Australia is facing a controversy that is all too familiar to Americans. Fundamentalists in state schools are teaching children that humans and dinosaurs lived together and Noah brought dinosaur eggs on to the Ark.
Children are also taught that Adam and Eve were not eaten by dinosaurs “because they were under a protective spell.”
This is consistent with Palintology — the new science advanced by Sarah Palin — which insists that man and dinosaur must have co-existed despite carbon dating and simple logic.
Source: News
Yissil,
I like the term ‘debate-grade hypotheses’ and your analysis of the argument, although I would add that TraderB has made an implicit ‘light damage’ argument which he has not supported.
As a scientist and a mathematician, I don’t tend to think of my work in terms of Popper, but I didn’t think that TraderB mischaracterized science or mathematics with his comment. Hypothesis testing is certainly an important part of the scientific method but not the whole of it, but I don’t think that TraderB was trying to imply that it was.
Bdaman,
The concern is that the increase in microbes will result in an algal bloom – in order to be intellectually honest you need to follow your arguments all the way through and report the conclusion whether or not it helps your point.
TraderB,
Well, I’m a scientist and I’ve discussed Popper in reference to the scientific method many times on this blog – considering that we’re on a thread about creationism and the lack of falsifiability is the key flaw in so-called ‘creation science’, I think you have your example.
OK. Just so long as it is clear that no one here is under any obligation to take you seriously.
Yissil
“Google it yourself. Defining “scientific method” is an exercise in philosophy and there is no definitive answer, and their can’t be. Scientists argue about it like anyone else, if they give it a second thought.”
A lot of people like to hijack the term and use it for other purposes. However, I will stick with the meaning generally understood by scientists.
Byron, the problem is that the debate is not about the ability of organisms to evolve over many years to thrive in an environment given to oil seepage. It is about the reaction of and effects on systems about which we know nothing to the sudden introduction of millions of gallons of the stuff in a very short period of time. This disaster is an experiment. We will see what we learn from it.
The issue of oceanfront development is a good example of politics ignoring science. The geology of dune creation and erosion has been well known for a long time. Despite that knowledge, it is only quite recently that governments began imposing rational setback requirements on construction activities. And we continue to pour millions of taxpayer dollars each year into beach restoration projects to protect private property (can you say “bailouts”?), knowing that these sisyphean efforts will have to be endlessly repeated.
TraderB
Google it yourself. Defining “scientific method” is an exercise in philosophy and there is no definitive answer, and their can’t be. Scientists argue about it like anyone else, if they give it a second thought.
No one is remotely obligated to accept the version you gave, although it was a perfectly good description of falsification theory.
Also it’s just inapporpriate to invoke scientific method in this kind of debate. It’s a different kind of thing.
Yissil wrote:
“What you are describing is the philosopher Karl Popper’s theory of falsfiability, which is an important idea in the history of the philosophy of science, but is by no means “the” scientific method. No scientist that I know of would describe what he does or how he does it in terms of Popper’s theory, although some probably would.”
I am sure they wouldn’t. I was trained as a chemist and never heard of Popper.
I think that, if you Google Scientific Method, you will find many examples of scientists stating it exactly as I described. What is your definition? Provide a link to a scientist discussing it.
Dr. Slarti your tax would need to be world wide. I know we have our own problems here but it is the third world countries that do the most harm of dumping into the ocean. Most have no water treatment facilities.
Thank you Dr. Slarti, I think your beautiful too 😉
you being bald that is.
Bdaman,
Beautiful – now can you bring the argument full circle? What could cause an algal bloom?
Byron said:
“I personally don’t think toxic waste or garbage of any kind should be thrown into the seas.”
Then would you support a fine (or ‘pollution tax’) to make sure that this didn’t happen?
TraderB said:
——————————————————
Apparently, you do not know anything about the scientific method, so I will have to educate you first. Scientist never prove hypotheses. They only disprove them. Mathematicians prove theories. Scientists make predictions based on a reasonable hypotheses. If the prediction proves untrue, the hypothesis is discarded.
I made the prediction that the Gulf would quickly rid itself of oil (except asphaltics) in the open ocean, because microbes consume the oil that does not evaporate or is not not removed mechanically. It appears that this is true. Therefore, my hypothesis is still valid. It is up to you to disprove my hypothesis and/or come up with an alternate hypothesis.
See Wikipedia for a description of the Scientific Method:
————————————————————–
If that’s what Wikipedia says it’s wrong, or possibly you’ve misunderstood it. What you are describing is the philosopher Karl Popper’s theory of falsfiability, which is an important idea in the history of the philosophy of science, but is by no means “the” scientific method. No scientist that I know of would describe what he does or how he does it in terms of Popper’s theory, although some probably would. Really, it’s just a philosophical idea that some people sometimes find useful.
Also, obvously what you guys are doing isn’t really science, it’s a debate about something that involves science. You are using stuff you get on the web to bolster your arguments, which is perfectly appropriate, but don’t forget that the ocean is one of the most complex systems imaginable, so some humility is in order when it comes to calling opinions “scientific hypotheses.”
For instance you said:
———————————————————–
I made the prediction that the Gulf would quickly rid itself of oil (except asphaltics) in the open ocean, because microbes consume the oil that does not evaporate or is not not removed mechanically. It appears that this is true. Therefore, my hypothesis is still valid. It is up to you to disprove my hypothesis and/or come up with an alternate hypothesis.
———————————————————–
But obviously it isn’t up to Gyges to do anything. Neither of you know particuarly much about micobes or how the ocean works, you’re having a heated debate, and your using scattered sources which may be dubious and which you may or may not understand. No one has to take anybody’s hypotheses, including their own, too seriously. They are debate-grade hypotheses, not science-grade hypotheses. (I just made that up.)
That’s one of the problems with Poppers theory by the way, it doesn’t really account for “knowing what you’re talking about.” Really. No kidding.
TraderB,
That’s fine, you can consider my analysis that we don’t yet know the severity of the ecological impact of the gulf oil spill naive, but can you tell me the difference between the impact of an oil spill in 300 feet of water and the impact of an oil spill in 5000 feet of water to which 2 million gallons of dispersant has been applied? Do you even know what lives only in water over 300 feet deep?
Byron,
That’s even more than what I said: to stop NEW drilling in 5000 feet of water (35 wells, I believe). So I guess you support the Obama Administration position.
Sorry Dr. Slartibartfast I see that it does produce oxygen.
Maybe I was thinking of this.
Algae and Eutrophication
This is when water contains too much algae, causing serious problems to other living things. Follow these steps to see how it happens:
1. Pollution from, for example, fertiliser, washing up liquid or sewage, fill the water with too many nutrients.
2. Algae flourish, causing an algal bloom.
3. Algae make the water thick and turbid.
4. Light can’t penetrate to bottom-dwelling plants.
5. Algae, with their short life cycle, soon die. Bottom dwelling plants die due to lack of photosynthesis.
6. Oxygen in the water is reduced because of the lack of photosynthesis.
7. Dead plants are decomposed by bacteria. The bacteria use up oxygen, and further reduce oxygen in the water.
8. Animals, including fish, die due to lack of oxygen.
Mike Appleton:
there is a difference between man-made toxic waste and a naturally occurring substance like oil. Oil has been leaking from the ocean floor for millions of years and coral reefs did just fine.
If shoreline development is decimating coral reefs then shut it down and make people build away from the coastline.
I personally don’t think toxic waste or garbage of any kind should be thrown into the seas. Sewage should be treated until it is clean enough to drink before being discharged and garbage should be incinerated and used for power or it should be turned into fertilizer.
There are a good number of things we could do but don’t for whatever reason.
Slarti:
How many major accidents have there been? I would suggest continue drilling until such time as you determine it to be unsafe. If we had this type of thing happening on a regular basis I am with you.
Maybe we should shut down drilling in 5,000′ of water and concentrate on 0-1,000′ instead.
Bdaman,
I’ve told you that I prefer you referring to me as ‘Slartibartfast’, but if you’re going to use my name, please spell it correctly.
And you’re wrong.
Please look up algae on Wikipedia and save me the effort of correcting you.
Byron: the problem with the “happy medium” approach to environmental destruction is that the end result is the same. If I stab you once a day, you are ultimately going to die. We’d all like to believe that the ocean is such a vast place that we can continue to treat it as the world’s toxic waste dump forever with no discernible effects. As I noted earlier, I’ve been diving off the coast of Florida and elsewhere for almost 30 years. The degradation is not necessarily noticeable from year to year (except by scientists), but it is most assuredly obvious over several decades from nothing more than development and population growth.
TraderB,
“People are questioning your interpretation of your theory as meaning that the environmental damage will be light – the jury’s not in yet and your analysis is naive at best.”
This is based on scientists observations’ of what happened after IXTOC I. Since this is not your area of expertise, I would say that your analysis is even more naive. At least, I have researched what environmental scientists say.
Buddha,
Thanks. You are correct, the proper term is food web – what it lacks in simple linearity it more than makes up for in elegance.
Byron,
I would just add to what Buddha said that what is needed here is an open and honest discussion of the damage and safety issues and the people who are waving the green flag seem to be avoiding this. Also, can you honesty say that BP has been in any way forthright throughout this mess? Or have they continually acted in every way that they were able to minimize the liability to their stockholders?
Elaine,
That’s a good point. While I have political positions regarding the environment, they are based on my broader concern about the viability of the environment to support human (and other) life.
Byron,
Then you would support a moratorium on the 35 deep-water drilling projects in the gulf (and, say, halting the fake on-shore operation being set up in Alaska) until we can find out that truth and evaluate the risks and rewards based on the facts and science?
Dr. Kessler said,
My best guess would be that the length of time that it would take to re-oxygenate the water would depend on what happened to the algae that was generating the oxygen.
Correct me if I’m wrong but Algae takes in oxygen and releases CO2.
Thank you everyone for a most enlightening discussion … I enjoyed reading.