next message in archive
no next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects
<a href="../200806/11587.html">previous message in archive< ------=_Part_25678_8957942.1213147848326 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Hi too, I have been reading this thread with interest, but till now have deliberately kept silent, and don't wish to get into a lengthy on-line discussion with people who believe stuff and will never change their beliefs whatever the evidence. But I do think, Well said Patrick! I have no doubt that large numbers of highly qualified experts could have been found (and probably were) to state that Galileo was wrong despite the objective evidence to the contrary, and likewise the same for Wegener's theory of Continental drift, which was pooh-pooed by many experts. Nowadays there can't be too many people who believe that Jupiter's moons don't rotate around Jupiter, or that plate tectonics are a fallacy. These are both obvious examples of subsequent facts trumping the opinions of many of the experts at the time, and which have been supported by much experimental evidence coming from many different directions. There is an excellent book - Heat, by George Monbiot, which sets out in good and seemingly objective lay terms the evidence for and against global warming, and the evidence for and against it being caused by human activity - and then goes on to postulate that regardless of the cause, we need to do something about it, since the cost (financial and human) of not doing so will in the long run far exceed the cost of ignoring it. He then goes on to suggest some of those things, and includes the number crunching with regard to carbon capture, the cost of mining uranium for nuclear power, the use of different and new forms of public transport, etc. etc. A good read for anyone interested in this subject from any perspective. Best wishes, Richard On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 9:25 PM, Patrick Kelly <patrick.kelly@dal.ca> wrote: > Hi everyone: > > I do teach all of my first-year students how the scientific method works. > It has been adequately explained by others. Unlike religion, politics, > economics, astrology, etc. the scientific method is a self-correcting > mechanism. It is not based on opinion, per se, as the "general" view can be > changed when new data is found. There is also a big disconnect between what > a scientist means by "theory" compared to what the average person means. To > a layman, "theory" is the same as "best guess". In science, "theory" means a > large body of consistent knowledge for which there no exceptions have been > found. That is why the "theory" of relativity or evolution by natural > selection, etc are held in such high regard. There is an old saying that a > first-rate theory predicts, a second-rate theory forbids, and a third-rate > explains after the fact. Every time that a new technology has been made to > test relativity, or a new prediction has been developed, the experimental > results are in perfect agreement with the theory. While climate is a bit > messier to deal with (climate is what you expect, weather is what you get) I > think that the theoretical models of what will change seem to be consistent > with what is being observed. > > > ################# Dr.Richard Stern, 70 Exhibition St. Kentville, NS, Canada B4N 4K9 Richard Stern, 317 Middle Dyke Rd. Port Williams, NS, Canada B0P 1T0 rbstern@ns.sympatico.ca rbstern@xcountry.tv sternrichard@gmail.com ################### ------=_Part_25678_8957942.1213147848326 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Hi too,<br><br>I have been reading this thread with interest, but till now = have deliberately kept silent, and don't wish to get into a lengthy on-= line discussion with people who believe stuff and will never change their b= eliefs whatever the evidence. But I do think, Well said Patrick!<br> <br>I have no doubt that large numbers of highly qualified experts could ha= ve been found (and probably were) to state that Galileo was wrong despite t= he objective evidence to the contrary, and likewise the same for Wegener= 9;s theory of Continental drift, which was pooh-pooed by many experts. Nowa= days there can't be too many people who believe that Jupiter's moon= s don't rotate around Jupiter, or that plate tectonics are a fallacy. T= hese are both obvious examples of subsequent facts trumping the opinions of= many of the experts at the time, and which have been supported by much exp= erimental evidence coming from many different directions.<br> <br>There is an excellent book - Heat, by George Monbiot, which sets out in= good and seemingly objective lay terms the evidence for and against global= warming, and the evidence for and against it being caused by human activit= y - and then goes on to postulate that regardless of the cause, we need to = do something about it, since the cost (financial and human) of not doing so= will in the long run far exceed the cost of ignoring it. He then goes on t= o suggest some of those things, and includes the number crunching with rega= rd to carbon capture, the cost of mining uranium for nuclear power, the use= of different and new forms of public transport, etc. etc. A good rea= d for anyone interested in this subject from any perspective.<br> <br>Best wishes,<br><br>Richard<br><br><br><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">O= n Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 9:25 PM, Patrick Kelly <<a href=3D"mailto:patrick= .kelly@dal.ca">patrick.kelly@dal.ca</a>> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"= gmail_quote" style=3D"border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0p= t 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"> Hi everyone:<br> <br> I do teach all of my first-year students how the scientific method works. I= t has been adequately explained by others. Unlike religion, politics, econo= mics, astrology, etc. the scientific method is a self-correcting mechanism.= It is not based on opinion, per se, as the "general" view can be= changed when new data is found. There is also a big disconnect between wha= t a scientist means by "theory" compared to what the average pers= on means. To a layman, "theory" is the same as "best guess&q= uot;. In science, "theory" means a large body of consistent knowl= edge for which there no exceptions have been found. That is why the "t= heory" of relativity or evolution by natural selection, etc are held i= n such high regard. There is an old saying that a first-rate theory predict= s, a second-rate theory forbids, and a third-rate explains after the fact. = Every time that a new technology has been made to test relativity, or a new= prediction has been developed, the experimental results are in perfect agr= eement with the theory. While climate is a bit messier to deal with (climat= e is what you expect, weather is what you get) I think that the theoretical= models of what will change seem to be consistent with what is being observ= ed.<br> <br><br></blockquote></div><br>#################<br>Dr.Richard Stern, <br>7= 0 Exhibition St.<br>Kentville, NS, Canada<br>B4N 4K9<br><br>Richard Stern, = <br>317 Middle Dyke Rd.<br>Port Williams, NS, Canada<br>B0P 1T0<br><br> rbstern@ns.sympatico.ca<br><= a href=3D"mailto:rbstern@xcountry.tv">rbstern@xcountry.tv</a><br><a href=3D= "mailto:sternrichard@gmail.com">sternrichard@gmail.com</a><br>#############= ###### ------=_Part_25678_8957942.1213147848326--
next message in archive
no next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects