--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB
<no_re...@...> wrote:
> For example, I could "establish a formula" for
> recurring behavior on Fairfield Life, as follows:
>
> -Jv + Jphh = 10 * JMSBS
>
> I would suggest that there is FAR more statistical
> evidence for the accuracy and truth of this formula
> in the archives of Fairfield Life (think Ruth, do.rflex,
> and now Richard, to name only three) than there is
> or ever has been for the Maharishi Effect "formula."
;-)
>From the point of view of my interest in Popper that's
a very good specimen of a conjecture. It exemplifies
everything that Popper would approve of as "good science":
1) It is a bold conjecture that rules out precise, specific
situations. In other words it possesses high "information
content"
2) It is open to critical tests and falsification. Someone
merely needs to perform some data mining to look for "NOT
(10 * JMSBS)" when both -Jv + Jphh are true.
To be fair I think you have made the conjecture a little
TOO bold. It would be reasonable to set a probability value
on the theory, otherwise just one falsifying instance
will damn what is probably a promising research programme.
Can you release your calculations for the factor
of 10? I do hope your policy on transparency is more
liberal than those chaps who are now in trouble at Hadley CRU!
Suffering as we do from our contemporary hubris it's easy to
forget that we "stand on the shoulders of giants". And the
ancients, as well as analysing scenarios with lions and
crumbs, also gave us a taxonomy of valid forms of reasoning
(such that will never get us from true premisses to false
conclusions).
So we have "modus ponens" and "modus tollens" respectively:
If P then Q; P; Therefore Q
"If Bevan is in his bath the water level will rise"
"Bevan is in his bath"
The water will rise
If P then Q; Not Q; Therefore Not P
"If Bevan is in his bath the water level will rise"
"The water level has not risen"
Bevan is not in his bath
But logicians, like geeks everywhere, enjoy a little "in joke"
(preferably in Latin), and so we have the howler "modus morons":
If P then Q; Q; Therefore P
"If Bevan is in his bath the water level will rise"
"The water has risen"
Therefore Bevan is in his bath
With that out the way, it is instructive to compare your
excellent specimen of a scientific conjecture with...what? I
dunno, how about "global warming" (aka "climate change")?
"If CO2 AGW is true the glaciers will melt"
"A glacier is melting"
Therefore CO2 AGW is true
Could it be that you ever see that form of argument ("modus
morons" deployed these days? Surely not! It would likely have
Popper turning in his grave, eh?
Or does it get worse?
"If P then either Q or Not Q"
"Q or Not Q"
Therefore P
I'm thinking of headlines such as "extreme heat evidence of
climate change say scientists" and "extreme cold evidence of
climate change". Surely not, eh?
BEIJING: Freak snowstorms and record low temperatures sweeping
northern China are linked to global warming, say Chinese
officials.
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/china-blames-freak-storm-on-
global-warming-20100104-lq6t.html
If it's cold in Peru, it's global warming
http://faustasblog.com/?p=17820
