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.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: maceng2 who wrote (1440973)	2/21/2024 4:54:02 PM
From: Eric	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572167

Really important that the concept is understood. Verifications are easy, and in "Climate Science" falsehoods are as difficult to find as hens teeth according to what we are told. A lot of scientist disagree but seemingly they don't count if the WEF doesn't like them So do you have some college/university level science degrees? Bachelor level or higher? We would love to know.

To: maceng2 who wrote (1440973)	2/21/2024 5:02:27 PM
From: Wharf Rat	1 Recommendation Recommended By pocotrader Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572167

"in "Climate Science" falsehoods are as difficult to find as hens teeth according to what we are told." If you want falsehoods, the people one this list have them. You will be their hero, if you can prove that Fourier was wrong. Climate Disinformation Database - DeSmog

To: maceng2 who wrote (1440973)	2/21/2024 9:36:47 PM
From: maceng2	1 Recommendation Recommended By longz Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572167

Karl Popper and Global Warming. Just been checking the internet. There are a sizable number of papers on that very title. I am not going to start downloading them, but this college intro will do for me. *KARL POPPER AND ANTARCTIC ICE The Climate Debate and Its Problems By Peter Borah, Class of 2012* The Core: College Magazine of the University of Chicago (uchicago.edu) Uses the example of a Turkey making scientific theories about Human Beings. The Turkey makes a Scientific theory: Declares that Human beings feed Turkeys every day. Theory works great then Thanksgiving arrives. Human eat Turkey. Theory disproven. Here is the relevant bit of text.... << *To this day, you can ask any working scientist what the scientific method is, and he or she is likely to give you a very Popperian account.>> edit: Just finished reading the whole paper. I would give it very high marks in a competition too. The student was smart enough to put in some real scientific content, makes some important points on Popper, but not antagonise the ruling academia, and actually get thier blessing. If I wrote a paper I am sure it would have received the very minimum marks possible. maybe a zero -g- I am reading some other papers where supposed scientists suggest Popper is not valid in Science Today. That (for me) is unsustainable. Here is why ..... Carl Popper wrote his Philosophy of Science for important reasons in the 20th century. His book is part of many science degree courses, in my day at least. If you didn't know your Carl Popper stuff, you were not a scientist. Simple as that. This should settle the matter. There were serios attempts to classify Marxism* as science. (yes really.. Marxism was regarded as scientific fact) Marxism as Science: Historical Challenges and Theoretical Growth on JSTOR In fact the "social sciences" ran amok and defined themselves as pure sciences for a while. Then Carl Popper came around and wrote a book published in 1934. Karl Popper - Wikipedia The Logic of Scientific Discovery - Wikipedia Summary[ edit]Popper argues that science should adopt a methodology based on falsifiability, because no number of experiments can ever prove a theory, but a reproducible experiment or observation can refute one. According to Popper: "non-reproducible single occurrences are of no significance to science. Thus a few stray basic statements contradicting a theory will hardly induce us to reject it as falsified. We shall take it as falsified only if we discover a reproducible effect which refutes the theory". [2]:?66? Popper argues that science should adopt a methodology based on "an asymmetry between verifiability and falsifiability; an asymmetry which results from the logical form of universal statements. For these are never derivable from singular statements, but can be contradicted by singular statements". [3] That book and later ones demonstrated that Marxism and other subjects were pseudo sciences, not "science". Climate Science has many aspects that make it open to criticism as it cannot be tested for falsifiability. The fact that authorities discount and supress critics makes it a sitting duck for ample doses of ridicule, certainly as much as anyone declaring to me that Marxism is a pure science. That is my view. btw, the exact same arguments go for Covid, Masks (in particular) and Vaccines. So called scientists have lost the plot in many cases. Sorry science is not a religion, and politicians, especially those in New Zealand are not an authority on what "the science" is. There are arguments and schools of thought above Poppers seminal work, but they build on his work, they don't detract from it. Always willing to hear if someone has a different view on all that.