Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Gold and Silver Juniors, Mid-tiers and Producers -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: koan who wrote (15277)	7/5/2006 2:48:18 PM
From: LoneClone	Respond to of 78416

Koan, you are entirely correct about scientists being VERY careful before they make assertions. Over the years I have done quite a bit of work with both social and physical scientists, including several working in ocean sciences studying ocean temperatures, and they take great care in any of their words that might be published. I take the point about weather being a complex system, but the way science works is to work from observations to theorized generalities from which testable hypotheses are generated. Just because the causality is complex does not mean testable hypotheses cannot be generated. BTW, if you ever see someone write that a theory has been proved, they have failed to comprehend of the basic tenets of the scientific method. Value their words accordingly. By definition, a theory can never be proved, only supported or disproved. Even the testable hypotheses generated from a theory cannot be proved; they can only fail to be disproved. LC

To: koan who wrote (15277)	7/5/2006 4:06:03 PM
From: LLCF	Respond to of 78416

<DAK, scientific research is exactly the opposite of what you portend. My SIL and I discussed that last night. Scientists are so scared of being wrong that they UNDERESTIMATE problems not overestimate them!> That's not exactly the opposite of what I'm saying at all, in fact, it's a perfect corollary. I never commented on under or over estimations by scientists. I spoke of the result of the main point (difficulty in scientific method as currently practice in complicated systems and the ramifications of that... which you're right, is probably underestimation... thumb twiddling while waiting for data). Your point about scientists being scared is a great example of what I'm talking about... why are they scared? Cause they might be wrong. Why might they be wrong? Cause they know they can't explain their suspicions in scientific "proof". They're afraid of being labelled unscientific (heaven forbid) or worse, one of my favorites...{GASP!} a "charlatan "! Another point was that this has come about because of the god like status the term 'scientific proof' has. DAK