OT: I know how to solve global warming

[AMF]

I should probably have specifically responded to this as well.

Re:

Hunpecked said:
Presumably if the falsified theory is still useful within its newly demonstrated limits, then we can continue using it for limited applications.

This is certainly true, and is what I have in part been saying all along.

If, however, the theory is all wrong or the consequences of misapplication are sufficiently horrific, then perhaps we should abandon the theory entirely and forego its supposed benefits until a better theory is formulated and tested.

If such a theory existed, then to derive a replacement research program is a trivial matter. But, really, until you have an alternative, you have to go with what you have in place at the moment, because to do otherwise is non-rational because it would have no logic inherent in it. It would be, for example, totally ad hoc, self-contradictory, incoherent, etc�it would essentially be like saying �well, every possible thought we have given on this matter is so terrible that we have no possible explanations for it, and we can�t think of anything better� � even the most bizarre phenomena that mankind has ever experienced don�t fit that. At the very least, the explanation for something like that would be �The Gods make the sky blue because they like the color blue.� This at least is a theory, albeit a very silly one that would, thereby, be relatively easy to supplant with a better one.

Of course, since AGW is a hypothesis (as Will apparently realizes), this whole philosophy of science discussion is just an interesting sidebar to the discussion of AGW.

This is why I use the phrase �research program� not theory or hypothesis (when I remember to�). We do risk getting into obtuse terminology here, but a research program is a theory or succession of theories that is, at least in principle, empirically testable. These theories share �a hard core, a protective belt of auxiliary hypotheses, and a heuristic, i.e., problem solving machinery. Thus, in the Newtonian programme, the laws of motion and the universal law of gravitation are the hard core. Anomalies in the motion of planets are dealt with by considering factors that may affect the apparent motion, e.g., refraction of light or the existence of a hitherto unknown planet. The problem solving machinery is the vast body of classical mathematical physics.�

In AGW, the hard core would be the belief that human activity contributes to global warming. I�d have to give some thought to what the negative and positive heuristics would be...but it�s a long weekend coming up, so don�t hold your breath�



AMF