‘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
“With the hockey stick.
it is falsifiable in principleIt has been falsified in fact. In practice, mann resists changing his position. This resistence ispossible only because there is no proof in sciencebecause he is a L-I-A-R.”[Steven Mosher, Keeper-of-the-Climate-Gate E mails at 12:11PM, 8/1/13]
**********************************************************
“Vague and imprecise language is no accident.
It is a conscious attempt to distort and deceive.”
George Orwell
Steven Mosher says
========================
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.
=================
Take 2 drops of water and combine them with drops of water. What you get is one combined drop of water
2 + 2 = 1
In measurements of angles
2 Pi + 2 Pi = 2Pi
In measurements of the cardinality of the continuum
c + 1 = c
c +2 = c
c + c = c
Mathematics is what one makes of it. Like science it is about utility.
See Imre Lakotos’ book “Proofs and Refutations”. Mathematics progresses informally. Informal concepts needed for an understanding are formalized and subjected to mathematical exploration. Refutations of these formalisms reveal inadequacies in the informal models and so new concepts are added which show a better understanding of the topic. Mathematics progresses not be proof but informally through the process of refutation. mathematics and science are alike in this. lakatos thought that his demonstration of progress through informal work and refutation showed Feyerabend’s assertion of there being no method in science to be inadequate. To me anyway, I just think he showed how Feyerabend’s “no method” science works.
From a retired high school teacher–WHY HAS THIS DISCUSSION ADVANCED THIS FAR.
AND WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO THE SCIENTIFIC PROCESS — HAS IT CHANGED.
Of course we have always operated from theories, even are current atomic model,
It is Michael Mann’s Statement about theories that should be questioned.
Each and every modeled projection obviously has different (perhaps slightly) input; therefore each its own separate hypothesis. Theories are formed from repeated testing of (hypothesis) models.
If each and every models’ projection has been incorrect along with other predicted manifestations such as mid latitude warms spots then we have not even gotten to the stage of talking about a proof because the model (theory) is incorrect.
My simple brain tells me than since models have been hind casted to match previous climate, that either the input is wrong or the mathematics describing the physics is wrong. -and, since there seems to be dogmatic assurance that the physics is totally correct, certain assumptions about past weather/climate events must be wrong. Am I wrong in saying that we are outside the 95% probability of no increase in warming? ( I hate to say ‘pause’ because that implies you just wait, it is going to start again.) Am I wrong to say that we are approaching a length of time of no warming that no model predicted?
IT WAS TALKED ABOUT AS FACT BEFORE EVEN THE HYPOTHESIS COULD BE VALIDATED.
Steven Mosher says:
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.
—-
Actually in a Base 3 numeral system 2 + 2 = 11 and 4 does not exist.
Now that is truly gobsmacking. I just don’t know what to say,it’s so stunning.
The philosophy of science recognizes the empirical nature of testing but also the rational nature of the analysis.
The creation of a analysis metanarative is regarded by some as an exercise in postmodern construction.
I stole one word from the link:
http://blog.heartland.org/2013/07/michael-mann-redfines-science/
“irrelevance”
That’s gotta hurt.
Steven Mosher says:
August 1, 2013 at 9:50 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
———————
So are you in the ‘birds do get thrown off into the sky whenever they let go of a tree branch.’ camp ? Or would you say that the earth is in motion ?
RACookPE1978 says:
August 1, 2013 at 12:19 pm
Steven Mosher says:
August 1, 2013 at 9:45 am
RA, As you note, the past century plus has had periods of rising temp and declining temps (we may be in the beginning of such a new declining period over the last several years. If I was looking for a CO2 signal, I would look to see if the declining temp periods were becoming less steep and the warming periods more steep over the instrumental record as CO2 increased. It should be overcoming natural variability. I’ve never seen any discussion of this point even though I have raised it here several times and once on Judith Curry’s site. Of course, we would require that the record be cleansed of biased corrections in order to see this signal. In any case, if natural variation is not being overwhelmed, then CO2 is a much less significant driver. We always here about the irrefutable physics behind it but of course its effect may very well be countered by net negative feedbacks – things once not even whispered too loudly a decade ago even though the the billion year plus unbroken record of life and proxy temps oscillating not more than 10C during this period cries out for this explanation.
Steven Mosher says:
August 1, 2013 at 12:11 pm
“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.”
Axiomatic.
“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.”
As the link I provided above explains, 2+2=4 is not axiomatic. 1+1=2 is axiomatic. It would help your argument if you knew about that distinction.
My point above is that the link provided by Steve is a philosophical argument. Anything goes in philosophy, perhaps Mann should look into this as a potential career change when the bubble bursts on AGW
While in some deep philosophical or esoteric mathematical sense it might be shown (proven?) things cannot be proven, in the working science world we use proofs all the time. They support a multitude of underlying assumptions (most unstated) and save a great deal of time because they mark ground that need not be retrodden. Without them, you just have jabbering about what the meaning of ‘is’ is..
Reg Nelson says:
August 1, 2013 at 12:39 pm
“Actually in a Base 3 numeral system 2 + 2 = 11 and 4 does not exist.”
That concerns only the choice of symbols used to represent the set of natural numbers, not the truth value of any expression using those numbers.
@ur momisugly DirkH says: August 1, 2013 at 12:57 pm
Thank you for pointing that out. IN actual fact, what we call 11base10 should be tenty-one (since we do that for all higher numbers like 21). What 11base3 is called, whether it is 4 or eleven, is only based on the referencing system. The value does not change.
Mosher appeals to the Duhem-Quine thesis to argue that a single hypothesis cannot be refuted in isolation. That’s because any disproof of an hypothesis is only as good as the background theory of the experiment; and you can always preserve the hypothesis in the face of contrary observations by adjusting enough of the surrounding background assumptions.
Mosher then argues in support of Mann when he distinguishes between mathematical proof and scientific support. But this is quite unQuinean. Quine famously disputed any absolute distinction between theorems in math and logic which are supposedly true by virtue of the definition of the terms employed, and scientific propositions which are supposed to be true by virtue of the way the world is. Quine rejected the “analytic / synthetic distinction” in _Two Dogmas of Empiricism._
Bob Ward’s statements in the series of Mann initiated tweets linked to above are interesting. More than once, he talks of working “in the public interest”. I guess he believes he knows what that is?
I’m pleased to read that Mann agrees with me that his hockey stick proves nothing, and that the CO2 sensitivity claims cannot be proved, and that climate extremists cannot prove their case, and that yesterday’s heat wave proves nothing and tomorrow’s extreme rain will prove nothing. Meanwhile observed data proves claims by climate hysteria advocates are wrong. That is because something the hysterical are sure of is wrong.
What this Mannian missive does prove however is that scientists should not drive policy where proof is far more important.
I also agree with Mann.
“No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong”.
Albert Einstein
Janice Moore says at August 1, 2013 at 12:26 pm
“
No need to say that he tries to justify himself with “there’s no proof in science”.
The accusation that he is a L-I-A-R is enough.
He still hasn’t admitted that the Hockeystick is junk… but he must know.
This man has absolutely no shame.
Ggoodknight quotes Popper, but does not provide the rest of the story. Popper (of whom I am a big fan) concluded that it is not possible to “prove” anything in science. Hypotheses and theories can be supported by evidence and argument, but it is questionable that they can actually be proved. An example is the classical illustration of swans. Let’s hypothesize that all swans are white. Can we ever really prove it? Can we simultaneously observe all swans on earth? If not, then it is always possible that after we observed a large sampling of white swans, a black swan was born. That single observation would disprove our hypothesis, conclusively. In addition, virtually any hypothesis or theory can be wrong, not because the data were incomplete, but because the fundamental concepts framing the hypothesis were wrong or substantially incomplete. As a scientist, I have always taught my graduate students to avoid using the word “proof” or “prove” in scientific publications, because I have never seen the combination of data and hypothesis that are complete and incontrovertible enough to be considered “proved”. Even something as fundamental as gravity will be viewed very differently than it is now, if an effective unified field theory is ever developed.
So, very reluctantly, even though I am no supporter of Mann, I have to say that I would not dispute his statement that is the subject of this post.
Well, I reckon Mann is the ghastly way he is because he was not much loved as a child. This phase of his life has continued – he is not much loved as an adult either. It’s probably why he wears stiletto heels and fishnet stockings and then gets upset when people don’t take him seriously.
Just a theory of course, I have no proof but am happy with it as a “best explanation”.
James Evans says:
August 1, 2013 at 11:33 am
Mann and Mosher are right. Proof isn’t for science. No theory is ever proven. Theorems are proven, but that’s maths.
———————-
What do you mean by “proof”?
In the 16th century, Copernicus hypothesized that, contrary to Aristotle, Ptolemy & the Church, the earth goes around the sun. He argued from observations & math that this was literally true, although his publisher tried to sell the heliocentric proposition as a mere hypothesis & perhaps easier way to predict planetary movements than a geocentric system.
In the early 17th century, Galileo’s observation of the phases of Venus falsified the Ptolemaic system, but didn’t necessarily “prove” heliocentrism actually, physically “true”. His other telescopic observations & Kepler’s curve-matching demonstration (based upon Tycho’s naked eye data) that planetary orbits are elliptical rather than circular further supported but didn’t “prove” the Copernican hypothesis, but supported it.
Later in that century, Newton provided a mechanistic physical explanation for Kepler’s math, further promoting modern astronomical model. But “proof” of the Copernican hypothesis had to wait. In this case proof means moving from never being able to show the hypothesis false to demonstrating that it is an objective physical reality, either by direct observation off-world (now made possible by space travel) or by terrestrial observations not explicable in any other way than that the earth moves as predicted, ie is a planet in orbit around the sun, turning & wobbling on its axis.
In the 18th century, Bradley’s demonstration of the aberration of light provided the first direct evidence confirming the fact that the earth goes around the sun. In the 19th century, Bessel proved that the parallax of star 61 Cygni was greater than zero by actual observational measurement. Finally, Foucault designed an experiment to test the hypothesis that the earth spins on its axis, another part of the Copernican hypothesis. At the same time, Struve & Henderson confirmed Bessell by measuring the parallaxes of other stars.
By these standards of real science, Mann’s tricky hidden decline shtick & the GIGO models of his partners in corruption fail miserably.
There is such a thing as “proof” in science if by that term is meant demonstration that a never falsified hypothesis or even theory is objectively true in nature, ie raised to the level of an observation.
Steven Mosher says:
August 1, 2013 at 12:15 pm
=====
Is this the same Mosher that not long ago said something like:
“I don’t want to hear philosophy in response to this comment”, or something to that effect.
Cuz now I’m confused.
“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.”
TOTAL LOGIC FAIL, Mr Mosher.
if A then B means :
if NOT B then NOT A (this is THE BASIS of falsification)
and it’s so elementary, a 3 yr old child of 2 can manage it.
oh, the stupid – it flames.
and this is what somebody tries to pass off as reason?
it’s hard to imagine anything more mindless.
you have no stature to mock mann, you kettles and pots.
=======================================================================
I would add, what is being reviewed by peer review?