Validating a theory karl popper
A radical new theory that predicts that the sun will rise tomorrow is falsifiable by darkness at noon — yet watching the dawn provides little evidence for it.
Contrast that with the famous 1919 test of general relativity, whose prediction was contrary to that of the then-standard theory. “The globally averaged combined land and ocean surface temperature data as calculated by a linear trend, show a warming of 0.85 [0.65 to 1.06] °C, over the period 1880 to 2012, when multiple independently produced datasets exist.
For example, “Should we assess climate model predictions in light of severe tests?
” by Joel Katzav (Professor of Philosophy, Eindhoven University of Technology) in The scientific community has placed little emphasis on providing assessments of CMP quality in light of performance at severe tests.
The public policy debate about climate change has gridlocked in part because many consider the evidence given as insufficient to warrant massive expenditures and regulatory changes.
Many factors have frozen the public policy debate on climate change, but none more important than the disinterest of both sides in tests that might provide better evidence — and perhaps restart the discussion.
Even worse, too little thought has been given to the criteria for validating climate science theories (aka their paradigm) and the models build upon them.
But by themselves these might prove insufficient to produce timely policy action on the necessary scale.
We should add to that list “developing better methods of model validation”.