Winsberg's book is on my too large reading list, but it sounds as if the philosopher has failed to work out when mathematical modelling works and when it doesn't.
An outstanding example of when it works is the software developed by NASA to drive its space probes. The latter are guided with incredible accuracy all over the solar system. The physics of motion in space and the various facts of planetary trajectory and mass, etc, are well known. The maths involved is not hairy by today's standards. The only assumption made that I can think of is that dark matter (whatever it is) will have no effect, which has been borne out. Minor tweaks are regularly made to improve performance.
By contrast, any knowledgeable gambler can write a mathematical model to show that they will be the richest person in the world next year. The maths might be unassailable, but the assumptions definitely not.
With Anthropic Global Warming, models are made to conform to beliefs about the effects of atmospheric CO2 - beliefs that are not substantiaterd in Earth's climate record. Tweaks are made, not to improve prediction performance, but to provide the correct amount of grounds for alarm. I think that while some parts of the "Climate Science" models are appropriately scientific, others are not.
The AGW part of the software is pseudoscience by Karl Popper's standards, because falsified (but publicised as confirmed). It is regressive by Imre Lakatos' standards, because it fails to predict. Unfortunately Lakatos allows just about any semi-intellectual pursuit to be labelled science, as noted by Paul Feyerabend.
Thomas Kuhn avoided writing about post-WW2 science. Since then, with the amount of public and charitable money looking for fashionable "scientific" causes, it was perhaps inevitable that a trendy pseudoscience would soon appear to soak up the funds and be hailed by the media and, unfortunately, politicians. It is the first, but will not be the last.
You will do much better to read The Climate Caper by the late Garth Paltridge, which I have summarised for the benefit of people who have long lists of books to read.
It really is a gem of a book, written from the epicentre of the explosion of climate alarmism in a leading scientific research hat has been brought into disrepute by content-free managers with political agendas.
It’s really unfortunate that science has lost its credibility because now we’re seeing flat earth believers who are serious about it. Because science lost their trust, these unfortunate individuals now disregard all of science.
Winsberg's book is on my too large reading list, but it sounds as if the philosopher has failed to work out when mathematical modelling works and when it doesn't.
An outstanding example of when it works is the software developed by NASA to drive its space probes. The latter are guided with incredible accuracy all over the solar system. The physics of motion in space and the various facts of planetary trajectory and mass, etc, are well known. The maths involved is not hairy by today's standards. The only assumption made that I can think of is that dark matter (whatever it is) will have no effect, which has been borne out. Minor tweaks are regularly made to improve performance.
By contrast, any knowledgeable gambler can write a mathematical model to show that they will be the richest person in the world next year. The maths might be unassailable, but the assumptions definitely not.
With Anthropic Global Warming, models are made to conform to beliefs about the effects of atmospheric CO2 - beliefs that are not substantiaterd in Earth's climate record. Tweaks are made, not to improve prediction performance, but to provide the correct amount of grounds for alarm. I think that while some parts of the "Climate Science" models are appropriately scientific, others are not.
The AGW part of the software is pseudoscience by Karl Popper's standards, because falsified (but publicised as confirmed). It is regressive by Imre Lakatos' standards, because it fails to predict. Unfortunately Lakatos allows just about any semi-intellectual pursuit to be labelled science, as noted by Paul Feyerabend.
Thomas Kuhn avoided writing about post-WW2 science. Since then, with the amount of public and charitable money looking for fashionable "scientific" causes, it was perhaps inevitable that a trendy pseudoscience would soon appear to soak up the funds and be hailed by the media and, unfortunately, politicians. It is the first, but will not be the last.
You will do much better to read The Climate Caper by the late Garth Paltridge, which I have summarised for the benefit of people who have long lists of books to read.
It really is a gem of a book, written from the epicentre of the explosion of climate alarmism in a leading scientific research hat has been brought into disrepute by content-free managers with political agendas.
http://www.the-rathouse.com/2011/Paltridge-Climate-Caper.html
It’s really unfortunate that science has lost its credibility because now we’re seeing flat earth believers who are serious about it. Because science lost their trust, these unfortunate individuals now disregard all of science.