Jo has a brief posting on the nature of science, and its purpose. Despite the high quality of her postings I posted a comment complaining about her use of the term ‘theory’ in the article in a context where ‘hypothesis’ is more appropriate. It is important that the distinction be made.
If advocates wish to refer to AGW as theory then that is up to them, it is their choice. They are wrong in their terminology, but it is their choice to be wrong. However, in any dispute it is a mistake to allow ones opponents to set the ground rules. The point being AGW is not a theory and it demeans the word to call it thus. AGW is an hypothesis, and a falsified hypothesis at that.
Whenever I deal with supporters of the IPCC and the motley CRU et al I reject the use of theory and insist correct terminology be used. As well as being correct, as a debating tactic it often serves to wrong foot them. They are most often not accustomed to having to justify their terminology, and often can’t do it. It is an excellent means of inducing them to think.
As a side issue, a scientist need not be polite. So long as they adhere to the other principles listed who cares whether they are polite or obnoxious?
Hmmm…
Observation of course always trumps theory (where are the controls for the AGWs!) but theory is equally important. Experimental results make no sense without theory. Mr Sherlock Holmes got it the wrong way round. Otherwise you’re stuffing a chicvken with snow for the hell of it and we all know how that panned out.
An observation can diss a theory but you need a theory in the first place otherwise you just got numbers.
Curve-fitting without theory is goat entrails and virgin sacrifice stuff.
I know this. I have done it properly.
No, must disagree.
You need a hypothesis, not theory. In fact, you need observation first.
Observe, hypothesise, predict, observe, rehypothesise.
The distinction isn’t defined the same way by everybody - I don’t think there is any generally accepted definition. To some degree, theories and hypotheses are the same thing looked at with different emphases. A theory is a coherent system of hypotheses that has already attained significant evidential support. Or alternatively, a hypothesis is when you’re testing it and a theory when you’re using it. Also, a theory must be general and explanatory as well as being descriptive.
AGW is still more tentative (and limited in scope) than the term ‘theory’ would normally suggest, but I wouldn’t object to the term. However, hypothesis is the more appropriate term when asking the question of whether it is true or not.
Cats,
Observation makes no sense without theory.
A theory is a coherent system of hypotheses that has already attained significant evidential support.
Which is how I would tend to use the terms.
Nick, unless you already posses observations you have no basis to theorise, or even hypothesise.
You don’t theorise about the nature of the stars unless you have already observed their existence - I observe there are lights in the sky, I wonder what they are. Could they be the spirits of my ancestors? Or could they be big balls of flaming gas. How can I test this?
Observation begats theory.
The problem is that there isn’t a pithy well-understood word for ’scientific research programme’, which is how Imre Lakatos described a particular scientific world view, together with its mathematical problem-solving apparatus, accepted experimental techniques, standards of proof and so on.
My own analogy is to compare scientific world-views to games, for example rugby. Games have laws, participants, specialist equipment, a specialist press, good and bad players, different divisions for different abilities, fans and detractors. Just like scientific research programmes they change over time in ways that are determined by the people involved in them.
In the same way that there is no rational way to compare rugby with, say, darts, there is no rational way to compare research programmes. All research programmes protect their core assumptions with a protective belt of auxiliary theories. This is, if you like, a methodological decision. As Lakatos puts it, if you use Newton’s laws to predict the position of a planet and it’s not there you’ll posit and spend time trying to find gas clouds, other planets and all sorts of other phenomena but you won’t abandon Newton’s laws. If you do then you’ve simply stopped being part of the Newtonian research programme.
No contemporary philosopher of science believes that theories can be falisified except by the methodological fiat of their participants.
Over time progressive research programmes successfully predict new phenomena while degenerating ones need to constantly reinforce their protective belt. AGW is, in my view, a degenerating research programme at the moment.