Platt: Sorry. I'm too dense to follow your argument. I just seems to me that if predictions based on so-called science have been wrong about changes in global climate in the recent past in the past, they can be wrong now, especially when some scientists who supposedly know about such things say the dire predictions made by Al Gore and others are wrong. If you see a flaw in that more or less common sense argument, please let me know. Thanks.
Regards, Platt Mark 20-02-07b: Hi Platt, Platt: '...if predictions based on so-called science have been wrong about changes in global climate in the recent past in the past, they can be wrong now....' The example you cite from the 70's isn't wrong; our generation cannot live long enough to span the geological time necessary to observe the next ice age. However, the history of past cycles are written in ice layers for us to examine. If the cycle continues then another ice age will occur. This is how inductive inference works: "Inductive inferences start with observations of the machine and arrive at general conclusions. For example, if the cycle goes over a bump and the engine misfires, and then goes over another bump and the engine misfires, and then goes over another bump and the engine misfires, and then goes over a long smooth stretch of road and there is no misfiring, and then goes over a fourth bump and the engine misfires again, one can logically conclude that the misfiring is caused by the bumps. That is induction: reasoning from particular experiences to general truths." ZMM ch. 8 All i am indicating here is that the 70's example you gave is flawed with respect to inductive reasoning. Platt: "...we cannot be sure that present TF is not being catastrophically enhanced by technological influences for the same reason we can't be sure that solar activity won't bring on a period of global cooling, as was widely predicted by scientists in the 70's." The current situation regarding TF has no inductive basis like the 70's example you gave. "Deductive inferences do the reverse. They start with general knowledge and predict a specific observation. For example, if, from reading the hierarchy of facts about the machine, the mechanic knows the horn of the cycle is powered exclusively by electricity from the battery, then he can logically infer that if the battery is dead the horn will not work. That is deduction. Solution of problems too complicated for common sense to solve is achieved by long strings of mixed inductive and deductive inferences that weave back and forth between the observed machine and the mental hierarchy of the machine found in the manuals. The correct program for this interweaving is formalized as scientific method." ZMM ibid. I agree with you when you suggest scientific method is fallible. It is then appropriate to be careful when considering global warming to remove any shadow of political influence as social patterns of value and concentrate instead on the intellectual patterns of value. If the intellectual patterns of value help us to identify danger, then political patterns will have to do the donkey work of change under intellectual guidance. This seems in accord with the moq i think you may agree Platt? The question remains: Has scientific method identified a danger? Best, Mark moq_discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
