> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sam [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, December 28, 2007 3:39 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: FW: The Seven Warning Signs of Bogus Science
>
> On Dec 28, 2007 11:29 AM, Larry Lyons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 1. The discoverer pitches the claim directly to the media.
>
> An inconvenient truth.
I have to agree with others here - Al Gore was not pitching science to the
media with the movie. I think you can rightly say he was pitching it to the
public at large tho'.
As sensationalistic as "An inconvenient Truth" is the overall claim of the
film is well-supported, even if sometimes controversial, science.
The point of the article was that when bogus science fails to gain any
foothold in legitimate scientific circles they often resort to media
interaction as a way to generate popular buzz or provide faulty testemonials
("As seen on CNN!")
Too address the question "if this is so great why are you having trouble
getting the word out?" they nearly always proceed to step two:
> > 2. The discoverer says that a powerful establishment is trying to
> suppress his or her work.
>
> All "Deniers" are paid for by big oil.
Is this true? Do you have a source for the quote? I would agree that a
blanket, baseless statement of that kind would be a red flag.
However it honestly doesn't make a difference. Gore is NOT a scientist but
rather an evangelist; a popularizer. He is not defending personal research.
The science is not dependent on his views as it would be in the case of a
Dennis Lee or a Neil Adams.
> > 3. The scientific effect involved is always at the very limit of
> detection.
>
> Trust us, we can't prove it, we just know.
This is just a flippant ad hominem. It isn't worth considering.
> > 4. Evidence for a discovery is anecdotal.
>
> Disappearing ice caps, random ice core samples and Hurricane Katrina
> should be proof enough.
Regardless of whether you claim it as "proof", "indication" or "unrelated"
none of these are anecdotal. These all occurred or are occurring - we may
argue about the causality but no sane person is suggesting that any of them
we delusional in nature.
"Anecdote" means a "personal account" - scientifically speaking something
essentially private and undocumented. Saying "I saw a UFO" or "his machine
cured my headache!" is anecdotal (unless of course other evidence exists).
Saying "the ice caps are melting" is NOT anecdotal since this claim is made
based on general observation.
> > 7. The discoverer must propose new laws of nature to explain an
> observation.
>
> That is global warming.
Again this is a misunderstanding of the flag. "Global Warming" is NOT,
remotely a description of a new law of nature. It's an effect. In fact
it's an effect (or rather class of effects) that we can all agree on: IF the
planet warms here's what could happen.
We're really not arguing about "Global Warming" in the Global Warming
debate. Instead we're either arguing cause (it is happening but what's
really behind it) or existence (is it really happening at all).
For number 7 to apply truly fundamental laws must be eliminated, replaced or
violated to explain the scenario being put forth. Take a look at anything
Neil Adams has written about the "Expanding Earth" theory.
In this case his premise (that the Earth is in a constant state of expansion
with it diameter growing exponentially) he throws away plate tectonics,
sedimentation rates, etc. He explains the extinction of the dinosaurs. But
all of this requires drastic changes in our understanding of gravity,
electromagnetism and attraction. In fact it requires that matter is
constantly being created from nothing! This in turn requires the creation
of a new state of matter (something he calls "Prime Matter") which exists as
a "pre matter" and is all around us being converted to matter which in turn
forces all bodies to expand.
That may be an extreme case (and hell, it's a fun one) but it demonstrates
things nicely. For this one supposition to "work" all of science needs to
be redefined from the ground up - nothing we know is correct.
In the case of Global warming there is no such violation of existing laws
and no need to create new ones.
It is worth noting that just because Global Warming (or Al Gore
specifically) don't meet the flags for bogus science that doesn't mean that
the science is "true". Good, well researched, properly managed science is
proven false every day - science is the one discipline where "doing it
right" means that both success and failure means advancement.
Jim Davis
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to
date
Get the Free Trial
http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;160198600;22374440;w
Archive:
http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:249306
Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
