Tuesday, December 01, 2009

Methodical Dialogue

In light of the ongoing goings on in the wonderful world of AGW (Alarmist Global Warming), I thought it might be beneficial to remind scientists what science is supposed to consist of. As opposed to, say, alchemy. Which is when you put a bunch of random numbers in a computer program written by a failed botanist to produce hockey-stick shaped graphs before you hide the decline and throw out the raw data, because what kind of scientist could possibly look at raw data? That's right: the kind who would write sentence fragments followed by run-on sentences switching from a declarative statement to an interrogative in the middle.

Therefore, I present...

Methodical Dialogue



TORTOISE enters ACHILLES’ room. The mythical Greek god is listening to his WalkGod CD player and is oblivious to TORTOISE.

TORTOISE: Achilles? Achilles? (He touches Achilles)

ACHILLES: Egad! What is it?

TORTOISE: Aren’t you worried you’ll ruin your hearing listening to all that noisy racket?

ACHILLES: “Noisy racket”? How can you call this noisy racket! This is none other than the Beegles compilation album, Won.

TORTOISE: Beagles?

ACHILLES: Not beagles, Beegles.

TORTOISE: It’s the same word.

ACHILLES: Almost, but not quite. Beagles are dogs. Beegles is the world’s greatest band ever.

TORTOISE: It still sounds like noise to me. In fact, maybe that’s why they’re called Beegles. They sound like braying dogs!

ACHILLES: (In disgust) They are called Beegles after the great ship HMS Beagle, which St. Darwin rode to the Galapagos Islands.

TORTOISE: St. Darwin! I know about him. He’s the patron saint of selections.

ACHILLES: The very same, only now he’s slightly more advanced.

TORTOISE: That’s somewhat handy. But why haven’t I heard any of this “Beegles” music before?

ACHILLES: Why, you probably have. You just don’t realize it. But I bet if I played a few of their tunes you would recognize them. They’re practically universal. In fact, listen to this song originally from The Scientific Misery Tour.

WALKGOD CD PLAYER: (Singing) I am the apeman, they are the apemen, I am the walnut.

ACHILLES: Surely you must know this song!

TORTOISE: Not at all.

ACHILLES: Linen would be ashamed of you.

TORTOISE: Who?

ACHILLES: The singer. But he’s dead now. (Sadly) Just like Paul.

TORTOISE: I have no idea what you are talking about.

ACHILLES: Never mind that. I’m quite sure you did not enter my room for the sole purpose of telling me that I should not listen to loud music.

TORTOISE: You are correct. I am here to propose an experiment.

ACHILLES: Hold it right there! You haven’t been talking to Zeno again, have you?

TORTOISE: Of course not.

ACHILLES: Are you sure? Sometimes he masquerades as physicist named Douglas Hofstadter.

TORTOISE: I’m positive this has nothing to do with Zeno in any alias.

ACHILLES: So this has absolutely nothing to do with one of his paradoxes?

TORTOISE: No, no. Nothing like that.

ACHILLES: Good, because last time he made me race you and I could never pass you even though I was so much faster than you are. And then he made it impossible for me to move at all because I could never get more than halfway to anywhere. It was all disconcerting for a mythical god to be bound like that.

TORTOISE: I imagine so. But this experiment is nothing like that.

ACHILLES: Okay, fine. What is your experiment?

TORTOISE: I can’t tell you.

ACHILLES: You came in here to tell me you’re going to do an experiment but you can’t tell me what it is?

TORTOISE: Indeed.

ACHILLES: Why should I care about that?

TORTOISE: Well, you’re the subject of the experiment.

ACHILLES: WHAT?!

TORTOISE: Calm down, it’s nothing preposterous.

ACHILLES: How can I trust the word of a turtle?

TORTOISE: You can’t. But I am a tortoise, not a turtle.

ACHILLES: (Scoffing) As if there’s a difference.

TORTOISE: There is a big difference! But that’s not for our current discussion.

ACHILLES: What’s to discuss? You’re conducting an experiment on me. How do I even know you’re licensed to do that?

TORTOISE: You don’t need a license to do science.

ACHILLES: Egad! They let just anyone conduct science now?

TORTOISE: Pretty much. But there are rules to it.

ACHILLES: Rules are good. Who enforces them?

TORTOISE: Scientific consensus.

ACHILLES: You take a census to determine which rules to obey?

TORTOISE: No, I said “consensus” not “census.” Silly mythical Greek god. Consensus is when a bunch of scientists get together and agree on something.

ACHILLES: I don’t know. That doesn’t sound very legit. There was a time a bunch of Persians got together and decided to attack Thermopylae, you know.

TORTOISE: True, but that was only a Persian consensus, not a scientific consensus.

ACHILLES: Oh. (Thinks about it for a minute) Wait, why does that matter?

TORTOISE: Scientific consensus is when scientists, not just Persians, get together and agree on something.

ACHILLES: I see. So no Persians are allowed.

TORTOISE: Persians are allowed, as long as they’re scientists. These scientists determine scientific consensus regardless of what ethnicity they are.

ACHILLES: So you’re saying that scientific consensus can only be determined by scientists.

TORTOISE: Indeed, I am.

ACHILLES: And scientific consensus determines who is a scientist in the first place?

TORTOISE: Again, you are correct.

ACHILLES: (Scratching his mythical chin) So scientific consensus is determined by scientists who are determined by scientific consensus, which is determined by scientists who are determined by scientific…

TORTOISE: Knock it off.

ACHILLES: Seriously, Tortoise, I think you have a problem here. It’s much better if you stick with my method.

TORTOISE: And what method is that?

ACHILLES: I am a mythical Greek god. Therefore, what I say is right.

TORTOISE: But that is an argument from authority!

ACHILLES: No less so than the authority of scientists who invent scientific consensus, I say. Besides, they’re not gods. I am.

TORTOISE: Science is not based on authority though. It’s based on consensus!

ACHILLES: Consensus is itself an authority, isn’t it?

TORTOISE: No, not at all. You’ve got it all backwards. No one person can know whether he or she is right or not. You have to have agreement between more than one person. There is no “authority” involved, because anyone can disagree with anyone else.

ACHILLES: But if they disagree with the consensus, their disagreement is by definition unscientific, isn’t it? And that means it doesn’t “count” so in what manner are they able to disagree?

TORTOISE: Look, you’re trying to make this too complicated.

ACHILLES: It is complicated. My view is much simpler, and one of the rules of science is to do that which is simplest. In my case: I said it, ergo, it’s so. You can’t get any more parsimonious than that!

TORTOISE: Egad! (Realizes what he just said) You made me use one of your words!

ACHILLES: It’s a good word.

TORTOISE: That’s irrelevant. What’s relevant is this: Each individual person has the potential to be wrong, right?

ACHILLES: “Wrong, right” has a nice ring to it.

TORTOISE: Now you’re being obtuse.

ACHILLES: It’s more fun than being abstruse.

TORTOISE: Argh, silly Greek pseudo-god. Do you agree that each individual person has the potential to be wrong?

ACHILLES: Of course. You are, ahem…”wrong right” now. See?

TORTOISE: (Ignoring the comment) If an individual person is wrong, couldn’t that error be pointed out by another person?

ACHILLES: I suppose, so long as the other person wasn’t wrong too. In that case, they would just be reinforcing the error.

TORTOISE: But isn’t it more likely that a group of people will be able to point out the errors in other people’s positions than single people working alone?

ACHILLES: “Single people”? Are you saying scientists have to be married now?

TORTOISE: Argh! You aren’t listening at all!

ACHILLES: Only because you’re not making any sense.

TORTOISE: (Fed up). Look. When you have a group of people, on the whole, the group becomes corrective. Can’t you see that a group consensus is more likely to be right than any individual’s authoritative decree?

ACHILLES: Fine. What you are saying is that you have to listen to everyone else in order to make a valid decision because you might be wrong by yourself.

TORTOISE: That’s close enough.

ACHILLES: Look around the room then. Who is in here?

TORTOISE: (Confused) Me and you. Why?

ACHILLES: You are you, and I am everyone else. Therefore, you have to listen to me.

TORTOISE: Bah, this experiment isn’t getting anywhere now.

ACHILLES: Perhaps it is because it lacks proper method?

TORTOISE glares at ACHILLES for a moment and then leaves. ACHILLES puts his WalkGod back on and presses the Play button.

WALKGOD CD PLAYER: (Singing) I am the apeman, they are the apemen, I am the walnut.

3 comments:

  1. Eh, sorry to ruin the fun but could you explain this? I don't think I quite understand what this is supposed to be saying.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hello Peter,

    An interesting thread for sure, you posted:

    >>In light of the ongoing goings on in the wonderful world of AGW (Alarmist Global Warming), I thought it might be beneficial to remind scientists what science is supposed to consist of. As opposed to, say, alchemy. Which is when you put a bunch of random numbers in a computer program written by a failed botanist to produce hockey-stick shaped graphs before you hide the decline and throw out the raw data, because what kind of scientist could possibly look at raw data? That's right: the kind who would write sentence fragments followed by run-on sentences switching from a declarative statement to an interrogative in the middle.>>

    Me: I don’t know exactly what you mean/imply by “AGW (Alarmist Global Warming)”, but I sure hope that you do not think that the Earth’s global temperatures are not rising at “alarming” rates over the last century. I have seen pictures of our world’s glaciers from the mid-20th century, and pictures of the “alarming” receeding rates. I am certainly not a geo-scientist, but the rate of recession is if any quite significant. Factor in the the deminishing ice-caps of the north and south poles…in the words of Sherlock Holmes: something is afoot!


    Grace and peace,

    David

    ReplyDelete
  3. Lucas,

    Ah, well you either get it or you don't. :-D

    I guess I will add that this is only an opening salvo, and that if I ever get out of having to do all this overtime at work, a few future posts might clarify it a bit more for you.

    David,

    A) I changed the "Anthropogenic" to "Alarming" because it more accurately describes the AGW crowd.

    B) There is no such thing as a global temperature, so it cannot be rising nor falling, let alone at an "alarming" rate.

    C) Of course, what is usually meant by that is the "average" global temperature; but there's no way to actually measure that either, as I argued here.

    D) The ice caps in the south are not diminishing. And from what I've read, they're thickening in the north too.

    E) We've definitely not had any warming--even by AGW standards--since 1998. And the "warmest" year on record--again, by their standards--is in the 1930s. That doesn't indicate a warming trend at all--by their standards.

    F) The reference the climategate issue is also important. The leaked e-mails from CRU show a consistent effort on the part of AGW "scientists" to manufacture data to fit their theory (rather than the other way around) and then hide the evidence, including illegal destruction of data supposed to be released in FOI requests. Futhermore, they're now saying that the original data is "lost" but that you can "trust them."

    So I agree. Something IS afoot. And what is afoot is an attempt by governments to scare their populations into spending more tax money on stuff we don't need so governments can retain power. Since governments pay for AGW "science" they get the results they want (because no matter how noble the scientist, he cannot conduct science without funding).

    ReplyDelete