Spirituality or just emotion...?

[_Tarski]

Good science is founded on doubting everything.

Nothing is in principle beyond doubt--even the idea that the earth is roughly spherical or that humans need vitamins.

But in order for science to proceed we cannot dount everything at once. In fact, we build on what we already know and this means that the ocean of things that we do not doubt at any given point must be quite deep indeed.
Let me start the list:
1) Atoms and molecules exist.
2) Dog are mammals.
3) DNA underlies heredity.
4) Conservation of momentum for closed mechanical systems.
etc.

An airplane can be observed so can brain surgery.

Yes and temperature can be observed as well.
On top of that airplanes are build with the help of computer models.
These computer models can't include every variable especially since the environment must be modeled also.
Yet, if my family were going to get on a plane that tended to crash according to all or most of the computer models, I would not want them to get on. I wouldn't try to find reasons to doubt the models even if they were flying somewhere that they really really wanted to go. Even if changing flights would cost extra money.

A projection into the future can not be observed.

The creationists are always claiming that we can't observe the past. Now it is the future that is the problem? What does that leave? The current instant?
No. This is silly, science is all about prediction and there are more things that can mean than is usually realized. For example, evolutionary science predicts that if we dig in a layer below that associated with the cambrian explosion, we will not find primate bones in situ.
Every dig is threat and yet here we are and the theory keeps on ticking.

I do not accept that if someone gets a degree that that means only the truth comes out from them.

Of course I didn't say that so what is your point? You still choose that Harvard educated brain surgeon over the self trained quack. Why?
Don't be disingenuous. You magically get my point when your life or money is in the balance.

Many of the founding concepts of science came from people who were self educated.

Most of the education of PhDs is self-education. I spend literally hours a day learning. I doubt I would properly understand what I am reading without the training I received.

So you believe that a bunch of guys who all get taught the same thing and all get jobs that depend on them agreeing with each other that somehow in that environment a consensus is meaningful.

My job doesn't depend on my agreeing with anyone. It depends on being able to defend my claims to a standard of evidence and rationality.
In fact, I am highly motivated to go against the mainstream, if only I can do so with the highest standards. It would make me famous. If i do it without such standards, I will be exposed and rightfully take my place among the cranks.
For example, Einstein was a product of mainstream physics. His training and intellectual standards were impeccable from the point of view of academia. This is why we won his case within academia.

But again, I wonder if you mean what you say. Do you think what you just said above applies to brain surgeons and aeronautical engineers?

I can see we will not agree on much as we go further.

So I shouldn't waste my time?
By the way, can I sell you on investing in my new zero point energy device? The scientific establishment is out to protect their castle which is the only reason they don't see how right I am about my device. It may help for you to know that it based on a theory that is in harmony with the notion of spirit matter!
I only need $10,000. Help me put those mainstream science dogmatists in their place. PM me for where to send the money.
If you don't trust me, then this says more about you than me!(I got that move from Joseph Smith apologists).

To have faith in any projection requires faith in all of the parameters used in the model and how each parameter relates to the others.

Which is why climate scientists don't really just ignore solar influence. They consider it carefully and make reasonable and rational decisions about whether and how it should enter into any given model.

[_Franktalk]

Tarski,

When a model is made for an airplane design one can make an airplane and see if the model correctly predicted the performance. This can result in changes to the model and so the model gets better over time. I have no problem with this and no problem with the scientific method. A model which predicts the future can only be tested when the future unfolds. That is all I am saying.

Funny you should mention a zero point energy device. I designed one using the Casimir effect and the piezoelectric effect. From my calculations to get 3 HP I needed to make a device the size of a small mountain. I of course gave up the project. But your point is we should stay in reality land.

[_Tarski]

Tarski,

When a model is made for an airplane design one can make an airplane and see if the model correctly predicted the performance. This can result in changes to the model and so the model gets better over time. I have no problem with this and no problem with the scientific method. A model which predicts the future can only be tested when the future unfolds. That is all I am saying.

Models don't go untested.

Suppose Joe has a model and Bill has a model.

When Joe plugs in past intial condition he comes really close to imitating what actually happen and it works for a variety of past starting points.

Bill's model don't do this and when past conditions are plugged in, it runs out wild scenarios that don't resemble what really happened.

The two models are thus distinguished from each other and we can add this to a list of growing reasons (some physics based for example) that Joe's model is a good one.

This is not the only way we can effectively test models.

I will only give in to posting something from a web site once or twice as we go along since I like to explain things in my own words (avoiding the impression of not understanding for myself) and since I don't want to invite a war of cut and past but just tell me what is wrong with the following response:

Climate models are mathematical representations of the interactions between the atmosphere, oceans, land surface, ice – and the sun. This is clearly a very complex task, so models are built to estimate trends rather than events. For example, a climate model can tell you it will be cold in winter, but it can’t tell you what the temperature will be on a specific day – that’s weather forecasting. Climate trends are weather, averaged out over time - usually 30 years. Trends are important because they eliminate - or "smooth out" - single events that may be extreme, but quite rare.

Climate models have to be tested to find out if they work. We can’t wait for 30 years to see if a model is any good or not; models are tested against the past, against what we know happened. If a model can correctly predict trends from a starting point somewhere in the past, we could expect it to predict with reasonable certainty what might happen in the future.

So all models are first tested in a process called Hindcasting. The models used to predict future global warming can accurately map past climate changes. If they get the past right, there is no reason to think their predictions would be wrong. Testing models against the existing instrumental record suggested CO2 must cause global warming, because the models could not simulate what had already happened unless the extra CO2 was added to the model. All other known forcings are adequate in explaining temperature variations prior to the rise in temperature over the last thirty years, while none of them are capable of explaining the rise in the past thirty years. CO2 does explain that rise, and explains it completely without any need for additional, as yet unknown forcings.

Where models have been running for sufficient time, they have also been proved to make accurate predictions. For example, the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo allowed modellers to test the accuracy of models by feeding in the data about the eruption. The models successfully predicted the climatic response after the eruption. Models also correctly predicted other effects subsequently confirmed by observation, including greater warming in the Arctic and over land, greater warming at night, and stratospheric cooling.

[_Franktalk]

Tarski,

Models can be tested within the bounds of what has happened before. If the model is asked to go beyond those bounds then the model may still give false results. This would come from how the variables are handled. In the case of CO2 there are assumptions about a feedback mechanism so that temperatures go way up at some point. In recent history we have no data to check this assumption. But if we go back far enough in time we do have an earth with much more CO2 and no such temperature rise happened as quickly or as much as the model predicts. So if you say that the model you wish to talk about explains the ancient CO2 levels and why the temps settled where they did then I am all ears. But if the model only is tested in the recent past with low CO2 levels then that is not a test at all. In that case the model is only partially tested and should not be held as tested outside of the bounds that it was tested in. But those are points to argue over.

The other thing I wish to discuss is the current thermodynamics of the earth and its ancient past. In looking at the past billion years or so it appears that the earth has experienced a few periods of warmth and cold. Some of these lasting a long time. This in the face of large changes in CO2 levels. The earth never heated to the point of killing off all life and never cooled to the point of killing off all life. This to me means there is some kind of regulating system at play. The oceans and clouds may be that regulating system. According to some the earth would be around -18C if we had no oceans and nothing to trap heat. But we have oceans and the oceans make water vapor that makes clouds. The earth is now and always has been controlled by greenhouse gases. It is just water vapor that is the main driver. But the point is the earth is already being controlled 100% by greenhouse gases. You can't make it 110%. In looking over the ancient history of the earth it appears that the earth goes between 10C and 25C. Now the sun has changed its output over the history of the planet around 30%. But we don't see a steady rise in temperatures on the earth over these long times. So the regulating system has somehow managed to keep life on the planet even though we had some pretty dramatic changes. Now I will admit and we have clear evidence of changes to the temperature of the earth from changes in the atmosphere. An easy one is volcanic activity. If enough particles are placed in the upper atmosphere the earth cools because it reflects sunlight. But the lower temps will cool the oceans and a few things happen to limit the drop in temps. Now with enough reflection from an independent source that blocks all the sun the earth would cool and freeze. But on the high side if something tried to make the earth hotter the oceans would kick in and the cloud cover would cool it off at some limit. So I am ready to discuss just where that limit is. And ready to see if CO2 can indeed drive the system as some say it can.

Obviously much more to talk about.

[_Franktalk]

In my study of the past CO2 events on the earth I came across a few pretty dramatic die offs. Major loss of species. In looking them over it came to my mind that the die offs in the book of Revelation were pretty close. I will spend some time making some comparisons over the next year. In the book of Revelation the mystery of God continues way into the 70th week. This would mean that the events that cause the die offs would be viewed by man as natural.

So how would one explain the close connection to past die offs when the men of the first century did not know of the ancient past of the earth (according to science).

Is this yet another lucky guess by the church fathers? So what causes men to know the future? A spirit or some emotion caused by current events?