|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Lesson from Feynman
Lesson from Feynman applicable to science deniers:
In 1974, Feynman delivered the Caltech commencement address on the topic of cargo cult science, which has the semblance of science, but is only pseudoscience due to a lack of "a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty" on the part of the scientist. He instructed the graduating class that "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself—and you are the easiest person to fool. So you have to be very careful about that. After you've not fooled yourself, it's easy not to fool other scientists. You just have to be honest in a conventional way after that." |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Lesson from Feynman
On Saturday, July 20, 2013 12:47:04 PM UTC-4, Sam Wormley wrote:
Lesson from Feynman applicable to science deniers: In 1974, Feynman delivered the Caltech commencement address on the topic of cargo cult science, which has the semblance of science, but is only pseudoscience due to a lack of "a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty" on the part of the scientist. He instructed the graduating class that "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself—and you are the easiest person to fool. So you have to be very careful about that. After you've not fooled yourself, it's easy not to fool other scientists. You just have to be honest in a conventional way after that." Like. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Lesson from Feynman
On Saturday, July 20, 2013 5:47:04 PM UTC+1, Sam Wormley wrote:
Lesson from Feynman applicable to science deniers: In 1974, Feynman delivered the Caltech commencement address on the topic of cargo cult science, which has the semblance of science, but is only pseudoscience due to a lack of "a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty" on the part of the scientist. He instructed the graduating class that "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself—and you are the easiest person to fool. So you have to be very careful about that. After you've not fooled yourself, it's easy not to fool other scientists. You just have to be honest in a conventional way after that." Honesty indeed !,I have to laugh at that one as the brief encounter with Feymannn demonstrates that he was no stranger to manipulating history considering that Ole Roemer's assertion that light travels at a finite speed using Io with the comparative distances between Earth and Jupiter preceded Sir Isaac's agenda even when Newton himself indicates it - "...were ahead of schedule when Jupiter was close to the earth and behind schedule when it was far away, a rather odd circumstance. Mr.Roemer [Olaus Roemer, 1644-1710, Danish astronomer], having confidence in the Law of Gravitation, came to the interesting conclusion that it takes light some time to travel from the moons of Jupiter to the earth.." Feynmann Character of Physical Law In an era without astronomers you could get away with that nonsense Wormley but none of you know your history much less discuss Roemer's work and his use of the Equation of Time from a flawed set of principles.Sir Isaac didn't know these things and I doubt anyone else would for the next thousand years but such is the contrived mess based on absolute/relative time that it is dismaying to know it will continue even though the whole thing can be resolved - Absolute time, in astronomy, is distinguished from relative, by the equation or correlation of the vulgar time. For the natural days are truly unequal, though they are commonly considered as equal and used for a measure of time; astronomers correct this inequality for their more accurate deducing of the celestial motions. The necessity of which equation, for determining the times of a phænomenon, is evinced as well from the experiments of the pendulum clock, as by eclipses of the satellites of Jupiter." Principia None of you have a clue what Newton was trying to do and especially the academics who have a nice lifestyle from chanting absolute/relative voodoo. I do not begrudge them their living but it would be nice to encounter a genuine astronomer capable of quickly getting rid of things that are disruptive to astronomy and especially Newton's agenda. It must be comforting to know that behind the acid of 'denier' there are people who do care about astronomy and its links to terrestrial sciences and human achievement - real achievement. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Lesson from Feynman
On 7/20/2013 11:47 AM, Sam Wormley wrote:
Lesson from Feynman applicable to science deniers: In 1974, Feynman delivered the Caltech commencement address on the topic of cargo cult science, which has the semblance of science, but is only pseudoscience due to a lack of "a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty" on the part of the scientist. He instructed the graduating class that "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself—and you are the easiest person to fool. So you have to be very careful about that. After you've not fooled yourself, it's easy not to fool other scientists. You just have to be honest in a conventional way after that." chuckle I see your feynman and raise you lavoisier Imagination, on the contrary, which is ever wandering beyond the bounds of truth, joined to self-love and that self-confidence we are so apt to indulge, prompt us to draw conclusions which are not immediately derived from facts; so that we become in some measure interested in deceiving ourselves. Hence it is by no means to be wondered, that, in the science of physics in general, men have often made suppositions, instead of forming conclusions. These suppositions, handed down from one age to another, acquire additional weight from the authorities by which they are supported, till at last they are received, even by men of genius, as fundamental truths. The only method of preventing such errors from taking place, and of correcting them when formed, is to restrain and simplify our reasoning as much as possible. This depends entirely upon ourselves, and the neglect of it is the only source of our mistakes. We must trust to nothing but facts: These are presented to us by Nature, and cannot deceive. We ought, in every instance, to submit our reasoning to the test of experiment, and never to search for truth but by the natural road of experiment and observation. ~1774 Lavoisier how cult science like AWG comes about chuckle |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Lesson from Feynman
On Sunday, July 21, 2013 10:10:16 PM UTC-4, David Staup wrote:
On 7/20/2013 11:47 AM, Sam Wormley wrote: Lesson from Feynman applicable to science deniers: In 1974, Feynman delivered the Caltech commencement address on the topic of cargo cult science, which has the semblance of science, but is only pseudoscience due to a lack of "a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty" on the part of the scientist. He instructed the graduating class that "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself—and you are the easiest person to fool. So you have to be very careful about that. After you've not fooled yourself, it's easy not to fool other scientists. You just have to be honest in a conventional way after that." chuckle I see your feynman and raise you lavoisier Imagination, on the contrary, which is ever wandering beyond the bounds of truth, joined to self-love and that self-confidence we are so apt to indulge, prompt us to draw conclusions which are not immediately derived from facts; so that we become in some measure interested in deceiving ourselves. Hence it is by no means to be wondered, that, in the science of physics in general, men have often made suppositions, instead of forming conclusions. These suppositions, handed down from one age to another, acquire additional weight from the authorities by which they are supported, till at last they are received, even by men of genius, as fundamental truths. The only method of preventing such errors from taking place, and of correcting them when formed, is to restrain and simplify our reasoning as much as possible. This depends entirely upon ourselves, and the neglect of it is the only source of our mistakes. We must trust to nothing but facts: These are presented to us by Nature, and cannot deceive. We ought, in every instance, to submit our reasoning to the test of experiment, and never to search for truth but by the natural road of experiment and observation. ~1774 Lavoisier how cult science like AWG comes about chuckle Like |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Lesson from Feynman
On Sun, 21 Jul 2013 21:10:16 -0500, David Staup
wrote, in part: how cult science like AWG comes about No. The Earth's atmosphere and oceans and biosphere are a complicated system. So their precise responses to an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide are not known. However, the basic fact that the surface of the Earth is not as hot as the surface of the Sun, and thus the Earth constantly receives heat from sunlight which is predominantly made up of short-wave infrared, visible light, and ultraviolet... while it radiates heat into space in the form of very long-wave infrared... to the latter of which, carbon dioxide is opaque, and the Earth must radiate back into space, over the course of a year, exactly as much heat as it receives from the Sun, if it is to maintain an equilibrium temperature... all these things are well known. So if the proportion of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is increased - as measurements show it has been - one can expect a rise in the global equilibrium temperature. Note that since equilibrium is achieved only when heat radiated out equals heat coming in, the temperature might rise over a long period of time before the new equilibrium is finally achieved. The thing that makes me feel like rejecting global warming out of hand, though, is the nature of the solutions offered. Use less energy; depend on unreliable sources like sunlight and wind for our electricity; and so on. And, of course, exempt the mainland Chinese dictatorship from any limits, as its people are poor. That this sort of response is likely to have, as a consequence, a reduction in the defense readiness of the United States of America does not seem to be of paramount concern. However, we shouldn't be fooled by attempts to present us with false alternatives. There is, after all, such a thing as nuclear power. Stop generating electricity from fossil fuels. John Savard http://www.quadibloc.com/index.html |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Lesson from Feynman
On 7/21/13 8:10 PM, David Staup wrote:
how cult science like AWG comes about What the science says... http://www.skepticalscience.com/its-not-us.htm http://www.skepticalscience.com/its-...termediate.htm http://www.skepticalscience.com/its-not-us-advanced.htm Fundamental physics and global climate models both make testable predictions as to how the global climate should change in response to anthropogenic warming. Almost universally, empirical observations confirm that these 'fingerprints' of anthropogenic global warming are present. Surface Temperature Change Back in 1988, NASA's James Hansen made some of the first projections of future global warming with a global climate model (Hansen 1988). He created 3 scenarios which he called Scenarios A, B, and C which used various possible future greenhouse gas emissions levels. Scenario A used a model with accelerating greenhouse gas emissions, Scenario B had linearly increasing emissions, and Scenario C had emissions leveling off after the year 2000. None of these models ended up matching greenhouse gas emissions exactly right, but the radiative forcing (energy imbalance) in Scenario B was closest, too high by about 10% as of 2009. Additionally, the climate sensitivity in Hansen's 1988 model (4.2°C global warming for a doubling of atmospheric CO2) was a bit higher than today's best estimate (3°C warming for CO2 doubling). Hansen's Scenario B projected a global warming trend from 1984-2009 of 0.26°C per decade. The actual trend as measured by surface temperature stations over that period was about 0.2°C per decade. When corrected for the 10% smaller radiative forcing than Scenario B and the higher climate sensitivity in Hansen's models, his study projected the global warming over the ensuing 25 years almost perfectly. Meehl et al. (2004) took a different approach. Instead of projecting future surface temperature change, they used climate models to attempt to attribute past temperature changes in a method known as 'hindcasting' (as opposed to forecasting). In their study, Meehl et al. show that natural forcings cannot account for the increase in global temperatures in the second half of the 20th century, and that models using both natural and anthropogenic forcings model the temperature change over the 20th century most accurately. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Quantum and Feynman's QED | G=EMC^2[_2_] | Misc | 3 | October 5th 11 08:56 PM |
I love Vonnegut - and Feynman | Rick Nelson | Space Shuttle | 0 | July 16th 05 01:06 AM |
Feynman's fallacy | BHZellner | Astronomy Misc | 2 | January 27th 05 12:10 AM |
[51-L] More Feynman, & etc. | Jon Berndt | Space Shuttle | 2 | September 9th 03 03:06 AM |