Where debating everything under the sun is only the beginning

Would you agree, James, that a physical model whose predictions fail is -essentially- wrong?

It certainly behooves us to start reversing the CO2 content to its more natural level as quickly as is feasible, regardless of who is right or wrong.

If a well-tuned model then makes predictions that consistently fail, it's not a model of reality.

But the point remains: If the theory (or model) produces predictions that are wrong, the theory (or model) is false.

In such a case the model needs to be changed. (Denying reality is not really an option…)

Consistently wrong models don't remain viable models anyway, at least not for very long.

Quote from: jseaton2311 on 2014-08-31, 13:12:13

Consistently wrong models don't remain viable models anyway, at least not for very long.

They do, in the media and academia and in policy circles… Isn't that an important part of this thread?

Global Energy Balance Network promotes the argument that weight-conscious Americans are overly fixated on how much they eat and drink while not paying enough attention to exercise, the New York Times reported Monday.

Some health experts say the message is misleading and part of an effort by Coca-Cola to deflect criticism about the role sugary drinks play in obesity and Type 2 diabetes, the NYT said.

CTO Dr. Ed Hays writes on Coca-Cola’s blog: Yes, we fund scientific research through GEBN and we are proud to support the work that scientists such as Dr. Jim Hill and Dr. Steve Blair do – because their type of research is critical to finding solutions to the global obesity crisis.

Quote from: Atlanta Business Chronicle, http://www.bizjournals.com/atlanta/news/2015/08/11/coca-cola-new-york-times-portrayal-of-global.html?s=print

Global Energy Balance Network promotes the argument that weight-conscious Americans are overly fixated on how much they eat and drink while not paying enough attention to exercise, the New York Times reported Monday.

Some health experts say the message is misleading and part of an effort by Coca-Cola to deflect criticism about the role sugary drinks play in obesity and Type 2 diabetes, the NYT said.

CTO Dr. Ed Hays writes on Coca-Cola’s blog: Yes, we fund scientific research through GEBN and we are proud to support the work that scientists such as Dr. Jim Hill and Dr. Steve Blair do – because their type of research is critical to finding solutions to the global obesity crisis.

It takes both diet and exercise to make one reasonably healthy.

However when you look more closely at what the scientist says you see the word theory included but which is neatly ignored by the robot minds.

The University of California, Berkley defines a theory as "a broad, natural explanation for a wide range of phenomena. Theories are concise, coherent, systematic, predictive, and broadly applicable, often integrating and generalizing many hypotheses."

Any scientific theory must be based on a careful and rational examination of the facts. Facts and theories are two different things. In the scientific method, there is a clear distinction between facts, which can be observed and/or measured, and theories, which are scientists’ explanations and interpretations of the facts.

It takes sex, drugs and rock'n roll for that.

From.....
http://www.livescience.com/21491-what-is-a-scientific-theory-definition-of-theory.html

Here's a brief explanation.

I'll attempt to profit from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's article, to which you kindly pointed me to…for what purpose, I don't know.

The Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy is twenty years old.
http://www.consciousentities.com/?p=2025

By the way, did you notice its age?

That's fundamental and maybe what really matters.