“…without assuming a philosophical basis.”
I’m always amused by scientists who don’t understand their own epistomological assumptions and foundations.
[Update a while later, after going out to get a haircut…]
Link was missing. Fixed now, sorry.
“…without assuming a philosophical basis.”
I’m always amused by scientists who don’t understand their own epistomological assumptions and foundations.
[Update a while later, after going out to get a haircut…]
Link was missing. Fixed now, sorry.
Why they need to talk to each other:
Most of climate science is in ‘shut up and calculate’ mode. This is a very dangerous place to be given the substantial uncertainties, ignorance and areas of disagreement, not to mention the problems/failures of climate models. Climate science needs reflection on the fundamental assumptions, re-interpretations, and deeper thinking. How to reason about the complex climate system, and its uncertainties, is not at all straightforward. And then of course there are the ethical issues, including understanding how the climate debate has gone so badly wrong.
Yes.
An interesting history, and some reflections, from Judith Curry.
It’s a mystery:
As one participating scientist points out, to miss the mark by so much means what we understand about the universe is fundamentally wrong. The universe continues to be exciting, a little scary, but mostly—a mystery.
And yet some have the hubris to tell us they can predict the temperature of the planet and level of the seas decades from now.
An attempt to educate a reporter at Slate. It’s actually sort of a fisking by email.
…has gone live. Salmon are being caught.
A beautiful map of the field, courtesy of the late GRAIL satellites.
Hey, guys, please stop saying dumb things about it.
How to read and understand them.
…versus the “scientific” method.
Scientific method vs. actual scientific method … pic.twitter.com/LjU9oW0Tvc
— Brian D. Earp (@briandavidearp) June 2, 2014