about proof
Feyman
“Some years ago I had a conversation with a layman about flying saucers — because I am scientific I know all about flying saucers! I said “I don’t think there are flying saucers’. So my antagonist said, “Is it impossible that there are flying saucers? Can you prove that it’s impossible?” “No”, I said, “I can’t prove it’s impossible. It’s just very unlikely”. At that he said, “You are very unscientific. If you can’t prove it impossible then how can you say that it’s unlikely?” But that is the way that is scientific. It is scientific only to say what is more likely and what less likely, and not to be proving all the time the possible and impossible. To define what I mean, I might have said to him, “Listen, I mean that from my knowledge of the world that I see around me, I think that it is much more likely that the reports of flying saucers are the results of the known irrational characteristics of terrestrial intelligence than of the unknown rational efforts of extra-terrestrial intelligence.” It is just more likely. That is all.”
math is about proof
logic is about proof
science is about more likely and less likely
one way to understand the difference is to consider this
A) 2+2 = 4
B) F=MA
In the case of A we might argue that there is no possible world in which 2+2 does not equal 4. other rather that it is true in all possible worlds. There is no way, no imaginable way it can be wrong. With F=MA, however, we could imagine worlds in which F does not equal MA.
there is no proof in science.
He is right that science does not do proof. It does theories which are supported by the current data, and those theories remain credible until such time as there is new data to disprove them.
Credible theories require credible data. The problem Mann has, is the CAGW argument has no credible data supporting it anymore. so he has no credible theories either.
Mann disappoints – gavin
More pus from the pustule. Why would we expect anything else from this anti-scientist?
Of course, what he is saying is “Believe me no matter how proven wrong I am.”
‘GlynnMhor says:
August 1, 2013 at 9:44 am
Maybe ‘proof’ isn’t for Science, but ‘disproof’ certainly is.
As in when the predictions of a hypothesis are not substantiated by the observations, the hypothesis is usually deemed disproven..
###########
Actually, not.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duhem%E2%80%93Quine_thesis
@Mosher if proof isn’t for science, then maybe it is wrong to ask for data, equations, and code to replicate and “prove” assertions. Let’s just take the scientists word for it then. That’s basically what Mann is saying. – Anthony
I’m enjoying this opportunity to agree with Mann. Science has a lot (maybe everything) to do with disproof but nothing to do with proof. I prefer my proof in a bottle.
Reluctantly, I agree with Mann. +1 to Mosher.
Steven Mosher says:
August 1, 2013 at 9:45 am
Now suddenly you like Feynman?
Science is about falsification (in Mann’s case the common meaning of the term applies). It is not about “credible theories”. In rare instances, a never-shown-false hypothesis can in fact be “proved”, ie demonstrated objectively “true”, as in the fact that the earth goes around the sun, while rotating & wobbling on its axis, as hypothesized by Copernicus.
The “theory” that the sun & planets go around the earth was credible. The “theory” that phlogiston causes burning & rusting was credible, at least as credible as CACCA is now. Mann, as usual, is dead wrong.
The hypothesis that 90% of (dubiously) observed warming in recent decades (never precisely dated) is due to man-made GHGs & that this effect will have catastrophic consequences has been repeatedly falsified in all its terms.
CACCA has corrupted not only scientific practice itself but the philosophy of science.
He’s right that science only disproves, rather than proves, but he’s basically using weasel words to try to explain why the surface temperature record isn’t playing ball with his favoured theory.
I’d love to know how Mann’s statements plus the divergence between observed and modelled temperatures can equal “settled science” in anyone’s eyes. The null hypothesis is “A doubling of pre-industrial atmospheric CO2 levels will not cause a dangerous rise in surface temperatures”, and it’s a million miles from being disproved.
I see he pulls out the old Big Oil and Tobacco Deniers canards again too.
So proof is for the fools. By extension, disproving anything is also irrelevant. That helps explain the statement and the source.
Now that disproving AGW does not invalidate it, we must accept it – because he said so.
That single quote would make an awesome billboard. Along with an identification of the speaker’s IPCC credentials. The more people drove past it again and again, the more likely they’d finally have the thought “WTF?”
As K. Popper has stated : You cannot prove a theory correct only disprove it. CAGW has been disproved in so many ways that it can no longer be classed as a theory. A warmers wet dream would be closer to the truth.
I actually agree with Mann that science isn’t about proving theories (unlike mathematics). As Einstein said, “No amount of evidence can prove my theory, but only one experiment is needed to disprove it.” In short, science is about disproving theories.
The whole problem with Mann’s approach is that he’s never done any real science, which would mean trying to disprove his hypothesis, rather than trying to support it with endless contortions of the evidence.
Mann is just waving his hands, trying to distract us from the fact that the GHG hypothesis of high climate sensitivity can’t weather (pun intended) the tests of it’s many claims. He’s invoking the straw man of “proof” to distract us from seeing that he’s made no effort to disprove the hypothesis, or to incorporate the work and the data that helps disprove it. No hypothesis is credible unless it weathers those efforts, and “best explanations” have no power, unless they can withstand that sort of assault.
At one time, the GHG hypothesis of high climate sensitivity had at least some credibility to it. But the tests of time, data, and analysis of its predictive power has shown otherwise. No amount of hand-waving about the impossibility of “proof” is going to make that go away.
Nice to see a response by Steven Mosher that isn’t a pithy one liner but a reasoned reply.
With which I fully agree. I’m afraid that attacking a statement simply on the basis that it came from Michael Mann isn’t very scientific.
“Are there, or are there not, flying saucers?” is hardly a scientific theory. It’s just asking someone an opinion.
Dyrewulf says-
“These days, when I see ‘Michael Mann says…’ all I can think of are the Martians from Mars Attacks. “Ack ack! ACK ack ack!”
How about while the Martians are vaporizing people, the Earth-Mars translator one Martian is carrying says- “Don’t run! We are your friends.”
It’s a miracle he didn’t flunk out of kindergarten.
I see he’s still going on about the Jerry Sandusky thing, which is ridiculous. If someone were to say that he is a pimple on the backside of actual science, no one could honestly say he was being compared to either a pimple or a backside. Although, he does act like a horse’s patooty.
This is only one more way Warmists attempt to throw out the TRUTH. Since they cannot PROVE AGW, they attempt to obfuscate to a state of complete confusion, then they can continue with the scare tactics. They cling to the CO2 and models, while claiming the heat is hiding behind the cooling!
Steven Mosher says:
August 1, 2013 at 9:45 am
Of course, your RF example is fine. However, there has to be a contextual element. Science in the FINAL analysis is INDEED about proof. (although it is perhaps better thought of as THE most likely proof in some cases). Relativity wasn’t proven for a good few decades, but proven by observation it was. In the time up to the ‘proof’ it was accepted as the most likely explanation.
The final analysis is what ultimately defines the conclusion of that particular ‘bit’ of science and that is indeed about proof. (I suppose we could elaborate and try and define it as ‘beyond reasonable doubt proof’, too though?)
There is no point in harping on about ‘other’ worlds or other imagined ‘possibilities’ without hypotheses and observations to support them. In the context of AGW/CAGW – the observations are not supporting the hypothesis(es) – and from THAT, the underlying hypotheses (or a significant portion of them, e.g. feedback assumptions/ estimates) are most likely to be wrong.
It appears that Mann is trying to use the ‘inbetween stage’ of not having conclusive findings (or proof if you prefer) as insignificant – which of course, in the context of observational tests of hypotheses – is completely obfuscating the issue!
E = MC^2. Einstein declared it. Others have “proved” it. Is it Science?