‘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.
I agree that science is based on the idea of testable hypotheses and that testing a hypothesis with an experiment that it does not fail does “prove” that hypothesis is correct.
However, much science is based on mathematical axioms that are capable of proof and so “proof” underpins hypotheses and their testing.
Many tests of hypotheses depend on statistics, which if misapplied (as M Mann should know) can be proved to be wrong by mathematical axioms.
“A mathematician is a blind man in a dark room looking for a black cat which isn’t there.”
Yours truly experienced it in looking for the climate’s natural variability cause.
Proving is for mathematical theorems. Disproving predictions is for hypotheses & theories.
On those rare occasions when you can drag an actual testable prediction kicking & screaming out of a CACCA witch doctor, it’s promptly shown false.
Dyrewulf-
“These days, when I see ‘Michael Mann says…’ all I can think of are the Martians from Mars Attacks. “Ack ack! ACK ack ack!”
Upon reflection, I think a quote from Locutus of Borg applies perfectly to climateers like Mann-
“Why do you resist? We only wish to raise quality of life for all species.”
who is that “wottsupwiththatblog” that showed up in Mann’s twitter feed. Is someone attempting to spoof this site’s host?
This is a grossly embarrassing “own goal” for “my side” — i.e., your side.
I think climate science is mostly pseudoscience, and I’ve been sceptical about global warming for many years. But the empirical evidence for a scientific theory consists of its passing tests. It’s called the hypothetico-deductive method, because an observational consequence is deduced from a hypothesis, and if actual observation is found to confirm what was predicted would be observed, the hypothesis is “corroborated”.
It’s not at all a matter of “proof” — or at least nothing like proof in mathematics. The main reason why climate modelling should command little confidence is because the predictions of the models fail the “tests”, inasmuch as they are even subjected to them.
If I were you, I’d take a closer look at whoever is giving you completely misleading accounts of mainstream philosophy of science.
The “best explanation” at the time for the rumbling of the volcano was that the Volcano God needed the attentions of a comely young female. The “best explanation” at the time for sickness was that there were ill humours in the blood, and they needed to be drained. The “best explanation” for gravity was that the Earth was flat. And, so on.
This isn’t science. It is old timey, primitive superstition.
Mann is right in the sense of distinguishing mathematical proofs from scientific demonstration. Theories in science are never proven; they are always provisional and subject to revision in light of new facts. Theorems in math can be definitively proven, never to be unproved.
The difference stems from that science is non-axiomatic and data-driven. This fully and finally distinguishes science from mathematics and philosophy. Nothing in science is ever taken to be self-evidently true.
On the other hand, Mann’s comment that, “Science works in evidence through best explanations, most credible theories…” is sloppy and allows his work wiggle-room. Science works on falsifiable theories. “Credible” as Mann used it merely means ‘believable.’ ‘Believable’ is a wholly inadequate criterion for scientific theory. Climate modelers believed the hockey stick because it suited their prejudices. Their credit did not make the hockey stick scientific.
If Mann had used the proper criterion, ‘falsifiable,’ it would lead immediately to a question very uncomfortable for him: Is the hockey stick falsifiable? The answer is a definite no. And a critical examination shows that the hockey stick is not even science. It’s based on no physical theory at all. So, Mann must equivocate if he’s to preserve his image.
The statement that I found most egregious was his stunningly self-serving, “One side, us, the scientists, have to be true to our principles, have to be truthful to our audience, have to state our findings with appropriate caveats,…” when we all know he’s done the opposite. He has betrayed science at every turn, obscuring his methods, withholding data, misrepresenting his results (‘I never calculated that r-squared, Senator. It would be a wrong and foolish thing to do.)
If the Steyn case ever comes to trial, I hope to see Steve McIntyre in the witness box: ‘Mr. McIntyre, could you please describe the contents of the ‘Back to 1400 CENSORED” directory.’
Mann also repeats the lie that nearly originated with him, “Scientists and those looking to communicate the reality of science are up against this juggernaut, this extremely well-funded, well-organised smear campaign by … the fossil fuel industry.” What a bald-faced lie. And it’s a lie so absent of substance that a reportorial naif could prove it false.
But it’s repeated over and over, widely and uncritically accepted, and no reporter ever gets to the bottom of it. Maybe that’s because it suits their prejudices. Like the climate modelers’ embrace of the hockey stick because it seemed to “prove” the water vapor feedback they’d built into their climate models, too many reporters accept the lie about fossil-fuel funded smear campaigns because it seems to “prove” the evil capitalist greed they’ve built into their political models.
What other nonsense can one expect from an alleged scientist, Mann, who rewrote the entire climate history of the Holocene Epoch. Nothing that he says or writes has any credibility in my eyes.
His rewriting of climate history is equivalent to the work done by the Holocaust Deniers. So who is the true denier?
Dyrewulf says: August 1, 2013 at 9:39 am
These days, when I see ‘Michael Mann says…’ all I can think of are the Martians from Mars Attacks. “Ack ack! ACK ack ack!”
And “We come in peace” just before they begin slaughtering everyone in sight.
n nnnnnnnnnntkgrrrrrrrrrr lggggggggggggggg6ky
Opps, sorry.
Those are the keys recorded when my face hits the keyboard after falling asleep.
Happens every time I read a Mannian brain fart.
Makes sense , Mann has never worried about ‘proof ‘ for his work , as self promotion and dogma are all that matters to Mann and hang the ‘facts ‘
You like to think that such views would cause other in science given their views on such ideas , but sadly they prefer playing the three wise monkeys or getting their noses the AGW funding bucket .to calling out such BS .
Semantics, maybe.
Science does not work on proof so Mann is correct but to prove a hypothesis data etc. is required by those trying to prove/disprove the idea. Methinks that was what Mann meant – proof is not required for his science.
Steven Mosher says:
August 1, 2013 at 9:45 am
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.
**************
The limit of your imagination and its selective use does not prove A and B are different. What you said proves nothing.
I think the operative is “credible”. Since he and his data aren’t…then game over.
Stephen Mosher said:
“With F=MA, however, we could imagine worlds in which F does not equal MA.”
Ha ha, no, this is wrong. The defined unit of force is kgm/s^2. Can you imagine a world where MA does not equal MA? Of course, in another universe you could define what force means differently, but then again, you could define it differently in our universe, too, if you wanted to do something useless.
I agree, though, that science isn’t about proof, it’s about laws. Once you show a proposition to ever give wrong results, it is known to not be a law, so it’s now known to not be valid science.
Kev-in-Uk says:
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.
————————————————————————————————
Well not quite. So far the theory has not been falsified therefore as Feyman has stated it likely that it is true. But there is no reason why, like Newtons theory that is a mere approximation once someone has dug into and explored the quantum aspects of a more complete formulation.
He was just pointing out that people who don’t understand science dand proof while scientists demand evidence. Way to be in the wrong, lol.
REPLY: Ok then next time you complain about some issue here on WUWT, I’ll direct commenters to address your concerns by just providing “best opinions” rather than any proof. Way to shoot yourself in the foot. – Anthony
@Steve Mosher. IIRC, the philosopher Bertrand Russell spent 42 pages of a book ‘proving’ that 2+2=4.
Then again, we have surely not forgotten that the old English verb ‘to prove’ really means ‘to test’ – but who is Mann going to allow among us mere mortals to test his ‘theory’?
Ahh. Mann-made global warming.
Steve Crook says:
August 1, 2013 at 9:52 am
Reluctantly, I agree with Mann. +1 to Mosher.
——————————–
Mr. Mosher doesn’t like the part of RF’s lecture that comes before the flying saucer bit:
Well there may not be real scientific ‘proof’ in the absolute sense, but there is in the legal sense, where proving beyond a reasonable doubt requires opposing hypotheses be presented and a jury of 12 independent minds view and full comprehend the supporting and opposing hypotheses and unanimously agree on one. In the court of scientific opinion, where fully independent minds analyzed all the evidence, Mann’s high climate sensitivity hypotheses would fail miserably.
Best explanation is a fair description for soft (narrative) sciences lacking provable mathematical theorums. Mann’s problem is he is in denial when it comes to recognizing climate science as a soft science.
I think it’s hilarious how Mann can wrap himself in the truth of science being about credible ideas while making a mockery of his own credibility fighting off FOIA requests.
Feynman also said “It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.”
That is why efforts at fasification are such a important tool for science.