The Solution—Discussion

Written by Dr Jerry L Krause on February 23, 2018. Posted in Current News

In my previous essay (https://principia-scientific.com/the-problem-argumentation/), I reviewed some of the wisdom given to the National Academy of Science by Richard Feynman in a 1955 address titled—The Value of Science.  The title of the previous essay was:  The Problem—Argumentation.  Which the portion of Feynman’s wisdom reviewed did not directly address.  But I now consider how he closed his address as the solution to the problem of argumentation.

He concluded:  “We are at the very beginning of time for the human race.  It is not unreasonable that we grapple with problems.  Our responsibility is to do what we can, learn what we can, improve the solutions, and pass them on.  It is our responsibility to leave people of the future a free hand.  In the impetuous youth of humanity, we can make grave errors that can stunt our growth for a long time.  This we will do if we say we have the answers now, so young and ignorant as we are. If we suppress all discussion, all criticism, proclaiming, “This is the answer, my friends; “man is saved!” we will doom humanity for a long time to the chains of authority, confined to the limits of our present imagination.  It has been done so many times before.It is our responsibility as scientists, knowing the great progress which comes from a satisfactory philosophy of ignorance, the great progress which is the fruit of freedom of thought, to proclaim the value of this freedom; to teach how doubt is not to be feared but welcomed and discussed; and to demand this freedom as our duty to all coming generations.” Feynman added.

A commenter, Carl, recently wrote (https://principia-scientific.com/open-letter-alumni-on-mits-climate-action-plan/#comments):

 “Whether PSI has been “ineffective” or not depends upon your definition of “effective”.  If the question is, has PSI been effective in providing a platform for a wide array of people from differing backgrounds to exchange ideas about contemporary scientific questions, then the answer would be overwhelmingly yes.  If the question is, has PSI succeeded in persuading the United Nations to abandon its anti-hydrocarbon energy agenda, then the answer would be no.  …  If the question is, has PSI succeeded in altering the general public’s perception of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming, then the answer is more nebulous, but here is what wattsupwiththat.com, cfact.org, climatedepot.com, PSI, etc., are up against.

They have no control over the flow of information to the general public through the news media, they have no control over what the Pope says, which determines what ~one billion people take on faith to be true, they have no control over what students from kindergarten through graduate school are being taught by teachers and professors about the evils of “carbon pollution”, they have no control over what a scientifically illiterate Supreme Court rules, which in the U.S.A. has legally classified carbon dioxide as an air “pollutant”, they have no control over what gets published in the IPCC’s serial reports that many people cite as though it were scientific gospel.

But then controlling what information the general public is exposed to has never been the goal of PSI. Reread PSI’s mission statement. The website is nothing more or less than a platform for “scientists from around the world” to deliberate, debate and publish thinking on a range of issues “without a preconceived idea of outcomes.” In pursuit of that mission PSI has provided you and many other people a platform to share their scientific hypothesis and scientific findings. It, of course, also provides a platform for those who disagree with your ideas to tell you why they think you are wrong. That is what “science” is–an exchange of ideas, an unfettered debate within an open forum.”

To which I responded:  “Again, very, very, well stated.”  Which was in reference to Carl’s analysis of what had been effective or had not been effective.  ‘Again’ was in reference to Carl’s previous comment:  “All that matters in science is whether or not what a person is saying is supported by empirical data, empirical observation.”  To which I had responded:  “Very good! So why don’t you consider the NCDC data of measured surface temperatures relative to measured air temperatures during the nighttime.”  For Carl and I had a previous discussion about whether the earth’s surface is usually warmer than the atmosphere above it (his position)  and my position that between sunset and sunrise this was not commonly, if ever, the case (observed).

But first I need to comment about Carl’s summary statement:  “That is what “science” is–an exchange of ideas, an unfettered debate within an open forum.”  First, I agree that PSI provides an open forum for the exchange of ideas, for unfettered debate.  But I consider debate to be argumentation which is the problem, not the solution.  And in this open forum I see nothing that the ideas or the debates are required to be based upon empirical data or empirical observation.

Carl and I had had a discussion. (https://principia-scientific.com/climate-nocturnal-inversions-refute-2nd-law-arguments/ and https://principia-scientific.com/scan-data-clarifies-nocturnal-inversion-mechanism/)  Which ended when Carl pointed out that he had direct empirical evidence which supported his position and I had no direct evidence which supported my position.  And it was obvious to me what I had to do.  Find empirical data or empirical observation which supported my position.

Which I did.  It was the NCDC data of a NOAA project whose link I have emailed to Carl nearly a month ago without any response from him.  More recently as part of a comment I had suggested I was uncertain about the validity of the surface temperature measurement after I learned that the surface temperature had been measured by the measurement of the infrared radiation being emitted by the surface because of its temperature and invited Carl to discuss the details of this data via email.  Still no response.

But indirectly I am still having a discussion with Carl even if he does not respond.  For I eventually have seen an empirical observation which only requires a thermometer to measure the air temperature.  For I know the snow surface can never have a temperature greater than 0^oC.  So whenever the air temperature is greater than this temperature, I know the surface temperature can even be less than the air temperature during the daytime.  Of course, one of us, Carl or I, need to explain how the air temperature can ever be greater than the snow surface.  My explanation is simply that the air most absorb a portion of the solar radiation and be sensibly heated.

So, relative to discussion I conclude it stimulates ideas.

Trackback from your site.