Heat Pump.

davezawadi (David Stone): 
 

I am not pleased you believe that I have picked be up “Guff”.

OK, but you have. You wrote a long paragraph which includes a lot of guff about climate science and you appear to believe it.

 If I may, let me tell you where I am coming from. You wrote

[DS] You need to remember the scientific method: if a theory is disproved by a single detail, one needs to start again, not bring up excuses why the detail may not be correct.

So I instantly know five things about you (if you really mean what you wrote).

One of which is that you don't know much methodology of science. I do. 

 I have no problem with Popper, I do with your idea that science is some kind of consensus. 

Do you have an issue with science as “some kind of consensus”? That is the general STS view.

 

. Science only deals with facts, 

And you think that somehow facts are not to do with consensus? Let me introduce you to C.S. Peirce, William James, American Pragmatism, and Richard Rorty.

Harry Collins has a wonderful example in his book Gravity's Ghost (University of Chicago Press, 2011). He is talking about gravitational waves. (Harry accompanied that scientific endeavour for decades. It constitutes his main corpus). There was a significant and difficult discussion over whether a particular phenomenon was an “event” or not (there is lots of noise, and the signal these people were looking for was tiny). Lots of analysis. Lots of discussion.

Eventually it came to a vote of the delegates: is this an event? The majority voted yes.

As Harry points out, there is an example of the facticity of a phenomenon determined by …. not even consensus, but a majority vote.

 

I wonder if you have ever tried to get a paper published that offers any criticism of the “Standard Model”, even with evidence of problems? 

Dear me. Most of the particle physicists I know think the Standard Model cannot be the whole story. That was the point of Supersymmetry. Are you suggesting that papers on Supersymmetry can't be published? Obviously, they can and have been. 

You appear to come from a background of philosophy…..

It is one of my specialities, yes. 

davezawadi (David Stone): 
 

I am not pleased you believe that I have picked be up “Guff”.

OK, but you have. You wrote a long paragraph which includes a lot of guff about climate science and you appear to believe it.

 If I may, let me tell you where I am coming from. You wrote

[DS] You need to remember the scientific method: if a theory is disproved by a single detail, one needs to start again, not bring up excuses why the detail may not be correct.

So I instantly know five things about you (if you really mean what you wrote).

One of which is that you don't know much methodology of science. I do. 

 I have no problem with Popper, I do with your idea that science is some kind of consensus. 

Do you have an issue with science as “some kind of consensus”? That is the general STS view.

 

. Science only deals with facts, 

And you think that somehow facts are not to do with consensus? Let me introduce you to C.S. Peirce, William James, American Pragmatism, and Richard Rorty.

Harry Collins has a wonderful example in his book Gravity's Ghost (University of Chicago Press, 2011). He is talking about gravitational waves. (Harry accompanied that scientific endeavour for decades. It constitutes his main corpus). There was a significant and difficult discussion over whether a particular phenomenon was an “event” or not (there is lots of noise, and the signal these people were looking for was tiny). Lots of analysis. Lots of discussion.

Eventually it came to a vote of the delegates: is this an event? The majority voted yes.

As Harry points out, there is an example of the facticity of a phenomenon determined by …. not even consensus, but a majority vote.

 

I wonder if you have ever tried to get a paper published that offers any criticism of the “Standard Model”, even with evidence of problems? 

Dear me. Most of the particle physicists I know think the Standard Model cannot be the whole story. That was the point of Supersymmetry. Are you suggesting that papers on Supersymmetry can't be published? Obviously, they can and have been. 

You appear to come from a background of philosophy…..

It is one of my specialities, yes.