Occam's razor is just a heuristic to choose the most likely theory to test. Science would work if we chose the most complex available theory, but it would be very, very slow. If you are in IT, you could think of Occam's razor as a tree-traversal algorithm.
Science works by eliminating possibilities. As you eliminate possibilities you zero in on the truth, but you never quite get there.
In a sense everything we think we know is "just a theory", waiting to be disproved. Every now and again we disprove something, thereby advancing human knowledge.
I think it is actually to choose between competing theories all else being equal and strangely enough it has been successful. However, at the end of the day as you say it is just a heuristic or you could say it is an epistemology and thus has exactly the same standing in philosophical terms as a belief in God or Karma or Murphy's law or whatever else takes your fancy.
Shadow
31 Oct 2012, 11:00 AM
Following on from this thread, I was wondering how many anthropogenic climate change alarmists also believe in a god?
The anthropogenic climate change theory is more like a religion than science. Everyone knows the climate has always been influenced by natural forces, and has been changing for billions of years, before humans were around. Any impact of humans on climate change is unknown and can't be measured in isolation from those natural causes. Therefore it is impossible to demonstrate that current changes in the climate (temperature, sea levels, ice caps, extreme weather events etc) are caused predominantly by humans rather than other natural forces. There is no evidence. All the alarmists have is their faith... it's like a religion.
Climate change alarmists talk about a 'consensus' by which they really mean a majority opinion. There is no true consensus on anthropogenic climate change any more than there is a consensus on the existence of a god (the majority of people also believe in some form of a god, despite the lack of evidence).
I don't see how it would be possible for a climate change alarmist to also believe in a god. Because those who believe in a god generally believe the god is responsible for everything, which would have to include responsibility for the climate - i.e. humans can't be causing climate change if a god is responsible for it. Alternatively they might argue that god is responsible for what humans do, therefore climate change is god's will.
Personally I don't believe in a god, and I believe climate change is natural. Humans may contribute to it, but humans are a part of nature too, and our influence is probably tiny compared to the massive influence from non-human sources. Any influence we may have on the climate will also change naturally as we inevitably move to alternative energy sources. Regardless of what humans do, nature will continue to adapt to changes in the climate (while also causing changes to the climate) as has been the case for billions of years. Humans can't prevent this from happening... we will simply continue to adapt along with the rest of nature.
The main problem I find is the lack of credibility I find myself able to give to Goldman Sachs and his ilk selling a carbon tax in Australian and the role those guys have generally in any debate on climate change. Despite what most people believe about science, and the almost sanctity in which the scientific method is held, most of science still leaves a lot to be desired. Problems of reproducibility of scientific data are so widespread. Scientists are always selling an agenda even when we don't think we are ie we want funding for our research etc etc. Whether or not you believe that climate change is man made does require a leap of faith, there is no way we can prove this without doubt. I suspect that there is much more evidence to claim that many man made activities damage our environment. It is therefore great to see some of the climate change believers recommending actions to reduce these effects. However, I also suspect that much of the narrative on climate change(to use a Catweasel term) is being used to increase taxes and other changes that will have some future benefit for the Goldman Sachs of this world. Call me a cynic if you wish
Definition of a doom and gloomer from 1993 The last camp is made up of the doom-and-gloomers. Their slogan is "it's the end of the world as we know it". Right now they are convinced that debt is the evil responsible for all our economic woes and must be eliminated at all cost. Many doom-and-gloomers believe that unprecedented debt levels mean that we are on the precipice of a worse crisis than the Great Depression. The doom-and-gloomers hang on the latest series of negative economic data.
I also suspect that much of the narrative on climate change(to use a Catweasel term) is being used to increase taxes and other changes that will have some future benefit for the Goldman Sachs of this world. Call me a cynic if you wish
You might be on the right lines.
If you look at the amount of US deficit spending that goes on defence and technology it is easy to see that many vested interests are keen for this keynsian type stimulus to continue for far longer than you would imagine it can continue.
Looking at the US situation they are going to have to increase taxes and the more taxes can be put on the poorer people, rather than the obviously advantaged elite, then the happier the people who pull the strings are going to be.
But it is not just the elite who stand to benefit. Most of us are benefiting one way or another from the deficit spending. Few people want to be economically disadvantaged now, later maybe, but not now.
'Established claims by religion' is not the same as belief in gods.
I never said it was. There is none the less a painfully obvious connection.
Quote:
There is also science that contradicts many claims by climate change alarmists.
I never said there wasn't. There is however scientific consensus on the issue. Why are they alarmists? Are cosmologists alarmists for claiming the sun will boil the oceans at some point in the future?
Quote:
Please post links to any scientific studies that disprove the existence of gods.
I never said there was one. Reading comprehension isn't a strong point of your is it?
Quote:
There is no scientific reason to believe humans are the predominant cause of changes to the global climate.
So? At any rate, I'll leave the science to the scientists, people who have devoted their lives t researching the issue. not some know nothing internet dude. If you have evidence that contradicts the current consensus then go claim your nobel prize and unleash all your research for peer review.
Quote:
I suggest you calm down, cut out the abuse, and read my post again.
I read your post just fine. It was riddled with ignorance
Quote:
Nobody, including myself, knows the degree to which humans impact the global climate.
Science is based on the preponderance of evidence it isn't based on 'knowing'.
Quote:
More pointless unprovoked abuse.
Grab a tissue
miw
11 Dec 2012, 01:10 PM
"You either believe in god or you don't." is not a true statement. Many people have no particular belief either way. An agnostic doesn't necessarily think the existence of God is unknowable. They may just not believe they know themselves, or may hold that nobody knows without asserting that the question is unknowable. It's a fine distinction. Unknown is not quite unknowable.
BTW a deist holds the view that there was a god creator that then did not interfere in the universe after creation. So no miracles. - a sort of halfway house between theism and atheism.
At any rate, science can provide no answers here. It's the realm of non-natural philosophy.
Where I think some people get confused is in the whole creationist "debate". Obviously it is a clash between science and religion, but it is because religion is trying to dress itself up as science, not the other way around.
It is a true statement.
Do you believe in a god? If you don't know, then you don't believe one exists do you? Hence you are an atheist, as you lack a belief in a god.
A Deist is not a half way house between theism and atheism it is simply a deistic belief. A belief in a god. It just lacks a dogma or any other belief aside form a god.
There is however scientific consensus on the issue.
A great deal of science just involves a kind of tribal war where one side is convinced they have the right answer.
When the idea of ice ages was first put forwards around 1810, the dominating idea for the existance of glacial boulders spread thru the land far from glaciers was they were put there by floods. Dispite the evidence, ice ages were regarded as being a silly idea. Ice ages were regarded as being plausible by about 1850 - at least by some prominant scientists of the day.
Around the same time most scientists believed that heat was a fluid that filled the spaces in matter - dispite the huge amount of evidence available that heat could be produced in unlimited quanties by the action of friction. Even though the modern view of heat was very well worked out before 1800 it only became reasonably well accepted by about 1850.
And so it is with AGW.
Most people can agree humans have some impact upon the climate but the rest is just one big argument going nowhere fast at all.
One side wants to tell you the science is settled and the other obviously does not think it is.
There are some people who seem angry and continuously look for conflict. Walk away, the battle they are fighting isn't with you, it's with themselves.
The first lesson of economics is scarcity: There is not enough of anything to satisfy all who want it. The first lesson of politics is to disregard the first lesson of economics. ~ Thomas Sowell.
Who was the fool, who the wise man, who the beggar or the Emperor? Whether rich or poor, all are equal in death.
Do you believe in a god? If you don't know, then you don't believe one exists do you? Hence you are an atheist, as you lack a belief in a god.
A Deist is not a half way house between theism and atheism it is simply a deistic belief. A belief in a god. It just lacks a dogma or any other belief aside form a god.
Tripe.
Do you believe that no god exists? If you don't know then you are a deist or a theist.
Demonstrably a false statement, but you don't believe that no god exists either.
The term Deist goes back to the 17th century and became fairly popular among enlightenment philosophers of the 18th century who couldn't swallow the concept of miracles, but weren't prepared to go the full monty and declare themselves to be atheists.
There are people around who call themselves "modern deists" who have taken the basics of deism (no miracles, no revelation, no scriptural basis etc.) and generally fooled around with it, but many (not all by any means) of them would not be considered deists in the strict philosophical sense.
The truth will set you free. But first, it will piss you off. --Gloria Steinem AREPS™
I read your post just fine. It was riddled with ignorance
It's obvious that you find my posts intensely irritating, given the amount of unprovoked abuse you're responding with, but I'm not actually sure what part of my post you disagree with? Your responses consist of generic hand-waving and emotive insults, along with some tangential and barely relevant distractions relating to the differences between agnostics and atheists. So I'm not really sure what position you are attempting to present on climate change here (if any?). My own position is that the degree of influence exerted on the global climate by humans is unknown. Do you disagree?
A great deal of science just involves a kind of tribal war where one side is convinced they have the right answer.
When the idea of ice ages was first put forwards around 1810, the dominating idea for the existance of glacial boulders spread thru the land far from glaciers was they were put there by floods. Dispite the evidence, ice ages were regarded as being a silly idea. Ice ages were regarded as being plausible by about 1850 - at least by some prominant scientists of the day.
Around the same time most scientists believed that heat was a fluid that filled the spaces in matter - dispite the huge amount of evidence available that heat could be produced in unlimited quanties by the action of friction. Even though the modern view of heat was very well worked out before 1800 it only became reasonably well accepted by about 1850.
And so it is with AGW.
An even more recent example was the strong consensus scientific belief in the ether/aether.
Clerk Maxwell was absolutely convinced and proposed measurements of Jupiter's moons which he expected to prove its existence.
Arthur Eddington, who fully embraced and understood Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, still couldn't let go of the belief in the ether and phrased his published works (like Space Time and Gravitation) in the context of an ether.
Today the existence or otherwise of an ether is an irrelevance.
An even more recent example was the strong consensus scientific belief in the ether/aether.
Clerk Maxwell was absolutely convinced and proposed measurements of Jupiter's moons which he expected to prove its existence.
Arthur Eddington, who fully embraced and understood Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, still couldn't let go of the belief in the ether and phrased his published works (like Space Time and Gravitation) in the context of an ether.
Today the existence or otherwise of an ether is an irrelevance.
Coming right up to date what about the big bang theory of the Universe?
Proposed by a catholic priest it is essentially an irrational sort of idea founded in the idea of Genesis, where we are supposed to believe that before the singularity there was nothing at all - not even previous big bangs.
Scientifically it seems like a nutty idea and yet powerful people are promoting it as fact.
It is odd that the naming rights of 'big bang theory' go to Fred Hoyle who thought the idea was nuts and as far as I can tell the discoverer of the red shift of the universe Hubble, also did not believe in an expanding universe?
Meanwhile big bang is being shovelled at us like it is the gospel truth.
Perhaps there is an ether that does weaken light if it travels sufficiently far??
And maybe related to the big bang theory, modern thermodynamics is attempting to describe heat as being something that is only an energy being transferred rather than mainly related to existing kinetic energy so that heat is 'contained in an object' in that the heat exists in the object as mainly kinetic energy. Ie today students are told that if they think like maxwell or Planck they are stupid and the students are told that the Caloric theory of heat was replaced by the classical or modern theory of heat developed by.....Maxwell Kelvin and Planck etc etc.
On Wiki I attempted to get the classical view of heat correctly attributed at least the history of it but was overwhelmingly beaten up by modern thermodynamists who are essentially totally ignorant of the classical idea of heat as kinetic energy
Weird unless somehow this is being orchestrated for some reason.
Coming right up to date what about the big bang theory of the Universe?
Proposed by a catholic priest it is essentially an irrational sort of idea founded in the idea of Genesis, where we are supposed to believe that before the singularity there was nothing at all - not even previous big bangs.
Scientifically it seems like a nutty idea and yet powerful people are promoting it as fact.
It is odd that the naming rights of 'big bang theory' go to Fred Hoyle who thought the idea was nuts and as far as I can tell the discoverer of the red shift of the universe Hubble, also did not believe in an expanding universe?
Meanwhile big bang is being shovelled at us like it is the gospel truth.
Perhaps there is an ether that does weaken light if it travels sufficiently far??
And maybe related to the big bang theory, modern thermodynamics is attempting to describe heat as being something that is only an energy being transferred rather than mainly related to existing kinetic energy so that heat is contained in an object. Ie today students are told that if they think like maxwell or Planck they are stupid and the students are told that the Caloric theory of heat was replaced by the classical or modern theory of heat developed by.....Maxwell Kelvin and Planck etc etc.
What's your position on fluoridation of public water supplies?
Australian Property Forum is an economics and finance forum dedicated to discussion of Australian and global real estate markets and macroeconomics, including house prices, housing affordability, and the likelihood of a property crash. Is there an Australian housing bubble? Will house prices crash, boom or stagnate? Is the Australian property market a pyramid scheme or Ponzi scheme? Can house prices really rise forever? These are the questions we address on Australian Property Forum, the premier real estate site for property bears, bulls, investors, and speculators. Members may also discuss matters related to finance, modern monetary theory (MMT), debt deflation, cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin Ethereum and Ripple, property investing, landlords, tenants, debt consolidation, reverse home equity loans, the housing shortage, negative gearing, capital gains tax, land tax and macro prudential regulation.
Forum Rules:
The main forum may be used to discuss property, politics, economics and finance, precious metals, crypto currency, debt management, generational divides, climate change, sustainability, alternative energy, environmental topics, human rights or social justice issues, and other topics on a case by case basis. Topics unsuitable for the main forum may be discussed in the lounge. You agree you won't use this forum to post material that is illegal, private, defamatory, pornographic, excessively abusive or profane, threatening, or invasive of another forum member's privacy. Don't post NSFW content. Racist or ethnic slurs and homophobic comments aren't tolerated. Accusing forum members of serious crimes is not permitted. Accusations, attacks, abuse or threats, litigious or otherwise, directed against the forum or forum administrators aren't tolerated and will result in immediate suspension of your account for a number of days depending on the severity of the attack. No spamming or advertising in the main forum. Spamming includes repeating the same message over and over again within a short period of time. Don't post ALL CAPS thread titles. The Advertising and Promotion Subforum may be used to promote your Australian property related business or service. Active members of the forum who contribute regularly to main forum discussions may also include a link to their product or service in their signature block. Members are limited to one actively posting account each. A secondary account may be used solely for the purpose of maintaining a blog as long as that account no longer posts in threads. Any member who believes another member has violated these rules may report the offending post using the report button.
Australian Property Forum complies with ASIC Regulatory Guide 162 regarding Internet Discussion Sites. Australian Property Forum is not a provider of financial advice. Australian Property Forum does not in any way endorse the views and opinions of its members, nor does it vouch for for the accuracy or authenticity of their posts. It is not permitted for any Australian Property Forum member to post in the role of a licensed financial advisor or to post as the representative of a financial advisor. It is not permitted for Australian Property Forum members to ask for or offer specific buy, sell or hold recommendations on particular stocks, as a response to a request of this nature may be considered the provision of financial advice.
Views expressed on this forum are not representative of the forum owners. The forum owners are not liable or responsible for comments posted. Information posted does not constitute financial or legal advice. The forum owners accept no liability for information posted, nor for consequences of actions taken on the basis of that information. By visiting or using this forum, members and guests agree to be bound by the Zetaboards Terms of Use.
This site may contain copyright material (i.e. attributed snippets from online news reports), the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such content is posted to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democratic, scientific, and social justice issues. This constitutes 'fair use' of such copyright material as provided for in section 107 of US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed for research and educational purposes only. If you wish to use this material for purposes that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Such material is credited to the true owner or licensee. We will remove from the forum any such material upon the request of the owners of the copyright of said material, as we claim no credit for such material.
Privacy Policy: Australian Property Forum uses third party advertising companies to serve ads when you visit our site. These third party advertising companies may collect and use information about your visits to Australian Property Forum as well as other web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services of interest to you. If you would like more information about this practice and to know your choices about not having this information used by these companies, click here: Google Advertising Privacy FAQ
Australian Property Forum is hosted by Zetaboards. Please refer also to the Zetaboards Privacy Policy
