Science is deterministic. So yes it can determine the weather would be 100years from now. The problem isn't that science cannot do it. The problem is that scientists cannot do it. Scientists lack the ability to obtain all the variables and mathematics that would be needed to make such a prediction. But to me, science is a concept. To the liberal elitist science religious community, it's an institution and a group of individuals who find evidence to prove what they want to prove. If they seek evidence outside the acceptable path, they are then not considered scientists. To me, science is the process of letting the evidence determine the path. Keeping in mind that the lack of evidence is evidence in itself that we haven't completed the science and don't have the answers.
Your science is not my science. My science is not necessarily deterministic. In fact, my science proves that there are dynamic systems that are not deterministic. Guess what type of system the weather and the climate is. Liberal elitists? You're referring to the Texas folks that have built Ercot into one of the greenest energy grids on Earth? Going by installed capacity, it's at about 40% wind and solar powered as of this year.
Science is inherently deterministic. It is about cause and effect. If there is no physical cause, it's not explained by science. It is metta physical, or spiritual but not a direct response to our physical reality. Aka God controls the whether or its a random consequence of a Metta existence. But it isn't My science and it isn't Your science. Science is of itself a process and if we cannot agree on that, your language isn't my language and we might as well as not discuss!
Politics have been used to redefine the accepted concept of 'science' as 'a consensus of scientists.' 'Research' nowadays more resembles a high school popularity contest to see who can tow the party line the hardest to get the most funding. We are approaching critical democracy, oka the point at which the majority inadvertantly votes civilization into collapse.
True. False. I had a high school art teacher in the late 60s, he was really into Pollack. I had an instinctive dislike that I carry to this day.
Pollock, the movie, I recall it very favorably: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0183659/ This is your post, yes?
Science seems to me to obviously mean different things to different folks. And that's entirely ok by me. Where I start to have a problem with it is when someone defines their version according to their understanding of it and then try to use something closer to my understanding of science to prove their point about something. Now, your version of science is not my version of science if your version only includes deterministic systems, like my earlier example of V=IR. Interestingly, this equation breaks down at absolute zero and in some cases it breaks down quite a bit warmer than that. Going into greater detail about this behavior, my science teaches me that R is a function of temperature. The resistance of a typical copper wire for example increases with temperature. And at absolute zero it vanishes completely. Apparently the philosophers of science like to point out that this means that Ohm's Law is no Law at all. I would think that philosophers on a political forum that are into questioning the prohibitive meaning of what is and isn't a law might find a more productive topic than exceeding their skills attempting to redefine the laws of science when they could more fruitfully debate gun laws, seatbelt laws, tax laws, etc.... Good Lord, I seem to be engaging in mental masturbation by writing this sentence, but it is a good one, isn't it? My science includes everything that math proves and there is a vast amount of math that I haven't studied and may even be well beyond my ability to understand. Thus by no means am I asserting that I understand or know everything about what my version of science has to say about everything. You may have heard of chaos theory. This phrase may not have originated with James Gleick, but he's the guy who popularized it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory. Ugh, this wiki article gets into the weeds a bit and differentiates between deterministic and predictable. Way too wordy for me. If something is not in fact predictable then I'm sticking with it being non-deterministic. But, if it makes you happy then go with the wiki article and accept that there are unpredictable deterministic systems: Small differences in initial conditions, such as those due to errors in measurements or due to rounding errors in numerical computation, can yield widely diverging outcomes for such dynamical systems, rendering long-term prediction of their behavior impossible in general.[5] This can happen even though these systems are deterministic, meaning that their future behavior follows a unique evolution[6] and is fully determined by their initial conditions, with no random elements involved.[7] In other words, the deterministic nature of these systems does not make them predictable.[8][9] This behavior is known as deterministic chaos, or simply chaos. The theory was summarized by Edward Lorenz as:[10] Chaos: When the present determines the future, but the approximate present does not approximately determine the future. So, no, because of my belief in what my science asserts about the nature of climate and weather, it is an unpredictable system: long-term prediction is impossible in general. The same thing applies to the fates of nations and the future value of the stock market in general and individual stocks in particular.
The word "science" seems to be used in different ways, referring sometimes to a process and other times to a product, for a couple of examples. It's true that scientific method doesn't offer proof in the positive. It depends on proving falsity. Plus, theory gains credence by being useful in prediction. For example, relativity theory gained credence by predicting a solar system phenomenon.
Quite the opposite. You are reading much more into what I am saying. I am saying that consensus is opinion, and not "science". Since when has real science been done by a popularity vote?
Notice, I put it into quotations. That is commonly known as "paraphrasing". However, I would ask you to do the exact same thing, which you do all the damned time. But without the quotes to show you are putting it into your own words. At least I am linguistically accurate when I do so.
No, it can try and predict what weather may be like 100 years from now. And that is all it can do, predict. Anybody that says exactly what it will be like is a liar.
Which is ultimately what caused Greece to fall. Our "Founding Fathers" knew that, and set us up as a Republic for a reason.
Not really, unless you are talking about the 1919 solar eclipse. And that is not even a "solar system phenomenon", it is entirely global and as such could only be observed from Earth. The real breakthroughs in the proof of the theories came around a half century later, once other theories by people like Hubbard essentially "exploded" the size of the universe. Then it was taken even farther, and used to predict the existence of things that were entirely theoretical and had not even been imagined. Then later were proven to actually exist. In fact, one of the most famous we now know as "Black Holes". Which even Einstein considered and did the math for, but then rejected as he did not think the Universe would be so perverse as to allow such a thing to come into being.
It can 'determine' the weather if we had the tools to measure everything and calculate everything. We cannot do that. That limitation is ours, not science. Science is just a process for determining things that are deterministic in nature.
It's always the little things that betray us, isn't it. DARPA and Big Oil independently found warming in the 1970s. In the 80s and 90s, there was a huge fight about the how and why this was happening. A couple decades ago, climate science reached consensus, a couple years later the larger scientific community threw their support behind climate change, over 100 organisations. What you call impossible we've been doing for nearly half a century... and the quality of the work has improved massively. Not only that, we've dramatically improved our observational ability, doing things like measuring glacial loss from Space. Thought you were smarter than that...
What's the choice? There isn't a method of positive proof of theory about the natural world. Relativity theory became accepted over other theories by the majority of scientists when it was shown to correctly predict an astronomical phenomenon. Quantum mechanics is accepted as a significant tool even though nobody knows why/how it works.
No, it is commonly known as "quoting". That's why the marks are called quotation marks. There are no such marks for indicating that you made something up.
Again, your science is not my science. My science has too many positive proofs to count and I'll not waste time arguing with you about it.
If it was a closed system, with no other influences. But there are a great many. Including but not limited to vulcanism, large amounts of fresh water entering the oceans or a drop of fresh water entering. Solar activity, the list just goes on and on. And none of those can really be predicted at all. For all we know, next week some event like the 1816 Tambora eruption will happen, and every prediction ever made will have to be thrown right out the window. The solar radiation from the sun can greatly increase, or decrease. Each will have a different effect on the weather. We also know that the Great Lakes are tilting, the northern sides lifting faster than the southern sides. This could eventually cause even the drainage route to shift, with the exit being the Mississippi instead of the St. Lawrence Seaway. This would have huge impacts on the climate, probably changing the ocean currents in the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico. That is the thing about "predictions". Most times they are really little more than "wild assed guesses", and the more complex the system the greater chance for deviance.
Look back again. If you notice, we have a very good quotation system in here that I use quite a lot. And once again, I see you bicker and nag about things completely unrelated, and refuse to actually discuss the flaws in your logic and arguments.
You put quote marks around something you then claimed I said. You have done that before, too. If you had an argument, you wouldn't have to resort to that kind of behavior.
As I said, I do not argue, I debate. That means using facts and sources. Which I use in abundance. I speak of facts, and preponderance of evidence. You argue. That is an emotional tactic, intended to sway people based on their emotions and feelings and not facts. Hence, you almost never actually source anything you claim, ignore anything you can not answer, and try to steer any discussion away form the actual topic and towards what you think it should be headed. Always purely based on your beliefs. Oh, I know all about your behavior. Do not like the evidence presented, you simply ignore it and then scream none was ever presented. Backed into a corner, you try and change the topic or outright refuse to recognize a post was made that you do not like. This is yet another example. You got backed into a corner, and are trying to hard to divert things away from how you want things to go. But you are largely ignorable. You never source any of your claims, you just dismiss things based entirely upon your beliefs, and refuse to discuss things as an "adult". And this is yet another example of that behavior. Now tell me, did I put in a quote of what you actually said, or paraphrase it into my own words without a quote at all? Or even put in a quote implying you said it, but in fact altered it to say what I wanted it to say? Because if I was dishonest, I could very easily do that. Now that above is an example of what I would do if I was really doing what you imply, and having you say things you did not say. But I did not do that, I never do that. So get off your freaking high horse already. I have been posting here for almost 14 years now, I know damned well how the quote system works. And you are trying to imply for some reason otherwise, or that I am having you say things you did not. I have never done that, I always make it quite clear when I am paraphrasing. And I consider this matter closed. Now kindly get back to the topic at hand. Although I know that is impossible for you, as you have been so buried in facts by myself and others that this dissemination is the only thing you can do at this point. And why not admit you do not talk from a point of "science" at all, but essentially faith and belief.
And as I am sure you have forgotten what this entire stupid argument of yours is all about, let me refresh your memory. Now, did I say you said that? Not at all, in fact not even close. I was very clearly saying "this is not what you said, but this is what you should have said". Yes, this is how silly your claim, and this entire argument of yours is. I made it absolutely clear I was paraphrasing you, and fixing what you said. Obviously you understand English, context, and how to actually debate about as well as you comprehend anything else. Now please, can we return to the topic, and why you think Science is only right when it agrees with your beliefs?
I've not stated "my" beliefs - I've CITED experts such as NASA, NOAA and other representation of the vast majority of scientists throughout the world that state that Earth is warming and the primary reason is human activity. Your fight is with them. Once again, please stop purposefully misrepresenting me.
