‘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
I can see why Mosher skippe4d the part before the flying saucer bit. If they hypothesis doesn’t agree with observation, experience, or experiment – IT’S WRONG!
There is also the logical law that if you start with a false premise, anything you conclude is true.
So fossils are not proof that dinosaurs walked on earth?
Steven Mosher says:
August 1, 2013 at 3:08 pm
——————-
Your links and quote?, along with you saying ” science doesnt do proofs”, shows no error bars.
Was that your point ?
Mann is correct in one way, and the idea that science does require proof is correct in another. I say “idea” rather than “those who demand proof” because I’m not at all confident that many of those who demand proof of AGW are using that idea. They may be using “proof” in the same way that Mann is, else why don’t they make it clear that they’re not?
The idea that, with “proof” strictly defined, there is no such thing as proof of any statement about the real world, but only in logic and math with no reference to the real world should be familiar to educated people. Philosophers have taught it for centuries, and it has been explained in many books and articles, including popular ones. When people who are familiar with it speak in other contexts of proof of statements about the real world, they are not talking about that first kind of proof. They are talking about things like high probability and proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
For many years, AGW skeptics have been demanding proof, and warmists have been replying that there is no such thing as proof in science. I really want to believe that the warmists are falsely imputing to the skeptics ignorance of the difference between analytic proof and synthetic proof, but I have a problem with the fact that I’ve only seldom seen any skeptic showing that he knows the difference.
The warmists’ statement about proof is not the weasel element in their argument on the point. It’s only a lead-in to their claim that science is about “best explanations.” That is not true, since what if the best available explanation has only (say) a 70% chance or even a 40% chance of being correct? Since when is it wise to believe such an explanation simply because all the other explanations have lower probabilities?
The problem with “disproving” AGW is that you can’t. No matter what climate does, it can and probably will be given as contributing to the “proof” of the AGW theory by those pushing it.
Tom J says:
August 1, 2013 at 12:05 pm
Excellent Very Funny.
Disproof and proof are the same thing. Disproof is proof of the contrary.
What is being referred to is a specific form of proof/disproof – the confirmation or falsification of a model. Strictly speaking, consistent physical models can’t be disproved, either, although they can be shown to be very, very unlikely.
But there is a lot of science that is subject to proof/disproof. We can prove Mann’s hockeystick data fails an R^2 verification test. We can prove that the maximum likelihood estimate for climate sensitivity given a particular dataset and a particular method is such-and-such. The maths in science is subject to proof – the connection of the mathematics to reality is not.
Generally speaking, you just have to state your assumptions.
Gcapologist says:
August 1, 2013 at 4:10 pm
So fossils are not proof that dinosaurs walked on earth?
——————-
Another example showing that “proof” in math v. science is a semantic distinction without a difference or even much significant meaning.
When you have overwhelming evidence with only a single realistic, rational explanation, then why not call that “proof”? It’s not the same as a proof in math or logic, but it still means that the explanation is most likely true.
Such semantic weaseling by Mann is simply to avoid having to practice the scientific method, ie making testable, falsifiable predictions & altering or abandoning your pet hypothesis or theory when factual reality smacks you upside the head.
Convening authorities to declare the “consensus science” settled is anti-scientific, a return to Aristotelian, Scholastic practice, not the methods of the Scientific Revolution of the past 500 years or so.
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”
When we say that evidence proves a hypothesis what we usually mean is that new evidence has falsified all but one of several competing hypotheses and confirmed that one. The confirmed hypothesis has not been deductively proved but it has been shown to be the hypothesis that will guide further research until, and if, it is disconfirmed by new evidence. We say that it is a reasonably well confirmed hypothesis. The same can be said of theories, which are collections of hypotheses.
Contrary to Mann, there is proof in science and it is proof from the evidence.
Mann and most climate scientists seem to have no idea what it would be like to work in an environment where scientists proposed competing hypotheses and sought evidence that supports their own views while falsifying their competitors’ views. Rather, Mann and most climate scientists struggle to embrace a core set of beliefs and then produce research designed not to test those beliefs but to illustrate them. Hence, their emphasis on consensus and models.
Well no-one can prove the second law of thermodynamics is correct, but it only needs one fact to prove it wrong. As it happens no-one has come forth with such a fact. However, some facts seem to prove the theory of global warming is not correct. Mann is digressing from scientific debate to debate based on belief systems but doesn’t realize it. Or maybe he does…?
I urge everyone on Twitter to follow Michael Mann and then block him. If enough people do so his account will be automatically suspended
steveta_uk says:
August 1, 2013 at 10:03 am
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.
================================================
But Observing Mann and how he has lied and contorted the truth to fit his agenda is a fact.. Once a pattern of facts can be displayed the person presenting them can be shown untrustworthy.. Like Mann…
Mann also used a half truth as mathematics is the vehicle by which we disprove the theroy.
Mosher writes “Science is not about proof”
Common use of the word proof doesn’t mean proof in the absolute. I think Mann likes to use whatever interpretation best suits his argument.
AGW is not a theory.
AGW it’s not a hypothesis.
AGW is not wild speculation.
AGW is output from Calamatological computers – which have failed.
Proof of what? It is a proven fact the sun sets and rises, and clouds create rain, snow, hail and fog, mist etc., but science is only proven when the collection of data (the evidence) supports the theory. Otherwise it is just another hypothesis. Mann’s defensive reaction proves one thing, his data was wrong to start with, and that’s proof that his hypotheses are not worth the paper they are written on and he is a lousy and deceitful scientist. The Noble prize should be removed from the IPCC and Al Gore for stupid politically and financially contrived data to prove their hypotheses. Now the IPCC are admitting they exaggerated the data, so why can’t Mann?
Yes Jimbo, and where is basic common sense too. Any first year university student will tell you the Earth is round (or slightly oval) and clouds most times create rain or shade. That the Arctic and Antarctic are subject to long winters with no sun and the their summer months are often 22 hours of sunlight. That space is very cold, and organisms prefer warmth to thrive. This Mann is a shonk of the highest degree, and has he won any court cases yet? No.
I think we can safely surmise, that we have witnessed some dreadful hypotheses over the years, from people who are trying to prove AGW, and getting paid millions for it. Solar panels and wind turbines are proving ineffective to maintain adequate supply, and have not cut carbon emissions anywhere. Subsequently countries are dropping the subsidies. The IPCC are now admitting they are wrong about their AGW predictions, how about they and Al Gore return their Nobel Prize, eh?
“When we say that evidence proves a hypothesis what we usually mean is that new evidence has falsified all but one of several competing hypotheses and confirmed that one. The confirmed hypothesis has not been deductively proved but it has been shown to be the hypothesis that will guide further research until, and if, it is disconfirmed by new evidence. We say that it is a reasonably well confirmed hypothesis. The same can be said of theories, which are collections of hypotheses.”
I agree with Theo.
Mann long ago separated “evidence” from science when – like far too many – he put all his faith in the output of his computer model exercises (and misnamed them as “evidence”).
So a “divorce” from “proof” – not unlike his earlier “divorce” from reality, viz his unwarranted high opinion of himself and his “work” – could not have been too far behind!
“Inductive reasoning [science], also known as induction or informally “bottom-up” logic, is a kind of reasoning that constructs or evaluates general propositions that are derived from specific examples. Inductive reasoning contrasts with deductive reasoning [mathematics], in which specific examples are derived from general propositions.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deductive_reasoning
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning
Both are logical frameworks. Inductive reasoning assigns a probabilty to a given thesis/result (uncertainty interval). Deductive reasoning produces results that are necessarily true (no uncertainty). Demanding ‘proof’ of science theories is to misunderstand science (chemistry, biology, physics, ecology, etc). Instead demand evidence. Or ask politely.
The proof of the pudding is in the eating, eh. Depends whose eating it? Hypotheses are not theories but have to be soundly proven through correctly collected data or experiment of course. There are also variables for example what causes juvenile onset diabetes. I know I had a son who contracted this dreadful disease when he was 2 1/2 years old. Some think it was an early reaction to cows milk? (He went on Soya milk at 6 weeks of age). It created an irritable immune system that eventually when other factors were involved attacked his islets in his pancreas that produced insulin. This could be true, but not in all children depending on what age they contracted this disease. One thing they found out 20 years ago, was little genetic inheritance was Not apparent in Japanese children of Japanese immigrants, but when they moved to Hawaii, these children contracted IDDM. Something in the environment, diet, etc. So no theory could be proven as there are multiple factors involved. Same as climate science there are so many variables involved, Mann’s hypotheses are so fragile to be completely ignorant. We can’t change the weather, and the weather is what kills us, plus earthquakes, asteroids, volcanoes, disease and starvation. I wish he would shut up, the bigger hole he is digging for himself, it is laughable.
“the philosopher Bertrand Russell spent 42 pages of a book ‘proving’ that 2+2=4.”
No, it took him 200 pages just to prove that 1+1=2. Trying to prove that 2+2=4 was much too difficult for him, and he was forced to give up.
“… the bigger hole he is digging for himself… .” [Bush Bunny]
LOL, according to his hypothesis he is digging his way out of it.
The base 2/ base 3 argument is bogus. It’s just how we represent the numbers. 2+2=4 in base 10, 10+10=100 in base 2, 02+02=11 in base 3. But the sum is never 5 (base 10).