Three Questions for Denuding Complexity, story submitted by Megg
The first paper I ever wrote was titled: Three Questions for Denuding Complexity. How to determine your own basis for thought, your own way of thinking? How do you approach a problem? Are you aware of how you do it?
If you ponder these questions, which seldom happens, you will find yourself in obscure territories walking in a sucking slough of your super-ego. Your, mine, everybody’s thinking is a cocktail of upbringing and genes. Neither all the ingredients, nor their side effects, are evident.
Let us assume you have been brought up in a confessional (Christian) milieu. Your deity, whom you honour and respect, is a creator and rule setter. You will use concepts like ‘systems’ and ‘natural laws’. Your role as a scientist is to discover these laws: laws you know exist but are still unknown. You know there exist explanatory-descriptive models. If you are successful you will find good models, if not you will find not so good ones. “There is no other explanation but X”, is a valid argument in your reasoning.
Today X can stand for say a miracle or a CO2 hazard. There is a Vatican-appointed Miracle Commission composed of theologians and scientific experts. For a healing event to be graded as a (medical) miracle, it has to be spontaneous, instantaneous and complete. Doctors have to be able to say, “We don’t have any natural explanation for what happened.”
“There is no other explanation for global warming than carbon dioxide” said Professor Erland Källén (International Panel of Climate Change; IPCC) when he spoke for the Swedish Statistical Society in Stockholm 2007. I know, because I was there.
What about these Xs, and how do we counter them? All we have to do is to scrutinize extremely rare events around the world. If we consider all the UN member states and in each of them observe climate related events like droughts, hurricanes, early spring, lack of ice, lack of snow, snow in extremes, severe storms, floods, heat waves, peak temperatures, precipitation, forest fires, early and late migrating bird patterns, first occurrence of national plants, sea level rise, hottest month(s), number of sand-flies, and, furthermore, define an extremely rare event as one which happens once per generation, the probability that there wouldn’t be an X in your country is 50%. (Generation = 50 years, probability of rare event = constant.) The probability that an X wouldn’t occur in any of the UN member states is 0%. (There are 193 UN member states). In other words there is no chance that there wouldn’t be many X events every year.
Yet the UN-appointed IPCC, whose aim is to assess scientific information relevant to human-induced climate change, will take the opportunity to claim that this very X event is an indication/proof of climate change. At least the mainstream media will! An Airbus passenger plane had to make an emergency landing on the Hudson River. Soon after take-off both its engines died after it flew into a flock of birds. Global warming had disrupted the birds’ migratory patterns increasing the likelihood of such incidents, it was claimed. Yet another example: wild mountain goats in the Italian Alps have become significantly smaller over the past few decades in response to a warming climate, scientists reported recently.
John Paul II earned his sainthood this year. The first miracle, which paved the way for his sainthood, happened in France. The recovery in 2005 from Parkinson’s disease by a nun, Sister Marie Simon-Pierre, after praying for the late Pope’s “intercession” , had no medical explanation, the Catholic Church maintains. The second miracle took place in Costa Rica. (You need two miracles to become a saint.)
These examples are so called evidence-based conclusions. Billions of people consider The Catholic Church and UN/IPCC as the highest authorities in Morality and Science. Yet their conclusions and evidence are (mostly) nonsense. But who wants to stand up and point out facts when Heaven and Grants are at stake?
You have just finished reading ‘Three Questions for Denuding Complexity’, a Standpoint on Science and Climate Change.
Two more Standpoints on Science will follow.
‘Validity, Reliability and Orwell 1992’
‘Models and the Complexity Paradox’
Meanwhile, some suggested Google Search studies: epistemology, methodology, ontology, paradigm, positivism, combinatorics, independent events, IPCC aims, Church Miracles.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Foul! You’re a bigot! As a Christian, I find the line, “‘There is no other explanation but X’, is a valid argument in your reasoning’, deeply insulting. Aquinas would reject it (have you ever read him? He invited discussion, and the Summa – both the form and his writing is not a set of “no other explanation”, but the best one which answers the objections).
As a Catholic, I am even further insulted. There is a Vatican-appointed Miracle Commission composed of theologians and scientific experts. For a healing event to be graded as a (medical) miracle, it has to be spontaneous, instantaneous and complete. Doctors have to be able to say, “We don’t have any natural explanation for what happened.” This is true. But the whole process is more involved and relates to a similar question – did something get to where it is because it naturally ended up there, or did someone or something intentionally put it there.
I’m surprised to find anti-Catholic bigotry here.
Instead of crying in the pitcher of beer. State your counter-argument.
Michael Wassil: I like to play the devil’s advocate, so refute this argument:
I have never seen a quark. No one has seen, felt, or captured a quark in a box. We have inferred from super-collider interactions that the quark exists though we have never captured a single one. As a scientist, I believe and I have faith that the quark exists. There appears to be evidence for its existence. However, I cannot honestly say it exists because its existence is inferred indirectly via measurements that could be incorrect. Nevertheless, I choose to believe the quark exists because it answers some physics questions, though its discovery has opened up new questions.
Those who believe in God see evidence of God’s existence and therefore choose to believe. How is the belief and faith in the existence of a quark any different than the belief and faith in a God?
Personally I think TZ has the right to be offended as both you and the article are mocking his belief system – a system of belief that is just as valid, or invalid, as believing in the existence of a quark or that man’s emissions of CO2 are destroying the world. Like most people, I have a touch of hubris and think that my belief system (the quark exists and CO2 is not destroying the world) will prevail. On the other hand, I am really curious to find out when I die whether or not God exists. On the God question I made a choice just like I made a choice to believe in the existence of a quark partially.
“Choose to believe” is the operative phrase. In philosophy and theology it is called free will.
So, you have a choice: do you want to mock the God believers and in turn get mocked for your beliefs that may not have a sound basis, which will shut down discussion, or do you want to have an open discussion that explores each other’s belief systems? If the former, you are no better than the climate scare mongers. If the latter, then you are an intelligent person in my book.
@ur momisugly aGrimm
You cannot compare a lack of visual confirmation of a quark with visual confirmation of God. There have been no claims of quarks healing people, or being the answer to every unanswered question humanity can come up with.
Those who believe in God see evidence of God’s existence. Yeah. Sure. So what? Those who believe in anything without empirical evidence will find evidence for it. Including multiple Gods, spirit worlds, incarnation, past lives, ghosts, you name it and someone will have evidence for it. The difference is two fold. In science the horse (evidence) comes before the cart (belief). Secondly science invites and demands that claims are falsifiable. God can never be falsified and neither can alien abductions for that matter.
I am not criticizing people for their beliefs and never would deny a persons right to their personal beliefs. I would however vehemently oppose any person or organization that obfuscates science with faith. That is an insult to both science and faith.
Alx
“The difference is two fold. In science the horse (evidence) comes before the cart (belief). Secondly science invites and demands that claims are falsifiable”
Both of your ‘differences’ are incorrect much as I admire your spunk.
First, ‘belief’ is perhaps inappropriate. A whole series of beliefs are used to analyse the evidence and if the beliefs are in error the conclusion is in error and the evidence is misinterpreted and the truth misrepresented in subsequent pronouncements.
Science does now make ‘demands’ at all. That is scientism creeping into the room. Science well tolerates claims that are not falsifiable but clearly separates them from claims that are.
Part of the problem and wonderful topic today is that followers of scientism believe, without evidence, making a falsifiable claim, that religion is not suited to scientific investigation. Poppycock. There is noting about religion per se that prevents it being investigated in a scientific manner.
Because people believe all manner of superstitions does not mean they are being ‘religious’. Quite the opposite. Revealed knowledge has many practical uses as a guide to scientists. Consider the statement, ‘Split the atom and you will find the Sun.’. How long before fission was discovered was that written?
How about something medical: ‘Cancer is contagious.’ How many years was it written before the discovery of HPV? How many examples are needed before the jaded, atheistic scientist decides that there may be some ‘practical’ use for religious revelation? Some, never, for it undermines their entire, false, self-made world. So they cling to their belief that hundreds of practical facts could not be ‘known’ before ‘they were discovered’.
Like miracles, this is a very practical matter. If a religious Revealed writes a Holy Book containing the practical instructions for the development of a more advanced society than has ever existed before, considering the totality of mankind’s current condition and capacities, and it leads directly to the development of that more advanced society, then Revelation has practical value. If it simultaneously elevates the thoughts and educates the soul, why reject those benefits?
Material things – tools of science, do not imbue honesty, the foundation of all virtues. It is the virtuous man who designs and appropriately applies tools. In the absence of Divine virtue, man becomes worse than an animal.
That said, ‘science’ is quite incapable of creating the morality required to build a durable society. How many times must this be proven to everyone’s satisfaction? How many hundred million people must die before the evidence is accepted?
The really great physicists who learn the innermost workings of the universe all come to realise that the appearance of physical reality is a mirage. There is nothing really there. They become quite philosophical and open minded. We each have our necessary for path. Physical reality is itself a metaphor. But for what?
Readers may enjoy the book, ‘The Purpose of Physical Reality’ by John S Hatcher. Come prepared to think.
@Crispin in Waterloo: Thanks, you saved me a long posting. Couldn’t agree more.
Claiming you feel ‘insulted’ is just a wimpy way to weasel out of the discussion.
Scientific views end in awe and mystery, lost at the edge in uncertainty, but they appear to be so deep and so impressive that the theory that it is all arranged as a stage for God to watch man’s struggle for good and evil seems inadequate.
Richard P. Feynman
Does your ‘belief’ in quarks correspond to:
“Faith is the substance of things to be hoped for, the evidence of things that appear not,” Paul.
“Faith is a habit of the mind whereby eternal life is begun in us making the intellect assent to what is non-apparent,” Aquinas.
If so, then you have religious faith/belief in quarks. Even if quarks are eventually determined NOT to be real and NOT to exist, you will still believe that they do and are just hiding to test your faith. I suspect, however, that your ‘belief’ in quarks is simply a provisional assumption until demonstrated otherwise.
I asked ‘tz’ to stop crying in my beer and state a case. Exactly how does that mock his/her Catholic faith?
I asked ‘tz’ to state his/her argument against the contentions of the article he/she found insulting to his/her Catholic faith. Yet you seem to find in my request some hidden mockery and intent to shut down the discussion. I’m not interested in his/her wimpy feelings of insult, but I would be interested in reading his/her opposing arguments.
@ur momisugly aGrimm March 8, 2015 at 2:28 am
In actuality, …. “You are what your environment nurtured you to be”.
But to correctly understand the above statement one first has to understand and accept the fact that there are three (3) of “you” when engaged in technical discussions associated with the brain/mind of humans: 1) “you” meaning the person or individual; …. 2) “you” meaning the conscious mind of the person; ….. and 3) “you” meaning the subconscious mind of the person;
Thus, one’s environmentally sensed stimuli (info/data) nurtures their subconscious mind …. and one’s conscious mind is subservient to their subconscious mind … as per whatever the aforesaid info/data is that it was nurtured with.
Therefore one’s conscious mind can make “choices” …. but only IF and WHEN one’s subconscious mind presents the conscious mind with two (2) or more entities to choose from.
Thus, there is no such thing as “free will” …. simply because one’s per se “will” to choose or not choose, …. believe or not believe, …… consider or not consider, …… is already per se … “pre-programmed” in the stored memories in/of one’s brain.
Thus, what one was nurtured to accept (believe) as factual …. and what actually exists in the natural world, …… is what science is all about.
Michael and aGrimm
Faith is the result of a logical proof. I don’t know why people have so much trouble with this. There are arguments put forth that faith is the same thing as believing the unbelievable. That’s superstition, silly!
I have faith that I can steer a car around an as yet unseen corner because I have done it so many times before, and almost always succeeded. I have faith that having been through a set of logical deductions, the result of an as yet incomplete set of deductions will also result in something true, if it is based on the same general conditions. I become convinced and have faith.
Atheists usually try to claim that faith involves accepting the unprovable and set about to create caricatures demonstrating the truth of that position. It is true that some things are taken on faith because of a lack of background, understanding or experience. Other things are accepted on faith because of authority. To bring a person to accept something on faith, one has to first discover how they judge, and what to them constitutes a ‘proof’. Proof comes in many forms: logical deduction (rare), miracle, prayer, authority, experience, popularity, example, parallel similar example and meditation.
We all believe lots of things on faith. The greatest inducer of faith should be experience and logic. Of a Revealer of a holy text says, “Do A because it will make you strong,” and I have no proof of it other than He has been right so far, then I will do A if I want to get strong. I take it on faith.
I endured most of an interview today with the creator of “Merchants of Doubt’ on the CBC radio. He called James Hanson, uber-alarmist to the media, a ‘conservative’ and said that his views were ‘very conservative’. His statements, attacks, haughty arrogance, sneering posturing and blatant misrepresentation of the facts were very convincing. I now have faith that “Merchants of Doubt” will be 90 minutes of smear and innuendo and contain barely any credible claims about the climate or the climate-realist community. He and his embarrassingly sycophantic CBC interviewer were trying to associate particular historical tobacco shills with everyone who fails to climb on board the CO2 warming alarm gravy train. They were discussing manipulating popular perception while doing it! Talk about gall!
Logic tells be I should have faith that nothing truthful of consequence is contained in the “Merchants of Doubt” and I will not see it. My mind has been convinced by his biased shilling for Big Green. I will learn far more from reading the elevated commentary on WUWT.
Are the goats getting smaller or is everything else getting bigger?
How would we know?
NF: most old goats get smaller, at least in height, as I’ve discovered to my dismay. : )
Yep. Cuz this old goat is indeed getting smaller. By the time I am ready for a wheelchair, they will have to get me a child-size.
Old goats, they whine.
Just enough to draw you within range, then they kick you in the head 🙂
Not that I have anything against goats.
Back from the pub and just spent two hours reading this thread. I do that quite a lot.
A weak post more than compensated for by many really well written and interesting comments. This also happens quite a lot on WUWT.
As I think more and more people are beginning to realize, the climate war seems to be tilting in favor of the ‘realists’. In fact it could turn into a rout at any moment.
The problem now is that I’m beginning to worry about what the heck am I going to do with my time when it’s all over! Where is the WUWT community going to go?
Anthony, I hope you are planning ahead and have your next cause identified – we are counting on you!
”
Bernard Lodge
March 7, 2015 at 11:01 pm
Back from the pub and just spent two hours reading this thread. I do that quite a lot.”
Some serious wisdom there Bernard.
Before reading some threads, it is a good idea to have a few drinks.
It is probably not a good idea to be sober when feeding the trolls.
“The climate war seems to be tilting in favor of the ‘realists’” The climate war for the mind of the layman in the US media has gotten insane. We have NASA Earth/Sky.org disinfo repeated several times a day on both AM and FM radio and constant propaganda in print media (I don’t watch TV), and I imagine it will get worse until the Paris climate farce.
As much as I may disagree with some personal tastes of Oscar Wilde, his famous dictum stands unstained:
“Pure and simple truth is rarely pure and never simple.”
Or, (not Oscar Wilde):
“I know you think you understand what you thought I said,
but I’m not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant!”
I’m not sure why this guest blogger felt it necessary to blast the Catholic Church for its belief in miracles. If the guest blogger has some insights into how a French nun was cured of Parkinson’s disease, I’d be curious to hear them and presumably so would the Vatican – at least they would have been before the nun was healed.
Clerics of the Catholic Church, as other commenters have already pointed out, have been responsible for many, many great advances in human knowledge. The position of the Church since at least the time of St. Augustine has been to reconcile Holy Scripture with knowledge of nature. There have been some members of the clergy who have felt otherwise but they are far and away the minority.
In any case, whatever the point of this post was, the entire effect was spoiled by the overt bigotry of the blogger. If Megg wants to post more specious and unsupported attacks on miracles, I suggest that he/she first learn something about what that declaration means.
James. My point exactly except you said it more succinctly. The guest post was fine up to the unnecessary point. Newsflash… churches believe in God.
“Miracles” have been the foundation of most all religious deities ever since the 1st tribal member was appointed to the position of Shaman, …. many, many thousands of years ago..
To keep peace, faith and harmony among and within the tribal populace, ….. someone had/has to “explain the unexplainable(s)” that was/is observed to be or thought to be occurring within the natural world said populace resides in.
Iffen you can’t explain it, ….. then call it a “miracle”, …..the populace has to be appeased or “big trouble in River City”.
5000 words to basically hid the fact that climate change is caused by the daily Earth Wobble that is a result of having planet x nearby.
[ “X” .mod]
Things complex are things not understood. When the complex is pondered, and when the light over one’s head finally shines, and a thing is at last understood, it suddenly becomes simple.
Things like it is better to glance off those stationary objects when travelling at high speeds, and never do a head-on lest the hot engine ends up sitting on your lap for the duration.
We need an online petition to protest 1) WH releases of disinformation about climate science and climate scientists 2) discrimination against climate scientists who dispute IPCC climate science conclusions by US government-funded institutions and journals, hiring by US government-funded institutions, research funding awarded by same 3) discrimination by private institutions in the areas above.
websites can post links to the petition
Anthony – thoughts on this?
Quote from NOAA article posted on Noozhawk here in Santa Barbara:“This study reveals the flaw that underlies the
‘CO2 is plant food’ myth”
that’s now on skepticalsciencescam and others. The eco-fascists have no intellectual integrity to lose.
noozhawk.com/article/letter_to_the_editor_nasa_warns_of_catastrophic_drought_in_western_u.s
Maybe I’m too fast to judge the author, but … It’s very refreshing, and very rare, to read a piece by someone who doesn’t seem to “believe in” things simply because they are popular to believe, or the belief answers a question for which there is no known scientific explanation.
.
Loved this sentence:
“The Catholic Church and UN/IPCC as the highest authorities in Morality and Science. Yet their conclusions and evidence are (mostly) nonsense. But who wants to stand up and point out facts when Heaven and Grants are at stake?”
.
My answer is: I’ll stand up. Both the church and the IPCC (two religions, one secular) spout non-science (nonsense) all the time !
.
They both know to gain more power, leaders have to convince people bad things are about to happen, unless you do as they say, without question … to save your soul, … or to save the Earth, … or for whatever reason — it’s all nonsense to manipulate people (sheeple).
..
Sometimes I feel like I’m the only person around who doesn’t accept ANY beliefs with no evidence.
.
My skepticism started at an extremely young age when I was told about “god”, and then I questioned how anyone could believe in something no one had ever seen, heard or touched. The answer was not very convincing, so I have been an atheist since the concept of “god” was first explained to me as a young child.
.
I have always believed that having religious beliefs, accepted on faith, makes a person vulnerable to non-religious beliefs, from the coming climate catastrophe, to 9/11 conspiracy theories, to the belief that Lee Harvey Oswald did not act alone, and the belief that eating GMO foods will cause you to grow a sixth toe.
.
I’d like to think good scientists are not “believers”.
What does faith have to do with science?
.
Nothing, I hope.
[Snip. Porn virus in link. ~ mod.]
Obvious Troll,
It has been my experience that very few children have any notion of a creator. I didn’t. But then most of them grow up and consider greater ideas and think on a grand scale. A few are satisfied with their childish minds and function adequately in life.
“When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.”
Explain to yourself, how everything came from nothing. (Don’t expect any success since no atheist has succeeded)
You will have to deal with The Big Bang, the Second Law of Thermodynamics, Hubble expansion, the Borde, Vilenkin Guth Proof, Anthropic fine tuning… you know, those small matters. I’m sure you are up to it. Since science puts these facts before you, you must deal with them with science, or ignore them with your belief in atheism and call it a day.
Infernal regress afflicts both sides of that debate as you have framed it.
Paul W
If you come across a really intelligent person who claims to be an atheist, who only believes what can be followed logically, you might invite them to read the book, “Minimalism, the New Philosophy” by William S Hatcher. If they are truly devoted to logic, then they must accept the result of a well-formed logical expatiation.
I accept “I don’t know” as a respectable answer for any question for which humans have no reasonable evidence-based answer.
.
I don’t accept false “answers” that are religious fairy tales, with no evidence they are true, whether they are written in a bible, or told to me by a homeless person who lives under a bridge.
.
The fact that I, or scientists, or people in general, don’t know all the mysteries about Earth and the rest of the universe, does not make your theories correct, even if 99.9% of the people on Earth agreed with you.
.
The fact is that many people are brainwashed, often starting at an early age, with “answers” to questions that are really mysteries, where the only correct answer is “no one knows”, rather than beliefs based on faith.
Ha. I never click the links of trolls… LOL What a jerk!
The link was a photo of a clothed woman running on a treadmill..
The ads for new cable TV shows are way more suggestive,
not to mention embarrassing ads for ED medications!
Neither are funny, like my link was.
That link is now gone,
and I promise to go to church one of these days
and confess that I have not been to any religious
service for the past 60 years.
I didn’t know about any virus,
as I have not had a cold, or the flu,
in many years
http://www.elOnionBloggle.blogspot.com
Brandon Gates
March 7, 2015 at 7:02 pm
“This should satisfy requests for verifiable measurement of increased radiative forcing due to rising levels of atmospheric CO2, “
Now that is a good scientific conclusion other than for one small problem.
What if we start in 1997/8 and compare it with 2010. Now calculate the CO2 forcing using the same methodology. Will you accept its results too, particularly if one uses satellite records for T? Negative CO2 forcing, I suggest.
The issue is simple; the year 2000 compared to 2010 is a low one. What else do you expect to see other than increased CO2 radiation especially if it had increased by 22ppm. I would expect to see increased H20 radiation as well (up and down).
Something has to radiate more energy to space to try to equilibrate when T is up.
tonyM,
You ask good questions, but I’m just about done for the day, so this may read a little rushed. Harries (2001) discusses it somewhat near the end of the paper, but not in detail. It is indeed a problem that temperature increase for other reasons — ENSO, solar, cloud cover, whatever — will cause outgoing LW to increase as the 4th power of T as the system attempts to reach equilibrium. Therefore, “direct” measurement of GHG forcing requires looking at spectral bands and noting if and where some absorption lines have gotten “spikier” relative to others. Where those spikes match what’s in HITRAN or a like database of spectral lines, you’ve got the beginnings of a signature increase in forcing due to a particular species. Just looking at gross and net fluxes won’t get it “directly” because “random” pockets of T wander around as weather with practically zero correlation to the much more gradual and long term subtle changes in GHG concentrations.
Brandon
Thanks, a useful insight into the complexity of earth’s radiative budget.
The Arrhenius CO2 back-radiation scenario seems compellingly simply, but when one tries to get to grips with it, the “devil is in the detail”, and in this case the devil in question is a particularly slippery bugger – oops – we’re on a religious thread, need to mind my language!
phlogiston,
Given your handle, you may appreciate the sage wisdom of one Max Planck:
A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.
Though perhaps you’d better appreciate this formulation:
New scientific ideas never spring from a communal body, however organized, but rather from the head of an individually inspired researcher who struggles with his problems in lonely thought and unites all his thought on one single point which is his whole world for the moment.
In my dreariest moments engaged in the Great Climate Debate, when the opposition suggests that mine is an irrational belief tantamount to religion based on ego, an overly-active imagination and naive assumptions wholly unsubstantiated by any evidence whatsoever, I often recall this one:
We have no right to assume that any physical laws exist, or if they have existed up to now, that they will continue to exist in a similar manner in the future.
And yet he published his assumptions anyway. Hypocrite or pragmatist?
I choose the latter, for I don’t believe that extreme skepticism is a useful permanent state if one seeks to contribute to the body of what we humans in our constant fits of hubris fancy as our collective “knowledge”, but I think are more properly called our chosen beliefs.
Or, in slightly more informal terms: extreme navel-gazing only makes one a front-running expert on belly-button lint.
(signed) graviton