Comments on: GCCI #9: Forcing Observation to Fit the Theory http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2009/06/gcci-9-forcing-observation-to-fit-the-theory.html Tue, 07 Sep 2010 01:25:04 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Hey Skipper http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2009/06/gcci-9-forcing-observation-to-fit-the-theory.html/comment-page-1#comment-5232 Hey Skipper Tue, 23 Jun 2009 22:58:00 +0000 http://www.climate-skeptic.com/?p=1111#comment-5232 <i>What does this mean? It means that if we throw in some correction factors that make observations match the theory, then the observations will match the theory. This statement is a pure out and out wishful thinking.</i> Never mind being a tautology so perfect it belongs in a textbook of Logical Fallacies for Beginners. What does this mean? It means that if we throw in some correction factors that make observations match the theory, then the observations will match the theory. This statement is a pure out and out wishful thinking.

Never mind being a tautology so perfect it belongs in a textbook of Logical Fallacies for Beginners.

]]> By: Robert Dammers http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2009/06/gcci-9-forcing-observation-to-fit-the-theory.html/comment-page-1#comment-5206 Robert Dammers Sat, 20 Jun 2009 14:12:20 +0000 http://www.climate-skeptic.com/?p=1111#comment-5206 I tremble a little to take issue (since I concur wholeheartedly with so much of what you write, here and elsewhere), but I think that Aristotle has got a bit of a bum rap. During our first year mechanics lectures at Imperial College, back in 1976, our lecturer reminded us of the expected motion of a Newtonian cannonball, and an Aristotelian one. We sniggered and mocked. He then pointed out that Aristotelian mechanics is dominated by friction, whereas Newtonian is dominated by momentum. Having looked at a perfect Newtonian cannonball (a 1 inch ball-bearing), he then suggested that we consider an Aristotelian cannon - more sniggering. Out from behind the table came a balloon and a badminton racket. He hit the balloon upwards at an angle of 45 degrees, and a perfect Aristotelian motion was observed - a brief "straight motion" of a few feet, a "curved motion" of another foot or so, followed by a "falling motion" to the floor. It was enlightening, particularly since it is a good metaphor for where we are now: an astonishingly vocal part of our society is convinced that we live in a world dominated by positive feedback - where balloons are used as cannonballs. By contrast, another group claim feedback is either not that important, or slightly to strongly negative - that cannonballs are usually made of steel - much denser than the air in which they fly, and encountering little friction compared to their momentum. Observation ought to enable us to determine what sort of world we *actually* live in, and so help us to formulate strategy. But observation is itself a polarized and politicised (but, alas, not in an Aristotelian sense)process. I tremble a little to take issue (since I concur wholeheartedly with so much of what you write, here and elsewhere), but I think that Aristotle has got a bit of a bum rap.

During our first year mechanics lectures at Imperial College, back in 1976, our lecturer reminded us of the expected motion of a Newtonian cannonball, and an Aristotelian one. We sniggered and mocked. He then pointed out that Aristotelian mechanics is dominated by friction, whereas Newtonian is dominated by momentum. Having looked at a perfect Newtonian cannonball (a 1 inch ball-bearing), he then suggested that we consider an Aristotelian cannon – more sniggering. Out from behind the table came a balloon and a badminton racket. He hit the balloon upwards at an angle of 45 degrees, and a perfect Aristotelian motion was observed – a brief “straight motion” of a few feet, a “curved motion” of another foot or so, followed by a “falling motion” to the floor.

It was enlightening, particularly since it is a good metaphor for where we are now: an astonishingly vocal part of our society is convinced that we live in a world dominated by positive feedback – where balloons are used as cannonballs. By contrast, another group claim feedback is either not that important, or slightly to strongly negative – that cannonballs are usually made of steel – much denser than the air in which they fly, and encountering little friction compared to their momentum. Observation ought to enable us to determine what sort of world we *actually* live in, and so help us to formulate strategy. But observation is itself a polarized and politicised (but, alas, not in an Aristotelian sense)process.

]]>