On 22/06/2012 00:26, JTG wrote:
> Ok, It is now Officially Friday:
> >From my amateur POV, I expectorate on any loon who might ascribe a site as
> Without the Science, there can BE no knowledge as to any site..
> John Germain
> British Channel Islands
science is a methodology which states that validity comes from the
testing of hypothesis. There are many things which cannot be tested and
which are therefore not science, but which provide us knowledge. E.g. I
know if I were to have an affair with another woman, my wife would not
be happy. I do not need to test this hypothesis ... by some magic
process I just seem to know this by osmosis, even though I have never
discussed the idea with my wife.
Likewise, you do not need any science to produce a pottery chronology or
determine that one layer precedes another. That doesn't mean a pottery
chronology couldn't be subject to a scientific test of its validity ...
i.e. finding a way to independently date the pots and so testing the
hypothesis against independent dating.
Accurate measurement isn't science (it's engineering). Common sense
isn't science. I know there's a recent craze to call any subject which
thinks it uses scientific like ideas, a "science" ... but they aren't
unless the test of validity comes by subjecting hypothesis to test.
A classic example is "climate science" (which used to be more accurately
called "climatology" in analogy to geology). The problem is that Climate
"science" doesn't use testing to decide the validity of ideas. It does
make science-like predictions but these are always "true until someone
can disprove them" rather than "unvalidated until tested against the
data". E.g. no one can have missed the "true beyond all doubt" latest
prediction which can be stated as "warming will be ~3.5x the level of
direct CO2 warming" (CO2 warming comes from outwith the subject as it is
based on real scientists working in Physics/Chemistry). The 3.5x figure
is entirely a fudge with next to no scientific basis. But it is "true
beyond doubt" even though predictions of warming based on this equation
don't fit the climate.
The fact that every other prediction of the climate by climate "science"
has failed, doesn't ever dent their own belief that the next equation is
certain to predict the future (and the need for everyone to listen to
them). The fact it hasn't warmed since climate "science" decided it
could predict global temperatures in 2001 doesn't lessen their faith
that the effect of CO2 is vastly greater than the real science suggests
- and natural variation doesn't exist (or could possibly have caused
20th century warming). Likewise, in the 1970s they were equally vehement
that they could predict global cooling based on the "science" of Camp
That's the difference. Anyone can make predictions based on science ...
but real scientists wait till their predictions have been validated by
the data before asserting their "truth".