This will probably be my last installment looking at my pal K's line of reasoning over at OurChangingClimate's "Is Climate Science falsifiable" comments section. It's been interesting I learned a few things, in particular today becoming acquainted with Mariano Artigas' examination of Popperian philosophy on fallibilism. Something that seems much misrepresented on the internet and ties right into the neat little 'arguments' K was presenting.
He writes:
"citizenschallenge – the trick is that trivial falsifications do not automatically add up to a falsifiable hypothesis.
"You need to have a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement.
1) a list of observations, which if observed, mean your hypothesis is false;
2) a logical argument that the lack of those falsifications means that your hypothesis must be favored over all others (including the null).
The null hypothesis, is of course, natural climate change explains all observed climate change."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The null hypothesis, is of course, natural climate change explains all observed climate change."
To begin with this "null hypothesis" doesn't make any sense because if we look at the situation from a geophysical perspective there is nothing unnatural about today's increasing greenhouse gas levels causing our atmosphere's insulation ability to increase, in turn causing our planet to warm.
It is only the source, human burning of fossil fuels, that is unique in the long varied history of our planet.
It would be interesting if K or any other science contrarian can suggest a more meaningful null hypothesis, since his is broken?
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"1) a list of observations, which if observed, mean your hypothesis is false;"
