‘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
Steven Mosher says:
August 1, 2013 at 9:45 am
“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.”
That argument would be false.
2+2=4 is true only under the axioms we choose.
http://us.metamath.org/mpegif/mmset.html#trivia
I believe I have to agree with Mann. Hypotheses and theories can be falsified but not proven. A theory that is not consistent with observations nor results in predictions that are consistent with observations (data) is falsified (disproven). Almost all the chemistry I know is a group of theories that seem to work. A goodly number of them have to do with electrons. Anyone ever seen an electron?
In response to:
Mosher says
Steve Crook says:
August 1, 2013 at 9:52 am
James Evans says:
August 1, 2013 at 11:33 am
Bob Ryan says:
August 1, 2013 at 11:33 am
(and most specifically)
Ryan says:
August 1, 2013 at 10:27 am
OK. Let us restate it then:
All evidence available to date proves that Mann’s CAGW religion (er, theory) is dead, flat, absolutely wrong.
Mann like quite a few folk seems to be confused between scientific theories, laws and hypothesis, but then that’s no surprise.
I am always thinking:
This 1-2-4 then 8 or 1-2-4 then 6?x or + which?
111111111×111111111=12345678987654321 12345678 9 87654321 beautiful jiji.
Regards.
I think this quote speaks from a mind that is troubled with dissonance. He wants to believe himself to be great like a God, but knows he is falling apart and becoming the object of ridicule and public failure. It is a way of squaring the paradox between and an over inflated ego that knows no humility and impending shame.
Science is built on a scoffold of objective truth. There are other forms of truth, but you cannot flit between the objective truth required by science and the plastic form of truth that William James observed in nature and our personalities, they do not mingle.
‘Kev-in-Uk says:
August 1, 2013 at 10:06 am
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.”
No science is not about proof.
Lets take a simple example.
In logic I tell you the following
1: If A, then B
2: A
3; therefore B
Would you suggest running an experiment to test this?
Could you imagine ANYTHING that could falsify this?
No.
Now I tell you E=Mc^2
would you suggest running an experiment to test this?
Can you imagine things that could falsify it?
yes.
The reason why we test statements in science is because we cannot prove them by math and logic.
The whole point that popper and others made about science was that science was different from math and logic and different from metaphysics
Simply: metaphysics ‘god exists’ is not falsifiable. Logic and math isnt tested by experiment. it is always true, true for all time, true independent of what world we are in.
Science, science is just the best story we have about the world we happen to find ourselves in. If tommorrow somebody came up with a better theory than relativity we would not say : “well your better theory cant be right because relatively has been proved”
we would say ” hey your theory is better than relativity, cool!, I guess einstein was wrong”
But if I come up to you and say ‘Ive proven that 2+2 = 5, you are not going to ask to see my data, you are not going to ask to see my code. you dont have to check my work, because you know that no evidence can change what is proven.
Physics *tries* to bring “proof” to the table in science (during working hours, that is) and nowadays is quantifying its shortfall. In astronomy it is “dark” this-or-that, in thermodynamics it is “entropy” which is the gap between model and experiment. So call it “X” and try to figure out what it is — science has reached the algebraic level of mathematical proof, where X has not yet been solved.
Math is a framework that has well defined and thoroughly tested axioms at its foundation and axioms built upon more axioms and more upon those. Thus, math problems are “provable” because of that well established and carefully vetted process of converting theorems into axioms and adding them into the enormous framework that is known as mathematics. Hell, there are even branches of math that identify the types of theorems that are being examined and the place inside of the enormous framework (and where in the problem space) those particular math pursuits ought to be placed. Thus, we have pure math, applied math, theoretical math etc. Then on the other hand, we have climate science, which according to Mr Mann, seems to be a place where “truth” has no need of a complex framework built upon axioms. But where uncertainty can be discounted by simply telling people that we have an opinion based upon a theorem. It’s not scientific method, it’s witch doctoring.
To make either a simple or sophisticatedly weighted average of input data that contains both proxies that suddenly kink upwards or downwards or just trend downwards with no jump at the end and then blend in data that does have a sudden hockey stick blade at the end gives a fundamentally meaningless result since the messy input data merely averages out except for the cherry picked ones that spit out the blade. It is an act of merely throwing a lot of random data into the mix in order to prop up local contemporary proxy glitches as being both worldwide and supported by multiple types of proxy, all the while utterly ignoring the dozens of proxies that clearly show hotter Roman and Medieval periods that can be viewed on CO2Science: http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.php. If the input data don’t fundamentally relate to each other in basic shape then an average is just “garbage out.”
Science is about doubt. Religion is about belief.
Mann believes.
Therefore, Mann is doing religion.
“Know then thyself, presume not God to scan.
The proper study of mankind is Mann.”
There are no worlds where 2+2=4 does not hold true, Mosh? C’mon…how about base 2 and base 3 in this world, for starters?
Here’s a thought experiment and it requires no “proof” only “theory.”
So, Michael Mann is driving down the road, gets pulled over, and subsequently arrested for drunk driving. Now, since this is fantasy the reader is most certainly invited to substitute a drunk driving arrest with whatever delightful arrest of Michael Mann they may choose to entertain themselves with.
Anyway, Michael Mann now has his day in court. He pleads before the judge that there’s no proof that he was driving drunk because the officer was too lazy (a trait generally attributed to climate scientists) to conduct a breathalyzer test.
The judge looks at the officer who explains that he may have done a breathalyzer test without Michael Mann’s knowledge. So Michael Mann may be wrong about this.
Michael Mann says that if the officer did the test he’s entitled to see the results. The officer says to Mann, “I’ve been doing this as a police officer for over 20 years, I don’t have to show you the results when all you want to do is make me look like I’m wrong.”
Michael Mann says, “No, I just don’t wanna lose my coal mining job, my AC, my house, my standard of living…” Michael Mann stops, recognizes he’s been babbling and says, “I meant I don’t wanna lose my driver’s license.”
The officer says, “All research shows, by the overwhelming majority of officers, that anybody on the road at 3:00 on a Saturday morning is driving drunk.”
Michael Mann pleads, “I wasn’t on the road at 3:00 Saturday morning.”
The judge says, “So?”
Mann goes, “I can prove it for chrissake.”
The judge admonishes Michael Mann saying, “We don’t use proof in court, only theory. And the officer’s theory is the best. Can you come up with a counter theory?”
Mann’s desperate. He whines, “I’ve got witnesses, for chrissake.”
Once again the judge admonishes Mann. “Ever since science and politics became intertwined, married, as one, symbiotic (ok, I’ll stop), we no longer use proof as a standard for public policy. Only theory. And, what the heck, so we apply it to the court room too. Proof is irrelevant. Now I say, guilty as charged.”
Michael Mann gets a restricted worker’s driver’s license for commuting to the Bristlecone pine forest in Nevada but it doesn’t do him any good because he’s never been there.
When you pick and choose favorable “data”, reject non-favorable data, and then develop alternative methods of analysis that uniquely give you the answer you prefer, you have already built in its falsification as a credible theory by your credulousness. There is no doubt in my mind that this ejaculation on proof is an unintended revelation of his awareness that he has been caught in the unexpected bright lights that were not shining early on in the touchy-feely, heady, one-sided world of his creations – it’s his lame answer to his critics. The proofs of mathematics even had to be confounded and twisted in his theory (so it always gave a hockey stick). He even had to put a “positive” proxy upside down to make it fit – a thing we may see much more of if we don’t see some (unhidden) sign of warming soon. Am I wrong in observing that he has largely abandoned scholarly research (after the rabbit punch he earned) for popular books, speeches at love-ins and law suits. It is obscene after all this chicanery, to be defining what proof is all about and it is troubling to see so many otherwise thoughtful commenters here be sucked in by it. I think “poof” is acceptable term for the end game of all this stuff.
But here he fails to explain a few important phrases.
A) “best explanations, most credible theories” But what is best? For a layman the answer is the one with most evidence to support it. For a scientist the answer is the one with the least evidence to oppose it and no credible evidence to disprove it.
If Mann was an honest scientist then he would have abandoned his Hockeystick after M&M’s E&E paper and been promoting the failures of the models to explain the pause.
B) “we have to play by the rules” What rules? How does he think peer review is meant to work – double-blind? We have see he doesn’t mean that form his email. So what rules does he think is binding him?
Seemingly, from this interview, the rules of sounding sciency rather than making bold statements that sound like a politician But phrasing is not content.
C) “They’re not offering up credible alternatives or explanations. In most cases they’re trying to pick holes.” If you have an hypothesis you must show that it is more probable than the null hypothesis. – that it would have happened anyway. He claims that the world is warming due to CO2 and the climate has changed in an unprecedented way. He has to prove that. No-one else has to tell him how to build a weather-control machine. He is the guy who claims mankind already has one.
It is up to him to show there is anything to disprove.
Science is not about proof.
Science is about disproof and evidence.
Mann hasn’t got that far yet. Or perhaps he hasn’t got back there since the breaking of the Hockeystick.
Steven Mosher Says
============
‘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
===================================
Actually not –
Paull Feyerabend in his book “Against Method” epistemological anarchy” . Feyerabend shows shows through historical case studies that scientists do not use a fixed method to validate or falsify theories and that if they did they would not be able to make scientific progress. Science is a social process with social standards that creates the science that is needed by a society.
From the Wikipedia article
===================================
Feyerabend divides his argument into an abstract critique followed by a number of historical case studies.[2]
The abstract critique is a reductio ad absurdum of methodological monism (the belief that a single methodology can produce scientific progress).[3] Feyerabend goes on to identify four features of methodological monism: the principle of falsification,[4] a demand for increased empirical content,[5] the forbidding of ad hoc hypotheses[6] and the consistency condition.[7] He then demonstrates that these features imply that science could not progress, hence an absurdity for proponents of the scientific method.
The historical case studies also act as a reductio.[8] Feyerabend takes the premise that Galileo’s advancing of a heliocentric cosmology was an example of scientific progress. He then demonstrates that Galileo did not adhere to the conditions of methodological monism. Feyerabend also argues that, if Galileo had adhered to the conditions of methodological monism, then he could not have advanced a heliocentric cosmology. This implies that scientific progress would have been impaired by methodological monism. Again, an absurdity for proponents of the scientific method.[9]
Feyerabend summarises his reductios with the phrase “anything goes”. This is the only overarching methodology he can offer which does not inhibit the progress of science.[2]
===================
Pat
‘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.”
FALSIFIABLITY refers to a principle and not a practice.
the concept of falsifibility goes back to the concept of verifiability, Carnap ,Flew, and The veinna circle
in short, the logical positivists wanted to distinguish between metaphysics and science and math
lets take a metaphysical statement: absolutes exist, or god exists. The problem they noted with statements like this is that there was no possible empirical evidence that could be brought for or against these statements. They are not falsifiable by emprical evidence IN PRINCIPLE.
On the other hand we have statements of math 2+2 = 4. these statements are also free from being verified or falsified. they are unfalsifiable, but they are true.
Science contains statements that are falsifiable IN PRINCIPLE, that is, we cant specify what kind of evidence would count for and against the proposition.
With the hockey stick. it is falsifiable in principle. In practice, mann resists changing his position. This resistence is possible only because there is no proof in science
It is true that proof is for math and logic. When Mann says that critics have no explanations for the recent warming, that is a logical statement. A combination of urban heat island and natural variability has not been excluded as an explanation of the recent warming. So he is wrong.
Lately, I have looked at some data where I live, and the warming since 1940 seems to be directly related to urban development. The UHI reduces the difference between the 3rd coldest daily min of the month and the 3rd warmest daily min of the month without changing the distribution of daily max. If I choose a first station in 1930-1949 and a second station in 1990-2009 such that their variability in daily min is similar and their site is less than 50km apart. They have a very similar temperature, day or night.
Anthony Watts says:
August 1, 2013 at 9:57 am
@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
#############################
If I told you that 2+2 =5, you would not ask to see my code or data because you know that 2+2=4. No evidence could change your mind. If I tell you that C02 causes warming you will want to see my code and data because you know all science “proofs” are open to question, open to challenge, open to different explanations, open to revision, open to refinement, open to being wrong.
REPLY: this is the same argument that warmists use. i.e. we “know” that C02 is the cause of all the warming, therefore you don’t need to see any data or code.
– Anthony
Actually, 2 + 2 = 4 is false in in a base 3 number system.
F = MA is true in the earth frame of reference. We are not talking about a conceivable undiscovered solar system. We are discussing AGW on earth after all.
Mann is actually right from his piont of view. In modern feminized academia feelings and daydreams (theories and models) are science. Mathematical proof and empirical testing are just patriarchal tools used to subjugate women. “Nobody really knows what the square root of 16 is”
@ggoodknight:
3. Every “good” scientific theory is a prohibition: it forbids certain things to happen.
The more a theory [observationally] forbids, the better it is.
So long, of course, the data and observations are consistent with the forbidden domains.
#3 is an elegant statement worth remembering.
Steven Mosher says:
Several years ago, a true scientist actually measured the alpha particles reflected from a very thin metal foil. He recorded all of his data (though, like all real-world scientists – all of “his work” was actually done by his graduate students and funded by others) and revealed ALL of his data and methods to the world: including that data that contradicted absolutely EVERY current theory and ALL previous “evidence” about the atomic theory of molecules, atoms, nuclei and electrons. Those “battleship shells reflecting off of tissue paper” were teh proof that destroyed everybody’s else logic, theory, evidence and the current state of the world. But notice: That one scientist started with NO ACCEPTABLE THEORY of what was causing the rebound of the alpha particles and NO acceptable physical or mathematical justification for the rebounding particles.
In Mann’s world of so-called “science” and mathematics and logic and computer modeling, those rebounding alpha particles COULD NOT HAVE BEEN EVER BEEN FOUND.
Simple.
1: If “CO2 increases”, then “The global average temperature increases”
2: “CO2 has increased substantially”
3; therefore “The global average temperature has increased” …
This is the central belief of the Mann-made CAGW religion (er, theory).
Let us run an experiment, complete with controls:
CO2 is steady, what did global average temperature actually do?
CO2 is increased (for 15+ years), what does global average temperature actually do (over that same 15+year period)?
Well, during a number of periods when there were no substantial volcanoes
CO2 was steady, global temperature decreased.
CO2 was steady, global temperature was steady.
CO2 was steady, global temperature increased.
CO2 increased, global temperature was decreasing – from 1940 through 1975. (35 years)
CO2 increased, global temperature increased – from 1975 through 1998. (23 years)
CO2 increased, global temperature was steady – from 1996 through 2013. (now 17 years)
My 52 years of instrument data while CO2 is steadily increasing contradicts your 23 years of accidental co-relation of CO2 and temperature.
My 2500 years of temperature proxies while CO2 was steady contradicts your 23 years while man-made CO2 increases.
Graham says:
August 1, 2013 at 10:30 am
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.
—————————————————————————————————
Well not quite. When new evidence becomes available a case can be reopened as it does in science.
Sorry, I think this is the right link.
Come on man. As observations and analysis do not support the warmists’ extreme AGW theory, Mann tries to change the rules of science. Reality cannot be changed by speeches.
The scientific question extreme warming vs lukewarm warming is settled. The fat lady has sung.
It appears the warmists’ next problem will be how to explain global cooling due to the solar cycle 24 change. It is difficult to imagine what will be the public, the media, and the general scientific communities’ reaction to global cooling. The warmists have left absolutely no way out for themselves.
We have spent trillions of dollars on green scams that do not work to protect against dangerous global warming from a gas that commercial greenhouses inject to increase yield and reduce growing times, and the planet is starting to cool for 100 to 150 years. Billions upon billions of dollars have been spent on climate science to justify the extreme AGW paradigm.
Do you think there could be a backlash? Election issue?
There is a plateau of 16 years with no warming. Something is fundamentally incorrect with the general circulation models.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/06/climate-modeling-epic-fail-spencer-the-day-of-reckoning-has-arrived/
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-73-models-vs-obs-20N-20S-MT-5-yr-means1.png
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/interview-hans-von-storch-on-problems-with-climate-change-models-a-906721.html