‘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
What you can “prove” with science is that data is consistent with an explanation.
Or that something is reproducible under a certain set of conditions (assuming you know all the variables). You may find out later later that humidity in the room was a key variable you had
not tested but when someone tried it at high humidity it gave a different result.
Some fields the “proof” is more certain but scientists usually use phrases like “is consistent with” or “suggests that”.
Being able to make predictions and show that they came true is another very strong type of “proof” but it is still different from a mathematical tautology.
The real point is this:
Like so many flavors of scientific endeavor, ‘climate science’ is dependent on a whole lot of engineering to collect and process data, and the results of those steps MUST be proven technically and mathematically before you can even begin to claim you have credible data on which to build your theories.
Climate science can’t get there yet, and for historical data they may not get there in our lifetimes.
They’re beating the crockery with the cutlery to claim great and horrific harm from fractional changes so minute that they often cannot be distinguished from noise in the data, from flaws in the collection or analysis processes.
Climate science is still pre-Copernican, they’re watching the planets move back and forth and guessing at the reasons but they haven’t even managed to polish the lenses in their telescopes to an adequate degree of accuracy.
Leaving aside the philosophy of science, Mann is a serial arsonist warning everyone else to take care with the matches.
F=ma isn’t even a proper formulation of that particular concept. The more general formulation is F=dp/dt. Not that that means anything really except to make bringing special relativity affects into account easier. In the case of low relative velocities they are interchangeable with ever decreasing errors to the limit of 0 at vrel=0 . F=ma breaks down at relative velocities of object and observer approaching the speed of light. So to say it is invariant in the universe is not correct.
Material scientists aren’t intuitive, (though they like to misuse the word). Their forte is their ability to estimate and use logical deduction and logical speculation, sometimes in very subtle and ingenious ways.
To separate logic from sciences is utterly false. Scientists must learn classical philosophies and logic to get back on track this anti-science gang. Logic means to admit what science does not know.
For example: Mosher is correct that many people are delusional and imagine flying saucers. We don’t know if every one is though. To assume they all are not some foreign technology..that is not scientific; it’s not the scientists place to offer his feeling and opinions. Shut up your pie hole if you are a scientist; your job is the facts. I’ll get doubts and fears from anyone, okay?
The correct way a scientist should think is this: it’s unlikely from what I know. That’s it. If you can’t do that, you ain’t logical and you ain’t no scientist.
Unlikeliness is different than Doubt. Doubt is emotional.
Significant warming is not occurring, regardless of hope or doubt.
Say it Steve. Honest is science, not emotion.
Global alarmism IS the UFO. And Steve believes.
Purely an English-language, American-public-school-created semantic difference. For a Russian, mathematics is always 100% science — more than that, it’s the foremost of sciences. Semantically, there is no distinction between “proof” and “support by evidence” when it comes to a scientific hypothesis. A little lying rat is just being dodgy.
“If it can’t be expressed in figures, it is not science; it is opinion.” — R. H. Heinlein
Mann’s unspoken message is “We can’t prove it so don’t ask, but we all believe it, so act on our policy advice.
Yours respectfully,
The Consensus”
All the while artfully dodging claims his hockey stick and in fact his life’s work is not robust despite abundant evidence to the contrary. In what other of life’s endeavors would this argument be adequate to drive the expenditure of trillions of dollars over several generations?
Steyn and National Review used to be not guilty, until proven innocent.
But those days are over.
But now they MUST be guilty, since “scientists” are telling that us proof is not needed anymore.
No proof needed… in the retarded, self-serving, post-modern mindset. Everybody got that yet?
What a bunch of dip-stick losers. Mann is talking about his court case.
Michael Jankowski says:
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?
Rather base 3: 2+2=11 or base 4: 2+2=10
Embarrassing post. From the full quote of Mann’s …
“Proof is for mathematical theorems and alcoholic beverages. It’s not for science,” Mann says. “Science works in evidence through best explanations, most credible theories, and so in a sense we’re at a disadvantage because we have to play by the rules, the other side doesn’t… They’re not offering up credible alternatives or explanations. In most cases they’re trying to pick holes. Not real holes, just things that the public will think are holes, in the science. We are at a disadvantage.”
… you picked as your subject of complaint the one thing he said that was true. Science is not about proof. Science is about rigorous attempts at disproof.
On the other hand, science is not about “best explanations” or “credible theories”. Both of those flourish in the state of ignorance. When you don’t know squat, the “best explanation” can be very, very wrong. When you don’t know squat, damn near every theory is “credible”. And when you don’t know squat, the scientific thing to do is to admit that you don’t know squat, not to bluff and bluster with bald assertions that your own personal brand of ignorance is better than the next guy’s.
It is the last bit of Mann’s above-quoted childish whine that is the most anti-scientific. Science does not work by demanding that other people offer up “alternative explanations.” Any priest, witch doctor, Lysenkoist, or Principia promoter can offer up “alternative explanations”. As Seinfeld said ” See, you know how to take the reservation, you just don’t know how to hold the reservation … and that’s really the most important part of the reservation, the holding. Anybody can just take them.” Similarly, anybody can just offer up an explanation, but it takes a scientist to test that explanation … and that’s really the scientific part of science, the testing.
Scientists do this by making rigorous and tightly drawn predictions that could falsify their own explanation while differentiating it from alternates. And they also actively seek to subject their explanation to the most rigorous testing possible, by encouraging other people to try to poke holes in it. Scientists got balls.
Instead, Mann denies this fundamental aspect of his alleged profession by whining like a little girl when people poke holes in his ignorant nonsense … holes through which one could drive a lumber truck laden with Yamal softwood. This is similar to what Mann’s partner in crime Phil Jones did, when he famously said “Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it.” Because, you dumbass, that is what scientists do.
These people are not scientists, and what they are doing is not science. They are anti-science political hacks.
Mann’s statement is incorrect. While science is rarely about proof, it is a fundamental goal, which is why things are described in a probabilistic sense, because the goal of proof is generally unattainable. Mann seems to suggest that nothing can be proved, which is a little bizarre since he has been proved wrong countless times.
Proving things to be wrong is science is a piece of cake, and in many cases is the backbone of the scientific method.
Sorry, I meant to say “Innocent until proven guilty” !
SPruett 1:23pm, I thought it would be obvious that I supported Mann in his observation that you can’t prove a scientific theory true. I don’t support the sloppiness of Mann and friends in their quest to find more supporting evidence rather than honestly deal with their weaknesses which, in my estimation, have already falsified the claims that positive feedbacks dominate the climate.
I recall a particularly obnoxious climate alarmist with a life sciences PhD who, when faced with one of my favorite papers relating to climate (Shaviv & Veizer’s “Celestial driver of phanerozoic climate?”) challenged me to “graphically prove” that something other than CO2 was responsible for the latter 20th century warming. To their mind, CO2 had already been proven to be the cause and a catastrophic warming was all but inevitable if we didn’t take draconian action yesterday.
It would be a positive development if more alarmists will join Mann in the belief that scientific theories can’t be proven,
@Mosher
I wonder if Feynman thought he could prove that flying saucers were very unlikely?
Is there a category of science called ‘stupid semantic tricks’? If not there’s an opportunity for Mosher to be the father of it.
@Pruett 1:23 PM. Please. Popper only said there are SOME things that cannot be proven. If we hypothesize a black swan exists, then find one (as indeed happened), our hypothesis is proven. He did not say, as many think, that things can only be disproven.
So when Al Gore says the science is settled, what he really means is AGW is a “credible theory” or a “best explanation”?
You can’t have it both ways: claims of scientific findings necessitating the imposition of very large direct and indirect costs need to be backed up by something stronger than a “credible theory”. I’m willing to enact major public policy changes on less than absolute certainty, but the more costly the proposal the stronger the evidence required to justify it. If someone is unwilling or unable to meet that bar, then he shouldn’t tell me we must act now.
The history of science is littered with the discarded carcases of hundreds of “credible theories” and “best explanations”.
Stephen Pruett says:
August 1, 2013 at 1:23 pm
“Let’s hypothesize that all swans are white. Can we ever really prove it? ”
We can prove that all swans not are white. Frame your hypothesis: Do non-white swans exist?
You can frame a scientific question such that there can be a provable answer. That is in fact what Popper was all on about with falsification i.e. framing a hypothesis that can be proven.
Your proof that my science is garbage
Is invalidated by the mere gesticulations of my hands in the air!
My non-proof is proof!
Your proof is mere non-proof!
Obey or face a well-funded lawsuit!
The last thing that Mann wants in court is the data.
He’s preparing his case. No data allowed in the courtroom.
Want to bet?
Watch him block the facts.
Is this not obvious?
Surprised it has not been said yet. The only thing needed is consensus.
Some resources for folks who dont understand why science doesnt do proofs
http://digipac.ca/chemical/proof/index.htm
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200811/common-misconceptions-about-science-i-scientific-proof
“If the facts don’t fit the theory, change the facts.”
― Albert Einstein
““Proof is for mathematical theorems and alcoholic beverages. It’s not for science.”
This is probably the reason that solar threads always break down to Leif vs Vuk et al.
Perhaps M Mann would like to show us there is no proof that inhaling a mixture of chlorine and ammonia will be harmful.
Challenge! If there is no such thing in science as “proof”, explain why the statement “the earth orbits the sun is not provable”. I am not asking you to prove or disprove the statement, but to provide proof that it is not provable.
I anticipate there will be two approaches to this: rhetorical and observational.
The rhetorical argument would make some argument like “it depends on what the meaning of ‘is’ is.
The observational argument would be that our instruments (telescopes) may not be reliable or that all the observers are lying.
But, making either argument means that “2 + 2 = 4” is not provable either. Yes, it follows by definition, but if we wish to play games with definitions than nothing in mathematics is provable. Alternatively, if you make the argument the all observers are possibly lying or that human observational powers cannot be relied on than that applies to mathematics as well. If either is the case, you cannot trust the texts you read.
“The earth orbits the sun” is just as true as “2 + 2 = 4”, even if we use different methods to arrive at each conclusion.
idea + some proof = hypothesis
hypothesis + more proof = theory
hypothesis + lack of proof = wrong idea
hypothesis + proof against = YOU WERE WRONG…..go back and think again.
CAGW is at this final stage.
Every time Mann opens his mouth, more people wake up. We should encourage him. It certainly sounded to me as though he was saying the same thing as “we don’t need to show any data because proof is not important.” We all know he’s dodging and weaving.
Scientific evidence is empirical, meaning that it is based on OBJECTIVE evidence or observations. The interpretation of the scientific evidence, however, may be or may not be objective. The interpretation of the observed (empirical) evidence may belong to the field of logic and reason until empirical evidence of the interpretation can be obtained, if ever.
It may be empirically demonstrated that the earth has warmed and that CO2 has increased. Assuming that measurements were made according to sound scientific principles and without scientific BIAS, increasing atmospheric CO2 and global temperatures in the last century are empirical scientific evidence. However, according to the prevailing views on this site, the causal relationship between CO2 man-made emissions and temperature has not been empirically demonstrated. Others believe otherwise. It is certainly possible to empirically demonstrate that there is (or is not) a causal relationship between these two parameters but it may take years or decades of scientific observations. Yes, CO2 driven-GW can and probably will be proven or disproven by observations not only of temperature and CO2 but also of a zillion known and yet unknown natural phenomena. In this sense, Mann and Mosher are both wrong.