I don't follow you on the QM reference. re: the SM itself I would just state that falsification is a principle of the SM so the implicit assumption that anything known is subject to doubt and confirmation/reconfirmation is baked into the method, when done properly.
-
-
Scientific method is an empirical method, therefore observation is essential. You can't falsify that which you can't observe. In QM, there are things you cannot observe.
-
ok, I see what you mean now. does climate science have this problem? I think it has a huge amount of observable data. too much, maybe.
-
The problem is "partly" present -- our observations of past climates are inferences based on tree rings, sediment structure, ice composition, etc.
-
depends on timescale (we have first class data for about the last 120ish years) but yeah, indirect observations are a thing. I'm not learned enough in this specific area to have an opinion on how good the inferences made from those indirect observations are though.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.