Skip to main content

View Diary: Have you ever seen another moon in an alien sky? (155 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Troubar said already alot of what I wanted (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    to say but I will add that the fact is obseravtion is not proof of causation which is why the theory is untestable. You can not just observe changes and say that proves ___ that's bad science. You have to show the link and you have to do so rigourously

    •  I assume you also think that global warming (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      is untestable. And evolution.

      •  oh good gods (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        if you really want to challenge a chemist on global warming fine but be prepared to be embarassed.

        Evolution has tons of evidence for it perhaps the most famous and most indisputable is Dwarin's Finches. Where is the same for this gaia 'theory?

        Global warming is the same the chemistry behind it is well established and the role of carbon dioxide is too. Frankly I don't feel like teaching a class on it so see else where.

        Non scientists really shouldn't pick arguments on science.

        •  I am a scientist. Sigh. (0+ / 0-)

          First of all, your ad hominem appropriately categorizes yourself. People who have good arguments don't need to resort to trying to belittle or denigrate their opponents. Second, I have no interest in defending the gaia hypothesis. I was merely pointing out that if that hypothesis is taken to state that the planetary systems are interconnected, then that hypothesis is not untestable. If the hypothesis is taken to be the stronger hypothesis that the Earth is a living organism, then you have to define what you mean by living organism, and whether the hypothesis is testable or not depends on that definition. Thirdly, the reason I cited global warming and evolution is that you made a gratuitous reference to the problem of distinguishing between correlation and causality. If the gaia hypothesis is taken to be the hypothesis of interconnection among planetary systems, then the problem of distinguishing between covariation and causality in testing it is not fundamentally different from that of distinguishing between covariation and causality in empirical tests of the hypothesis that climate change is induced by humans.

          •  not nearly as bad as your arrogance (0+ / 0-)

            And frankly while certainly short on patience nothing I have said to you really rises to the level of ad hominem.

            Though I am confused, if you do not wish to defend this theory then why are you? This behavior is contradictory to what you're saying now.

            Further your reference to evolution and global warming was in and of itself an attempt to insult me and lump me into people that deny science. Except this theory isn't science, so if you really want we could trade accusations of ad homimen though that probably would go no where.

            Next time you want to jump into a conversation try not to insult people especially over things that you'll be dead wrong on; oh and  paragraphs wouldn't hurt either.

            •  I happen to be interested in testability (0+ / 0-)

              I am writing a book that touches on that topic in my own field. That's why I got drawn into the discussion. I had no intention of attributing global warming denialism to you. I brought up human made climate change by way of a reductio ad absurdum: if the hypothesis that the planetary systems are interconnected were untestable because of an impossibility of distinguishing between causation and correlation, then testing the hypothesis that climate change is upon us and is induced by humans ought to suffer from the same impossibility, since that hypothesis involves the same planetary systems.

              As for arrogance, I take you have heard of projection?

              •  you know I'd be willing to believe you (0+ / 0-)

                if you had just brought up only global warming as your argument as it makes sense there but you also brought up evolution which you are now desperately pretending you didn't do (judging from how much you want to make this about only half of what you said). Because you brought up both I'm not inclined to change my initial reading of your comment.

                And let's be clear here climate change is not proof of whatever you want to call this theory. Climate change is proof that if you dump enough of the right chemicals into atmosphere you can alter heat retention.

                Further the difference with climate change is you can show direct causation there is no such thing here (in my opinion because the system chosen is so large you lose the ability to distinguish between causality and correlation. The role of CO2 in greenhouse effects is well known, the planet being a living organism is not.

                It is funny that you bring up reductio ad absurdum though as your argument is indeed absurd but you forget the crucial chain in such an argument. Namely that you have to show how your argument relates here and that's because it doesn't

                As to your little chip at the end, of course I have arrogance but I am not the one that tried to accuse a random person of being against science simply because you can not accept that the gaia theory (or whatever you choose to call it) is science. And being aware of my arrogance I do what I can to take it into account but don't mistake my unwillingness to teach a class on global warming or evolution for arrogance. I don't know what kind of scienctist you are but I would think you'd know the case for both of those. And if you don't there are better teachers then me out there.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site