No, I think I was quite clear: Ad hoc modeling is a reasonable approach. However, where things tend to go wrong is when people try so hard to argue that we should not take data which might support an alternative model. Ad hoc modeling would be a far stronger approach if we had a handful of potential models to compare each of them against one another.
What we are told by the “professionals” is that this is the best that there is. However, it’s very clear by now that what they mean is that, given the assumptions inherent to the conventional scientific framework – a gravity-dominant mechanical universe – this is the most logical and effective model. The public should demand more rigor than this before altering the financial system which our entire country has been built upon. What got the professionals through school and through their workdays working for large institutions is insufficient justification for altering the very system which we all depend upon.
Yes, history of science should always be taken into account when we are evaluating our models. It’s all the more important since we tend not to teach the history to specialists when it casts doubt upon existing models. If four separate probes suggested that Venus is somehow not in thermal equilibrium, then this is something which we should investigate since it has very direct bearing upon our understanding of how planets thermally interact with their surroundings. Keep in mind that the very reason that the data was discounted was because the professionals who were studying Venus’ temperature profile had no recourse to explanation, even after three years of contemplation, within the confines of existing theory. When such things happen, it’s an important opportunity to critically question our ideologies within the sciences. The fact that those four probes didn’t generate additional questions really calls into question what it means to be “anti-science”, as well as the meaning of consensus.
You know, this would be as simple as switching the funding from all of these studies which claim to model the “implications” of global warming – which are, in truth, really just public relations. At this phase of the investigation, we don’t need to know about what will happen to frogs or polar bears, that people will become more violent, or whatnot. A rational Bayesian would be more concerned with solidifying the probability that the core decision to act is correct.
Um, no. You seem bent on casting me as the extremist here, even though you’re the one arguing for the most expensive scientific experiment in the history of mankind, based upon models which claim to be accurate 50 - 100 years from now. Please realize that it’s an unprecedented argument, and that there would be very important ramifications if the models turn out to be wrong. Whether it be geo-engineering, a global system of cap-and-trade or forcing the world’s population to adopt more expensive energy sources, it’s an experiment of enormous proportions which will definitively exhibit generational ramifications.
I’m actually taking a very conservative view. All that I’m saying is that the existing known controversies should be investigated. The specialists aren’t trained to ask these particular questions; in fact, asking these uncomfortable questions is the fastest way to get kicked out of the graduate programs, for the very reason that large institutions do not want “mavericks” who will cause chaos within their ranks. What I’m saying is that, for this particular problem, the consequences of being wrong are so extreme that the professionals should be forced by the public to ask those questions which would have had them kicked out of their graduate programs. It’s very simple.
The only reason that it’s not accepted as common sense is because people generally don’t realize what a professional scientist actually is. The public has no idea that professionals are not allowed to ask certain questions. They simply assume that scientists are critical thinkers who question all assumptions. What I’m suggesting would resolve that discrepancy for this particular problem.
That’s very simplistic. The more accurate view is that certain longstanding controversies in the sciences have simply been ignored by the “mainstream”. A handful of these are relevant to global warming. In particular, alternative views for how the Sun works which claim to resolve the longstanding enigmas should be funded.
Well, what I would suggest is that it might be a little bit reckless to advocate for systemic changes to our financial system without fully investigating longstanding controversies. The controversies are longstanding for very good reason. Alfven’s warnings were made more than a half century ago, and still ring true to this day …
http://www.scientificexploration.org/edgescience/edgescience_09.pdf
