FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Science is full of shit

Science is full of shit

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

Thought that'd catch yer eye lol. Ok there's a doc on iPlayer radio 4 called "Everything We Know Is Wrong". Very thought provoking and supports a much more cautionary line on what science knows... as I have been known to argue here in these very halls of warm and friendly Fab academia lol

Here's a snipping from the web page for it...

Every day the newspapers carry stories of new scientific findings. There are 15 million scientists worldwide all trying to get their research published. But a disturbing fact appears if you look closely: as time goes by, many scientific findings seem to become less true than we thought. It's called the "decline effect" - and some findings even dwindle away to zero.

A highly influential paper by Dr John Ioannidis at Stanford University called "Why most published research findings are false" argues that fewer than half of scientific papers can be believed, and that the hotter a scientific field (with more scientific teams involved), the less likely the research findings are to be true. He even showed that of the 49 most highly cited medical papers, only 34 had been retested and of them 41 per cent had been convincingly shown to be wrong. And yet they were still being cited.

Again and again, researchers are finding the same things, whether it's with observational studies, or even the "gold standard" Randomised Controlled Studies, whether it's medicine or economics. Nobody bothers to try to replicate most studies, and when they do try, the majority of findings don't stack up. The awkward truth is that, taken as a whole, the scientific literature is full of falsehoods.

Jolyon Jenkins reports on the factors that lie behind this. How researchers who are obliged for career reasons to produce studies that have "impact"; of small teams who produce headline-grabbing studies that are too statistically underpowered to produce meaningful results; of the way that scientists are under pressure to spin their findings and pretend that things they discovered by chance are what they were looking for in the first place. It's not exactly fraud, but it's not completely honest either. And he reports on new initiatives to go through the literature systematically trying to reproduce published findings, and of the bitter and personalised battles that can occur as a result."

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *icketysplitsWoman over a year ago

Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound

I heard it last week.

It's well worth making the time to listen to. My favourite at the moment is More or Less. A great series on numbers and statistics.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *icketysplitsWoman over a year ago

Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound

The work I have just finished doing was looking the rebound effect.

This is where you hear the messages about using less water, drinking less etc. results in you using more.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *risky_MareWoman over a year ago

...Up on the Downs

Indeed, there is a need for great humility in science, and it has been guilty of great arrogance.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

as the universe gets more infinite,possibilities are endless and science breaks down into magic

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

As a scientist this does not surprise me at all

The scientific method that we go on about so much has been corrupted

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *omMLMan over a year ago

The Centre of the Universe

The rebound effect is very effective at stopping people losing weight. The more they concentrate on food the more they eat.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Indeed, there is a need for great humility in science, and it has been guilty of great arrogance."

I think the worst arrogance's are the definitions of:-

the requirements for life to exist

given our very short time in the universe and lack of actually physically traveling beyond our solar system, I think its a great idea searching for 'goldilocks' earth planets...but life may really be more abundant than we think(I'd say the earth itself is a pretty good indicator of that)

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *icketysplitsWoman over a year ago

Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound

"The rebound effect is very effective at stopping people losing weight. The more they concentrate on food the more they eat."

I have been looking at it for alcohol reduction as well as environmental messages recently and people end up drinking more.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *nnyMan over a year ago

Glasgow

Excellent programme

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Indeed, there is a need for great humility in science, and it has been guilty of great arrogance."

In the 60's Nixon declared a war on cancer , and so began a multi billion dollar investment in science trying to find a cure .

And here we are 45 years later , after sending men into space , on mobiles , enjoying satellite Tv and having computers with the power to stream live broadcasts on a watch , and the war against cancer continues .

Every year , billions and billions get raised , and spent , and yet we are no nearer to finding a cure !

So one can't help but wonder whether the science is working in a kind of self perpetuating way . That's to say , a cure would be the worst possible scenario as the funding would stop and it would be a financial disaster .

This is just one example of medical science and it's lack of value and success .

Infact , but for antibiotics and a handful of vaccines , it simply doesn't work at all !

Yet we are led to believe that so called cures are continually being made by the pharmaceutical scientists .

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *nnyMan over a year ago

Glasgow

One might almost question whether governments really want a cure for the illnesses which control population growth.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

imo Most scientific types view science as a heroic romantic endeavour, looking at it through rosy colored spectacles, imagining the scientist as the infallible hero and the scientific method as the oracle of all truth. This, imo, is a wholly unscientific view of science.

Instead, if we take a step back and try and be objective, we see organisations of humans, trying to forge careers by riding the fine line between saying something new... but not saying anything too challenging or different so as to be ostracised.

We see lines of investigation pursued from the get go with a commercial or theoretical bias as to what the outcome should be... and if the actual outcome can be distorted to favor that bias then the findings will be published... but if it doesn't then they will lay forgotten at the bottom of a draw.

We see individuals prone to flights of fancy, imagining there is a pattern in the shadows when it is a figment of their imagination, followed by foolish admirers who perpetuate those imaginings by refusing to admit their hero was wrong.

We see ridiculous leaps made by specialists in one field attempting to comment or use factors they know little about from other fields.

Because of the extreme specialisation of the sciences, we find most scientists are well informed and critical about their own discipline, recognising it's many problems and uncertainties, but when they come to talk of other disciplines they become all starry eyed and fantasise about certainty and clarity when there is none. This becomes clear when we see scientists reactions to their work in the popular press, where they almost always stress the uncertainty of their findings, the problems of having any kind of clarity remotely similar to that contained in the press article they are complaining about. Yet these same people fail to realise that this phenomena is occuring across the board of science, throughout all disciplines i.e. that all of science is lost in a sea of uncertainty that could be prone to a complete tidal change at any moment.

And yet over and over again science's worshippers tell us that, even if we can't trust current science, we should trust science on the whole and write them a blank cheque on behalf of future discoveries; that the truth will eventually prevail thanks to the scientific method, and that science will proudly push forward and rectify all it's errors... as if the scientific endeavour occurred in a vacuum, untainted by human fallibility, as if the scientific method required no human interpretation or other kind of human interaction which could inject biases and flaws into it.

These science worshipers simplify science into an overly optimistic and triumphant caricature of itself... mere pseudo-science.

Science gives us an accurate yet bleak view of ourselves. We are apes with over sized brains that have a tendency towards an over indulgence in pattern recognition. Given this objective view of humanity, it becomes abundantly obvious that science is handcuffed to the railing of the human psyche and unlikely to ever break free of it. Therefore recent excessive claims about science's ability to replace God and tell us all there is to know about the universe are merely a new form of narcissistic human-centered religious extremism and idealism... a fantasy which fails to match the true splendor of what science is in all it's grubby, amazing, yet flawed, humanity. Most scientific types are fantasists. I prefer the real, if somewhat bleak, view of science... it seems somehow more human and unreliable.

Not something that's worth basing too much faith on imo

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Religion is full of shit .... Fact

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Religion is full of shit .... Fact"

Fact?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Religion is full of shit .... Fact

Fact?

Unless u can prove other wise

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"One might almost question whether governments really want a cure for the illnesses which control population growth."

Aaaaaaaaaaagh, yes, it's an actually a 'fact' that overpopulation is tearing too hard at the world's resources - & we are amongst the worst offenders on the planet on that score, - so, why are we trying to prolong life when the the planet's population will near double in the next thirty years, I wonder?????

Maybe religion ain't so bad after all!!!

*contemplates converting

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

But surely this fact is wrong? Or will be proved wrong in time?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *risky_MareWoman over a year ago

...Up on the Downs

"imo Most scientific types view science as a heroic romantic endeavour, looking at it through rosy colored spectacles, imagining the scientist as the infallible hero and the scientific method as the oracle of all truth. This, imo, is a wholly unscientific view of science.

We see ridiculous leaps made by specialists in one field attempting to comment or use factors they know little about from other fields.

These science worshipers simplify science into an overly optimistic and triumphant caricature of itself... mere pseudo-science.

Not something that's worth basing too much faith on imo

Yup, thats the long version of what I meant!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ophieslutTV/TS over a year ago

Central

No system is going to be perfect but where research can cost a lot to reproduce it is no suprise that much does not make it. As long as all data is public then it is a reasonable system, the flaws largely related to people rather than the scientific approach. Pharmaceutical companies should be forced to publish all trial data, rather than the tiny amount that they do - that is the bigger problem, as they cherry pick what gets published. People can easily - and do - die as a result of misleading drug trial results and side effects.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *xpresMan over a year ago

Elland

Science over that bullshit called religion any day of the week... God is dead long live Newton

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *rightonsteveMan over a year ago

Brighton - even Hove!

"Science over that bullshit called religion any day of the week... God is dead long live Newton"

You can have both at the same time. The bisexuality of experimentation and belief

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *xpresMan over a year ago

Elland

"Science over that bullshit called religion any day of the week... God is dead long live Newton

You can have both at the same time. The bisexuality of experimentation and belief

God is dead time this world moved on from archaic beliefs

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

"Yup, thats the long version of what I meant!

lol

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

"One might almost question whether governments really want a cure for the illnesses which control population growth.

Maybe religion ain't so bad after all!!!

*contemplates converting

I think this is a common misunderstanding of the state of the world. The problem is not really about overpopulation it's about resources. Indeed, in some studies, they found that the problem of some places in Africa, for example, is that there isn't enough concentration of people. When people pool together into towns or cities prosperity and trade is likely to increase. So certain parts of the world could do with more people.

The problems arise when areas are devoted to one crop (cotton,bananas,etc) for export. These people then lack the ability to feed themselves and, due to lack of crop diversity, if a pest hits that crop it can wipe the entire crop out, leading to utter devastation. Other problems come when we shower a region in Aid, undercutting the trade of local businesses who deal in the kind of essential food stuffs we're providing for free... and putting them out of business... leading to longer term problems. And, of course, finally perhaps the true reason for many of the world's woes today comes down to the simple fact that if we, ourselves, were to set about making ourselves a shirt from plant to sewing machine it'd probably cost us several hundred pounds to make here in the west. So, in order to make such things affordable, our nations and corporations manufacture poverty elsewhere and abuse loopholes in other countries laws in order to make that same shirt for you for 99p.

It's all of these reasons and more which have a lot more to do with the way the world is than any kind of over population... imo

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *risky_MareWoman over a year ago

...Up on the Downs

"Science over that bullshit called religion any day of the week... God is dead long live Newton"

I'd love to hear that one argued out with Einstein......

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *xpresMan over a year ago

Elland

"Science over that bullshit called religion any day of the week... God is dead long live Newton

I'd love to hear that one argued out with Einstein......

If it can't be proven by science then it's not true this god thing can be put in the same book of mythical beings as unicorns griffins giants trolls Cyclops and friendly cockneys..

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

God was a scientist simple

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Science has a place, same as religion.

Love the Stanford studies, I love Keith Humphries from Stanford, true scientist who took studies of already existing demographics in my field and put science to them, him along with David Best at Melbourne and William White et el made what I do palatable to academia and gave it more credence and weight.

One problem with science it becomes to focussed on the output rather than the process, loads of historical evidence to back up this trial and error methodology rather than goal oriented that has put many a great "discovery" into our everyday lives.

Anyone ever heard of LSE complexity theory? Brilliant

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

"No system is going to be perfect but where research can cost a lot to reproduce it is no suprise that much does not make it. As long as all data is public then it is a reasonable system, the flaws largely related to people rather than the scientific approach. Pharmaceutical companies should be forced to publish all trial data, rather than the tiny amount that they do - that is the bigger problem, as they cherry pick what gets published. People can easily - and do - die as a result of misleading drug trial results and side effects. "

Thanks for the thoughtful response. However, I do feel the rabbit hole of scientific fallibility goes deeper. One of the fascinating parts of the radio program mentioned in the OP was that they tried repeating the exact same experiment with the exact same mice in the exact same way... but in three different labs. Each lab recorded a different trend, after repetitions, than the other... suggesting that mice react differently in different places or with different people

The scientific method is difficult to find flaws in... but it is possible and quite intellectually enjoyable to explore as a subject

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

"Science over that bullshit called religion any day of the week... God is dead long live Newton

I'd love to hear that one argued out with Einstein......

If it can't be proven by science then it's not true this god thing can be put in the same book of mythical beings as unicorns griffins giants trolls Cyclops and friendly cockneys.. "

I think you vastly over estimate how much of science is currently proven and how much of it remains conjecture. The existence of God can easily be proven on a personal and empirical basis... via experience of God using tools such as meditation. The scientific proof of God is only in it's infancy... but it will come...and when it does it's unlikely to look like anything any of the Religions said it was. But there is always the chance of some eerie similarities

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

A highly influential paper by Dr John Ioannidis at Stanford University called "Why most published research findings are false" argues that fewer than half of scientific papers can be believed"

So we probably shouldn't believe him????

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *risky_MareWoman over a year ago

...Up on the Downs

If it can't be proven by science then it's not true

Haha, and yet I still know my Mother loves me.

I think such statements are naive to say the least, what science proves today it disproves tomorrow - read mPassions long post above, it's very accurate.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *risky_MareWoman over a year ago

...Up on the Downs

" Each lab recorded a different trend, after repetitions, than the other... suggesting that mice react differently in different places or with different people

And Quantum physics demonstrates a similar phenomenon with particles......hmm, might there be a principle here perhaps, a universal law, something as yet undefined....surely not??

At least the 'true' scientists are fully aware of how much they DON'T know, whereas the true believers have just substituted scientific dogma for older belief systems. Blind faith in science is just as blind it appears.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *icketysplitsWoman over a year ago

Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound

" Each lab recorded a different trend, after repetitions, than the other... suggesting that mice react differently in different places or with different people

And Quantum physics demonstrates a similar phenomenon with particles......hmm, might there be a principle here perhaps, a universal law, something as yet undefined....surely not??

I could make the argument that as humans we need an organised belief system. Whether we call it God or Science or Television. I won't as I'm off to work now to deal with that other belief system: mammon.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *risky_MareWoman over a year ago

...Up on the Downs

And Quantum physics demonstrates a similar phenomenon with particles......hmm, might there be a principle here perhaps, a universal law, something as yet undefined....surely not??

Oh indeed - it's not the belief systems I object to, it's the blindness!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *bbandflowCouple over a year ago

South Devon

Science is a human construct and as such is as prey to human fallibility as any other construct. There is nothing new in that. Politics, religion, personal status, and of course money, have always been reasons why the waters of 'pure' science have been muddied, think Gregor Mendel.

What cannot be argued however is that science has, and is, the most successful methodology for explaining the natural world. The application of which we benefit from each and every day, we log on to google, talk to our relatives, travel on holidays, don't expect to die at childbirth, live longer than our ancestors, see our children cured of leukaemia, watch the Olympics, and of course touch a screen and arrange a hot meet on Fab!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Religion is full of shit .... Fact"

Science is latin for knowledge.

Religion in some respects is the same...ie Gnosis. Greek for knowledge

So in other words.....two cheeks of the same arse. Both floored and both worthy. A lot of science in the field quantum theory and neuroscience is starting read like far eastern philosophy more and more.

We still know jack shit about reality!....Factiod

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Religion is full of shit .... Fact

Fact?

Unless u can prove other wise

At least science tries. No scientist ever said if you don't believe my theory you will suffer eternal damnation and If you blindly follow all I tell you, without any proof being offered, you will have eternal happiness.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *risky_MareWoman over a year ago

...Up on the Downs

We still know jack shit about reality!....Factiod

Accurate statement I'd say.

I know more and more about less and less and pretty soon I'll know everything about nothing!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

We still know jack shit about reality!....Factiod

Accurate statement I'd say.

I know more and more about less and less and pretty soon I'll know everything about nothing!

Socrates??

With you on that one. Wouldnt want to blind myself with belielf of anything. Rather be as open and aware as possible

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Science over that bullshit called religion any day of the week... God is dead long live Newton"

Newton studied Kabbalah most of his life so maybe you could class him as a loon too.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *bbandflowCouple over a year ago

South Devon

"Science over that bullshit called religion any day of the week... God is dead long live Newton

I'd love to hear that one argued out with Einstein......

Don't think Albert would be the ideal candidate to take on that argument.

His insistence that 'God doesn't play dice with the Universe' was a statement he lived long enough to acknowledge that he had got God wrong.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *risky_MareWoman over a year ago

...Up on the Downs

We still know jack shit about reality!....Factiod

Accurate statement I'd say.

I know more and more about less and less and pretty soon I'll know everything about nothing!

Socrates??

With you on that one. Wouldnt want to blind myself with belielf of anything. Rather be as open and aware as possible

Not sure of the origin - got it from my horse vet when we were researching something pretty obscure!

And I'm with you - openness is the key.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *risky_MareWoman over a year ago

...Up on the Downs

"Science over that bullshit called religion any day of the week... God is dead long live Newton

I'd love to hear that one argued out with Einstein......

Don't think Albert would be the ideal candidate to take on that argument.

His insistence that 'God doesn't play dice with the Universe' was a statement he lived long enough to acknowledge that he had got God wrong. "

My feeling is he was very open to inspiration nonetheless, and superceded Newton on several points anyway! ! QED really. ....'we see through a glass dimly'.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *bbandflowCouple over a year ago

South Devon

" Each lab recorded a different trend, after repetitions, than the other... suggesting that mice react differently in different places or with different people

And Quantum physics demonstrates a similar phenomenon with particles......hmm, might there be a principle here perhaps, a universal law, something as yet undefined....surely not??

How does quantum physics demonstrate the same phenomenon as the experiments on mice

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *nnyMan over a year ago

Glasgow

"Science over that bullshit called religion any day of the week... God is dead long live Newton

I'd love to hear that one argued out with Einstein......

Don't think Albert would be the ideal candidate to take on that argument.

His insistence that 'God doesn't play dice with the Universe' was a statement he lived long enough to acknowledge that he had got God wrong.

My feeling is he was very open to inspiration nonetheless, and superceded Newton on several points anyway! ! QED really. ....'we see through a glass dimly'."

Einstein stay round the corner from me in 1933. A bit before my time.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *nnyMan over a year ago

Glasgow

"Science over that bullshit called religion any day of the week... God is dead long live Newton

I'd love to hear that one argued out with Einstein......

Don't think Albert would be the ideal candidate to take on that argument.

His insistence that 'God doesn't play dice with the Universe' was a statement he lived long enough to acknowledge that he had got God wrong.

My feeling is he was very open to inspiration nonetheless, and superceded Newton on several points anyway! ! QED really. ....'we see through a glass dimly'.

Einstein stayed round the corner from me in 1933. A bit before my time."

Edited.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *bbandflowCouple over a year ago

South Devon

"Science over that bullshit called religion any day of the week... God is dead long live Newton

I'd love to hear that one argued out with Einstein......

Don't think Albert would be the ideal candidate to take on that argument.

His insistence that 'God doesn't play dice with the Universe' was a statement he lived long enough to acknowledge that he had got God wrong.

My feeling is he was very open to inspiration nonetheless, and superceded Newton on several points anyway! ! QED really. ....'we see through a glass dimly'."

To quote Newton 'If I have seen further it was because I stood on the shoulders of giants' a statement unquestionably echoed by Einstein...neither men claimed they had all the answers

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *risky_MareWoman over a year ago

...Up on the Downs

"Science over that bullshit called religion any day of the week... God is dead long live Newton

I'd love to hear that one argued out with Einstein......

Don't think Albert would be the ideal candidate to take on that argument.

His insistence that 'God doesn't play dice with the Universe' was a statement he lived long enough to acknowledge that he had got God wrong.

My feeling is he was very open to inspiration nonetheless, and superceded Newton on several points anyway! ! QED really. ....'we see through a glass dimly'.

To quote Newton 'If I have seen further it was because I stood on the shoulders of giants' a statement unquestionably echoed by Einstein...neither men claimed they had all the answers"

Oh I have no problem with either man, true scientists IMO, lovers of the truth rather than dogma.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *bbandflowCouple over a year ago

South Devon

"Science over that bullshit called religion any day of the week... God is dead long live Newton

I'd love to hear that one argued out with Einstein......

Don't think Albert would be the ideal candidate to take on that argument.

His insistence that 'God doesn't play dice with the Universe' was a statement he lived long enough to acknowledge that he had got God wrong.

My feeling is he was very open to inspiration nonetheless, and superceded Newton on several points anyway! ! QED really. ....'we see through a glass dimly'.

To quote Newton 'If I have seen further it was because I stood on the shoulders of giants' a statement unquestionably echoed by Einstein...neither men claimed they had all the answers

Oh I have no problem with either man, true scientists IMO, lovers of the truth rather than dogma."

Indeed...still interested how you equate quantum theory with the mice experiments though.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *risky_MareWoman over a year ago

...Up on the Downs

How does quantum physics demonstrate the same phenomenon as the experiments on mice"

I am confident that in time there will be empirical evidence accepted by the majority for an effect you could broadly describe as 'observation can change behaviour' or 'the observer can affect the reality observed'.

This would make a lot of science far more subjective than was previously realised.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *bbandflowCouple over a year ago

South Devon

How does quantum physics demonstrate the same phenomenon as the experiments on mice

This would make a lot of science far more subjective than was previously realised.

The Observer effect in quantum theory does not vary with the observer, it is the mere fact of observation changes behaviour. Unlike the mice experiment where behaviour changed with different people.

Can't fail to admire your confidence . As a science graduate though I shall retain an open mind.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Indeed...still interested how you equate quantum theory with the mice experiments though."

Which Mice experiments?

With regard to "the hard problem"....where memory/perception/consciousness exists! There has been memory experiments on lab rats ability to run mazes after having more and more of there brains cut away. So in relation to quantum science and two of the hardest unanswered questions out there....what is dark matter and the hard problem....there are connections.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *bbandflowCouple over a year ago

South Devon

"Indeed...still interested how you equate quantum theory with the mice experiments though.

Which Mice experiments?

Mice experiments as described in earlier posts. I'm sure you will enlighten me, but struggling to understand your context

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Not really, think the thread has gone off in a couple of tangents and picking one post against another is a bit silly.

Just agreeing with Frisk about a need for openness and humility within a few mindsets....Science wise and otherwise.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *risky_MareWoman over a year ago

...Up on the Downs

How does quantum physics demonstrate the same phenomenon as the experiments on mice

The Observer effect in quantum theory does not vary with the observer, it is the mere fact of observation changes behaviour. Unlike the mice experiment where behaviour changed with different people.

Can't fail to admire your confidence . As a science graduate though I shall retain an open mind."

That is all I am suggesting!! And that is why I gave two definitions - I can see how the two could be examples of exactly the same broader phenomenon - mice obviously not being directly comparable to, what was it, protons?!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

I would tend to agree with Frisky, in that I think we'll probably eventually arrive at an understanding that how we approach reality largely helps to define reality. Obviously we can still observe fundamental laws... but I think in life, and perhaps now in science, we can generally see that it's often not what you do that counts... but how you do it

I do, however, understand the nuance between all observation effecting results and an approach to observation effecting results. I just think that the former may help us lead onto an understanding of the latter

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *risky_MareWoman over a year ago

...Up on the Downs

"I would tend to agree with Frisky, in that I think we'll probably eventually arrive at an understanding that how we approach reality largely helps to define reality. Obviously we can still observe fundamental laws... but I think in life, and perhaps now in science, we can generally see that it's often not what you do that counts... but how you do it

Exactly so. I think the 'fact' of quantum physics could be the initial catalyst for a quantum leap in other areas of research eventually.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ensualtouch15Man over a year ago

ashby de la zouch

Here's a snipping from the web page for it...

An ignorant title x

Perhaps you meant

Some who claim to be scientists and the media sometimes do bad science and report soundbite science

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

"An ignorant title x

Perhaps you meant

Some who claim to be scientists and the media sometimes do bad science and report soundbite science"

It was a cheeky title that made me laugh and which I thought would attract views. It's obviously not true... as evidenced in the rest of the discussion taking place on this thread

As for the 'some who claim to be scientists'... I think the general gist of this is far broader. I think the guy claimed that the majority of articles printed in peer review journals ended up being either exaggerated or wrong. I think we're talking about something systemic here... a flaw at the heart of science... namely the presence of the human being

It's not all doom and gloom though... I believe that applying scientific rigor to the analysis of how science is conducted, and the human flaws which creep into it, is a major step towards future scientific progress. It's not a dead end cause... it's just important that we understand that science is perhaps more of a touchy feely intuitive, uncertain, and creative art than we had assumed throughout the 20th century.. that's my opinion anyway

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

All research, whether it be scientific, artistic, medical etc is undertaken for a reason. Someone is paying for it. That person usually has a reason to research whatever it is, and that reason, in a vast majority of cases, is for profit. The results of such research can therefore be unreliable, depending on the pitch of the person or group that funds the research. I would say, all science is questionable.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ensualtouch15Man over a year ago

ashby de la zouch

"An ignorant title x

Perhaps you meant

Some who claim to be scientists and the media sometimes do bad science and report soundbite science

It was a cheeky title that made me laugh and which I thought would attract views. It's obviously not true... as evidenced in the rest of the discussion taking place on this thread

Opinion good .Science does not have or need those however .humans do

So you meant Some humans are shit?

That I understand is a hypothesis and by utilising scientific method we could test it x

Science can sometimes be art art cannot be science

You see a mountain pretty isn't it

I see the mountain and thanks to thousands of humans following scientifically method and cataloguing the data sometimes for the greed of let's say oil diamonds gold iron lead copper salt blab lah

Lots n lots of data that tell a story . Not an absolute truth but a truth within parameters so I see the mountain too and have a back story that adds extra dimensions and further personal questions.

Geology is a science that is so rewarding x

More or less

An excellent r4 program an illustration that statistics need parameters clear and defined sadly this is the area least understood by gp and most used by the manipulators.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

I was in.the Mahatma Ghandi museum in Delhi a few years back and there are some hand written letters from both him and Albert Einstein, they corresponded for years and were great friends. Both had a great respect for each others beliefs.

I also know that the Dalai Lama hosts a symposium regularly where scientists all over the world come and converse and present scientific papers/workshops/conferences on science and religion.

Richard Dawkins has a scale where he measures atheism and devout I think goes from 1 being atheist and 5 being devoutly religious, he admits scoring 2, go figure from the author of The God Delusion (tacky tome)

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *hyllyphyllyMan over a year ago

Bradford

All I want to say is "Yeah, Science, Bitch"

That is all

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ensualtouch15Man over a year ago

ashby de la zouch

"I was in.the Mahatma Ghandi museum in Delhi a few years back and there are some hand written letters from both him and Albert Einstein, they corresponded for years and were great friends. Both had a great respect for each others beliefs.

I also know that the Dalai Lama hosts a symposium regularly where scientists all over the world come and converse and present scientific papers/workshops/conferences on science and religion.

I am a no 1 atheist .

I have zero belief that any of the human invented god concepts exist x

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

Another argument that scientific types get confused over is the one which involves naming all the useful things science has been able to create... computers, light bulbs, cars, etc... and then making the leap that, therefore, science has discovered some stuff. This isn't necessarily true.

Mankind probably happened across fire by accident. They were then able to reproduce the ability to start fires. But did they understand how fire works? Probably not.

Similarly, it is entirely possible for scientists to discover a phenomena, reproduce the phenomena, link the effect to a certain cause... and create useful tools from this... and yet be wrong. Yes the tools work... and yes we can rely upon them. But it is still possible that our understandings of why they work are utterly mistaken.

Therefore the automatic link between making a useful tool and having proven the theory which went into the creation of that tool, does not exist. It is yet another leap of faith. Tools are not evidence of scientific knowledge... they are evidence of scientific usefulness. Is science useful? Of course! I don't think you'd find anyone willing to argue against that. It's the claims to genuine "Knowledge" which are dubious imo

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"One might almost question whether governments really want a cure for the illnesses which control population growth.

Maybe religion ain't so bad after all!!!

*contemplates converting

It's all of these reasons and more which have a lot more to do with the way the world is than any kind of over population... imo

OMG - get a life!!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

I also know that the Dalai Lama hosts a symposium regularly where scientists all over the world come and converse and present scientific papers/workshops/conferences on science and religion.

A lot do.

David bohm and krishnamurti had a great relationship. A shared sense of compassion in the different works they do.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Religion is full of shit .... Fact

Fact?

Unless u can prove other wise

Can you prove otherwise?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ibbyhunterCouple over a year ago

keighley

when at school in the sixties we were taught that pluto was the ninth planet .... wrong.

we were also taught that the piltdown man was the missing link ... wrong.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"when at school in the sixties we were taught that pluto was the ninth planet .... wrong.

we were also taught that the piltdown man was the missing link ... wrong."

Yes, and countless other scientific 'facts' that were proved to be, yes, you guessed it, - wrong!!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

"we were also taught that the piltdown man was the missing link ... wrong."

Wow did they really still teach that in the 60's?!?

Ahhhh but did you know that Java man was found over something like a 20ft area, with several bones lying at various depths ... hmmmm

I haven't got the source of that info at hand, otherwise I'd be exact, but that's the gist. What I can state categorically is that there's now mounting evidence that various strains of early hominids were just variations of the same strain... not distinct species. Throughout the orchestration of evolution theory, there are all sorts of stories of dubious science, attempting to prove, rather than test, the dominant hypothesis

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *otlovefun42Couple over a year ago

Costa Blanca Spain...

"Religion is full of shit .... Fact

Fact?

Unless u can prove other wise

OK not quite. But some get bloody close if you ever question the global warming scam.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Krakatoa, East of Java

should have been -

Krakatau, West of Java

.....maybe Hollywood got themselves some epic scientific advise!!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Science is full of shit, but it gave us the power of antibiotics.

Religion is full of contradictions, but gave us the power of prayer.

Next time I get an infection, I know which one I'm going with.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

"Science is full of shit, but it gave us the power of antibiotics.

Religion is full of contradictions, but gave us the power of prayer.

Next time I get an infection, I know which one I'm going with."

To be honest antibiotics tend to destroy everything, good or bad, working against your body and working to heal your body... Better to keep off toxic shit like that and keep fit and healthy... perhaps jog to your local church for a small prayer and back every day

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ensualtouch15Man over a year ago

ashby de la zouch

"we were also taught that the piltdown man was the missing link ... wrong.

Wow did they really still teach that in the 60's?!?

Ahhhh but did you know that Java man was found over something like a 20ft area, with several bones lying at various depths ... hmmmm

OMG

Are you a jw lol because you are blurting out pretty much their exact misdirection and double talk

It is most obvious you vainly try to ridicule something you clearly do not wish to understand

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

"we were also taught that the piltdown man was the missing link ... wrong.

Wow did they really still teach that in the 60's?!?

Ahhhh but did you know that Java man was found over something like a 20ft area, with several bones lying at various depths ... hmmmm

OMG

Are you a jw lol because you are blurting out pretty much their exact misdirection and double talk

It is most obvious you vainly try to ridicule something you clearly do not wish to understand "

Assuming that your post is an egomanic attempt to win an argument simply by asserting that you know more about a subject than me... I meet your challenge and say, in return, that I know more about the subject than you

Perhaps you should read up on the subject a little?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

But from what I believe, global warming is a fact......isn't it???

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

The 5 descending stages of a 'scientific' argument...

1) Assert that a certain thing is true because a bunch of scientists say it is

When met with informed contrary evidence or counter argument that suggests this view point isn't universally held by all scientists...

2) Assert that, no doubt, in the end science will find the truth because the scientific method is infallible.

When met with a counter argument that explores the flaws in the practice of science and the application of the scientific method...

3) Point at all the things science has invented that we use, as proof of scientific knowledge

When the link between manufacturing something that works and developing the correct understanding of why it works is brought into doubt...

4) Assert that you've won the argument, even though you can't actually defend that stance, by reciting the various books you've read and diplomas you've got that state clearly that you have superior intelligence.

When it is shown that he who resorts to such measures has, in general, lost the argument...

5) Punch the stupid obnoxious git

You can, throughout, call the other people loonies, nutters, idiots, ignorant fools, un-educated frog spawn, morons, and a wide array of other abusive terms

It's a pattern which gets repeated over and over again... with utter predictability.. a science of pseudo-scientific arguments lol

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *rightonsteveMan over a year ago

Brighton - even Hove!

"Science over that bullshit called religion any day of the week... God is dead long live Newton

You can have both at the same time. The bisexuality of experimentation and belief

God is dead time this world moved on from archaic beliefs "

Really?! Oh no!

when did this happen?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

"But from what I believe, global warming is a fact......isn't it???"

Well... many scientists are currently scratching their heads why it's effects aren't more pronounced by now... so it could still be argued that it might end up being an overly alarmist argument generated from an incorrect analysis of the small amount of data at hand

It could turn out that it's not so much global warming as... global little tiny bit milder

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"But from what I believe, global warming is a fact......isn't it???

It could turn out that it's not so much global warming as... global little tiny bit milder

Aaaaagh, yes but there's nothing too scientific about dunking thermometers in to oceans & exclaiming ; - oh look, they seem to be getting warmer!!

Seems like a no-brainer to me, but why it is, now that's the real question!!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

"But from what I believe, global warming is a fact......isn't it???

It could turn out that it's not so much global warming as... global little tiny bit milder

Aaaaagh, yes but there's nothing too scientific about dunking thermometers in to oceans & exclaiming ; - oh look, they seem to be getting warmer!!

Seems like a no-brainer to me, but why it is, now that's the real question!!"

Well one thing's for sure... it wasn't CFC's. That was just a scam by the DuPont company who's patents on CFC's were running out... which would have led to any other country round the world being able to manufacture them. So they got them universally banned and then... surprise surprise... guess who suggested the new replacement to CFC's?

Yes, you're right... DuPont

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Im a bit confused at who won the argument and does it really matter?

I would imagine, that's what a scientist does, that tomorrow will be here regardless.

I had an interesting chat a few weeks back with a woman who was insistent that dinosaurs were not more than 6000 years old, pretty scary woman whom I teased with scientific jargon for ages, even though I kinda hedge my bets on the plus side for some sort of higher power existing.

I also happened to have a scary conversation with a scientist a few years back about ebola, the gist of that one he defended his right to assert it was created in a lab even though the bloody virus is named after an African river village where is was first detected, I also teased him about that being Gods way of cleansing the earth.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *risky_MareWoman over a year ago

...Up on the Downs

But what I want to know is WHY God made dinosaurs??

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *icketysplitsWoman over a year ago

Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound

"But what I want to know is WHY God made dinosaurs??

That's easy: she was at that excitable stage with all the play doh but hadn't developed the fine motor skills for small stuff.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"But what I want to know is WHY God made dinosaurs??

That's easy: she was at that excitable stage with all the play doh but hadn't developed the fine motor skills for small stuff.

I always like it when people feminise the G word. It should be done more often!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"But what I want to know is WHY God made dinosaurs??

That's easy: she was at that excitable stage with all the play doh but hadn't developed the fine motor skills for small stuff.

I always like it when people feminise the G word. It should be done more often!

Like Gspot?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Science over that bullshit called religion any day of the week... God is dead long live Newton

You can have both at the same time. The bisexuality of experimentation and belief

But you can't believe in both. Science contradicts religion. Take the bible for example. When it was written, man was so primitive & gullible, they had absolutely no idea the world was already millions of years old. They knew absolutely nothing about dinosaurs & never knew they ever existed. They thought the world was relatively new. They didn't know anything much at all about the real world they lived on. Because they had no idea about evolution, the only explanation they could come up with was by saying they were made by a fictitious magical supreme being who made us in his own image. Now we are not that primitive any more, we now know better, so we don't have to believe any more the crap that was written in the worlds 1st & oldest science fiction novel. Makes me laugh that people actually think the bible is true with all the magic & miracles happening. If you went back a couple of thousand years with a copy of "The Hobbit" & told them it was all real & actually happened, they would believe you. If Dynamo, Penn & Teller, or any other magician went back, they would either be worshipped as Gods, or they would be killed for being witches & warlocks accused of being the spawn of Satan. I think religion has no place in the 21st century & people should stop being so primitive & gullible.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Every time there's a major arceological find it tends to prove that the ancients were a damn sight cleverer than previously given credit for!!

I believe that in this so-called superior age, we're amongst the biggest idiots of the ages.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Religion is full of shit .... Fact

Fact?

A lot of it must be as many religions believe in one god and only theirs

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Religion is full of shit .... Fact

Fact?

A lot of it must be as many religions believe in one god and only theirs"

.....but isn't that in itself a collective belief?

Is not then science likewise - 'x' group of scientists disagree with 'y' ???

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ensualtouch15Man over a year ago

ashby de la zouch

"Every time there's a major arceological find it tends to prove that the ancients were a damn sight cleverer than previously given credit for!!

I believe that in this so-called superior age, we're amongst the biggest idiots of the ages."

Apparently everything found in an archaeological dig is manipulated and fictitious ,no data found in geological strata can be used to prove anything x

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ensualtouch15Man over a year ago

ashby de la zouch

[Removed by poster at 04/09/14 07:59:06]

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ensualtouch15Man over a year ago

ashby de la zouch

"when at school in the sixties we were taught that pluto was the ninth planet .... wrong.

we were also taught that the piltdown man was the missing link ... wrong."

What Pluto does not exist ?

Playing with semantics does not alter a fact.

A body of rock x million miles away x in size orbits the sun and yes iv seen it x so can you

Humans debating a naming convention has zero to do with the science that gives us the data to suggest otherwise is dishonest x

I think you will find science proved piltdown man was a fake x it certainly is clear you believe the science that proves piltdown was fake xx x

Again we illustrate science is just a method it's humans who lie x

We measure something within a milometer and then learn to measure within a micron .just because everything now has a more accurate dimension does not mean the previous measures were wrong

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ensualtouch15Man over a year ago

ashby de la zouch

"Science is full of shit, but it gave us the power of antibiotics.

Religion is full of contradictions, but gave us the power of prayer.

Next time I get an infection, I know which one I'm going with.

How odd you're sounding like a scientist x

Scientific method indeed gave humans a variety of human modified antibiotics x it also gives us their effects good and bad

Science stops there

It's humans that then use or misuse the data

It seems you are perfectly willing to use the hard grafted scientific data that tells us they can be harmful to humans

Science just gives data and it's for us as an individual to learn how to understand the data and it's context.if we just trust the daily mail or watchtower to "understand" the data you will have a distorted view

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *unky monkeyMan over a year ago

in the night garden

I don't understand magnets. They seem magical.

Could be the solution to the fuel crisis. I've been experimenting with putting a big magnet on the end of a stick attached to my car. The idea is the power of the magnet will pull my car along hence not requiring any petrol. Too soon to tell if it will work, I need more magnets.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"I don't understand magnets. They seem magical.

You need to investigate zero point energy. But being a time traveller I'd have thought you'd have sussed this already.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *unky monkeyMan over a year ago

in the night garden

"I don't understand magnets. They seem magical.

You need to investigate zero point energy. But being a time traveller I'd have thought you'd have sussed this already. "

Yeah but I need a vacuum for that and Soxy has it in his boudoir on deck 12. I don't go there.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"I don't understand magnets. They seem magical.

You need to investigate zero point energy. But being a time traveller I'd have thought you'd have sussed this already.

Yeah but I need a vacuum for that and Soxy has it in his boudoir on deck 12. I don't go there."

I could sort you out with a black hole for a small fee

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *unky monkeyMan over a year ago

in the night garden

"I don't understand magnets. They seem magical.

You need to investigate zero point energy. But being a time traveller I'd have thought you'd have sussed this already.

Yeah but I need a vacuum for that and Soxy has it in his boudoir on deck 12. I don't go there.

I could sort you out with a black hole for a small fee

Is it a BBH?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"I don't understand magnets. They seem magical.

You need to investigate zero point energy. But being a time traveller I'd have thought you'd have sussed this already.

Yeah but I need a vacuum for that and Soxy has it in his boudoir on deck 12. I don't go there.

I could sort you out with a black hole for a small fee

Is it a BBH?"

Depends......how big would you need?

I have no idea on the size of your rocket!!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *unky monkeyMan over a year ago

in the night garden

"I don't understand magnets. They seem magical.

You need to investigate zero point energy. But being a time traveller I'd have thought you'd have sussed this already.

Yeah but I need a vacuum for that and Soxy has it in his boudoir on deck 12. I don't go there.

I could sort you out with a black hole for a small fee

Is it a BBH?

Depends......how big would you need?

I have no idea on the size of your rocket!!"

I guess it's all relative. A sky, remote.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"I don't understand magnets. They seem magical.

You need to investigate zero point energy. But being a time traveller I'd have thought you'd have sussed this already.

Yeah but I need a vacuum for that and Soxy has it in his boudoir on deck 12. I don't go there.

I could sort you out with a black hole for a small fee

Is it a BBH?

Depends......how big would you need?

I have no idea on the size of your rocket!!

I guess it's all relative. A sky, remote."

I only have TiVo left I'm afriad. Sky seems to be quite popular in the fab world!!

On the plus side, it is a Virgin

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *unky monkeyMan over a year ago

in the night garden

"I don't understand magnets. They seem magical.

You need to investigate zero point energy. But being a time traveller I'd have thought you'd have sussed this already.

Yeah but I need a vacuum for that and Soxy has it in his boudoir on deck 12. I don't go there.

I could sort you out with a black hole for a small fee

Is it a BBH?

Depends......how big would you need?

I have no idea on the size of your rocket!!

I guess it's all relative. A sky, remote.

I only have TiVo left I'm afriad. Sky seems to be quite popular in the fab world!!

On the plus side, it is a Virgin"

I'll take it!!!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"I don't understand magnets. They seem magical.

You need to investigate zero point energy. But being a time traveller I'd have thought you'd have sussed this already.

Yeah but I need a vacuum for that and Soxy has it in his boudoir on deck 12. I don't go there.

I could sort you out with a black hole for a small fee

Is it a BBH?

Depends......how big would you need?

I have no idea on the size of your rocket!!

I guess it's all relative. A sky, remote.

I only have TiVo left I'm afriad. Sky seems to be quite popular in the fab world!!

On the plus side, it is a Virgin

I'll take it!!!

Pleasure doing business with you

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *omMLMan over a year ago

The Centre of the Universe

"The rebound effect is very effective at stopping people losing weight. The more they concentrate on food the more they eat.

I have been looking at it for alcohol reduction as well as environmental messages recently and people end up drinking more.

It's surprising how many things end up having the opposite effect. It seems with things like food, alcohol, smoking etc. The more we get preached at the more we stick our fingers up and do it all the more.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *risky_MareWoman over a year ago

...Up on the Downs

And yet, uncannily, they described the formation of 'heaven and earth' in exactly the sequence science now tells us it occurred. There are indeed plenty of scientists who do believe in both, some have actually deduced the existance of 'something' from the data they study. I watch with interest!

Intelligent men have always searched for truth, and I think it very naive to assume no-one before the invention of modern science ever found any!! Oh we can look back and laugh at the things people got wrong, but you can do the same every 5, 10, 50 years in science too.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *omMLMan over a year ago

The Centre of the Universe

Stephen Hawkins has said that his scientific studies have led him to believe this. That there would have had to have been billions of coincidences' across millions of years for the universe to be as it is now.

He believes there must be something else but he doesn't know what that is.

The biggest atheist of our time Richard Dawkins meets with the head of the Church of England and chief rabbi and changes his stance slightly.

The Catholic Church has a whole division of priests who are scientists and respected in their fields.

So is science actually the search for god? As if it achieves what we want it to we will be god like?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

I don't believe in science, this mobile phone in my hand connected to invisible controlled energy waves talking to people anywhere in the world. Pure nonsense, the twice I have survived and recovered from cancer. Must have been the bananas and the will of the gods. Nothing to do with the scientists living it up on money they don't earn.

Problem with science is a lot of the work in theoretical stages may take decades or longer to become products you can hold or see. I am sure when communicating with magnetic signals down an electrical wire was first shown in an experiment most people's reaction was the equivalent of WTF. But we now use that science to post on a globally available forum that science is a crock of shite

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *bbandflowCouple over a year ago

South Devon

"I don't believe in science, this mobile phone in my hand connected to invisible controlled energy waves talking to people anywhere in the world. Pure nonsense, the twice I have survived and recovered from cancer. Must have been the bananas and the will of the gods. Nothing to do with the scientists living it up on money they don't earn.

Love it, the hypocrisy is truly staggering. How many live their lives without laptops, Iphones, cars, trains, planes, fridges, microwave cookers, DIY tools, television, radio, vaccinations, x rays, MRI scans, pre and post natal care, world foods, books, newspapers, music, film, clothes, electric power, gas, cameras, roads, bridges, protected sex, et al...all products of the application of science.

I suspect not many!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

I suspect not many!"

Lol I take it you guys didn't bother reading my 5 descending stages of a scientific argument above

brick, shower, avocado, lorry, yellow, sun, air, lamp, van gogh, oboe, nuts, pastry, eggs, burp, left, star dust... just thought I'd add some random words to your list in order to mount a compelling counter argument lol

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

"But you can't believe in both. Science contradicts religion. Take the bible for example."

Oh dear... Yet another person universalises Christianity's war on science and reason and ignores the many other faiths around the world that are not only compatible with science... but positively promote it.

Science does not contradict religion. Science is the study of God... not to lead us into becoming Gods ourselves, as someone else suggested on this thread, but to lead us finally and utterly to the realisation of God's Profound Miraculous Being and to kneel in humility before it

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

"But you can't believe in both. Science contradicts religion. Take the bible for example.

lol

Thereth endeth today's sermon

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *bbandflowCouple over a year ago

South Devon

I suspect not many!

Lol I take it you guys didn't bother reading my 5 descending stages of a scientific argument above

Eclectic, but hardly compelling..lol

All perfectly valid, but then I'm not in denial.

Thought your original post was interesting, because you were targeting institutionalised science, or to be accurate scientists, and I would agree there is a case to answer.

However the thread became predictably polarised with little understanding of how science works.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *omMLMan over a year ago

The Centre of the Universe

"But you can't believe in both. Science contradicts religion. Take the bible for example.

God made us in his own image. In 10's of thousands of years when we have solved many scientific problems. Would we not be god like was my point. Or what will we be when we have solved all of gods mysteries? And what will be the point of us?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

"Eclectic, but hardly compelling..lol

All perfectly valid, but then I'm not in denial.

Thought your original post was interesting, because you were targeting institutionalised science, or to be accurate scientists, and I would agree there is a case to answer.

However the thread became predictably polarised with little understanding of how science works.

Fair points... but I do personally believe it is also an interesting area to look at flaws in scientific method... so my interest in seeing science 'objectively' extends beyond the fallibility of institutions and the humans in them... it extends into the question of proof and the assertion of Knowledge. I appreciate and love science... but, being more of a philosopher at heart, I get great joy out of deconstructing things and questioning conventional wisdom. Claims of Knowledge, in philosophical circles, are usually approached with an air of skepticism... as they usually don't hold up

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

"God made us in his own image. In 10's of thousands of years when we have solved many scientific problems. Would we not be god like was my point. Or what will we be when we have solved all of gods mysteries? And what will be the point of us?

Firstly I don't believe we were made in God's image, nor that God is male

I think the universe and God are the exact same thing... and we don't particularly look like a massive amorphous blob filled with tiny specs of light do we? lol

Secondly I think the real purpose of science is to give us an accurate map of what we can and cannot know. For example, we are unlikely to ever know what exists at the heart of a black hole... nor what is the source of these new white holes their talking about. So... no... we will never arrive at a point when we've solved all of God's mysteries.. or the mysteries of the universe as others might say. We will only become more acutely aware of our smallness, our ignorance, and our humility within it's grand vastness

Wow I'm sounding like a pompous ass today lol

Time to down a few coffees.. see if that makes me more 'normal'

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *risky_MareWoman over a year ago

...Up on the Downs

" We will only become more acutely aware of our smallness, our ignorance, and our humility within it's grand vastness

Yes, that is the point.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *omMLMan over a year ago

The Centre of the Universe

Firstly I don't believe we were made in God's image, nor that God is male

I think the universe and God are the exact same thing... and we don't particularly look like a massive amorphous blob filled with tiny specs of light do we? lol

Wow I'm sounding like a pompous ass today lol

Time to down a few coffees.. see if that makes me more 'normal'

Your passionate about the subject and put across a well crafted argument. A coffee sounds good, think I'll make one and have a biccie to go with it. ??

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *bbandflowCouple over a year ago

South Devon

"Eclectic, but hardly compelling..lol

All perfectly valid, but then I'm not in denial.

Thought your original post was interesting, because you were targeting institutionalised science, or to be accurate scientists, and I would agree there is a case to answer.

However the thread became predictably polarised with little understanding of how science works.

I'm pink therefore I'm spam' etched in a university lecture theatre allegedly by a natural sciences student indicating contempt for philosophy students.

Little harsh of course, but kind of see where it was coming from..lol

Surely though the fundamental strength of the scientific method is to question conventional wisdom. Alfred Wegener and Continental Drift being a classic example. Science stutters and halts before juddering forward, it's not linear.

Have you read 'The Structure of Scientific Revolutions' by Thomas Kuhn a classic read on the philosophy of science, bet you would enjoy!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

"Surely though the fundamental strength of the scientific method is to question conventional wisdom. Alfred Wegener and Continental Drift being a classic example. Science stutters and halts before juddering forward, it's not linear.

Have you read 'The Structure of Scientific Revolutions' by Thomas Kuhn a classic read on the philosophy of science, bet you would enjoy!"

Looks like an interesting read thx

Being a bit of a fruitcake, and having had my fair share of personal experiences to convince me, I believe that revelatory knowledge is possible. There are, therefore, three types of knowledge... sensory knowledge, informed by the senses, logical deductive knowledge, systems of logic which make sense unto themselves, and revelatory knowledge, knowledge from somewhere beyond. It strikes me that Kuhn might touch on this last form of knowledge in the form of scientists who had a gut instinct they followed, a dream they had, or perhaps just a vivid imagination that plopped something into their lap. Science, as you say, judders forward... but I believe some of it's progress comes through revelatory knowledge... that same revelatory knowledge which lies behind many religious writings.

Deductive logic can only take us so far... and sometimes it leads us into an intellectual eddy. Revelatory knowledge inexplicably gives us new knowledge from beyond ourselves... and helps us to move forward. Don't ask me how this works... but I think it's got something to do with the universe not really being exactly what it seems to us through our sensory faculties... of there being more... or of their being a puppeteer

Of course, the only revelatory knowledge we should trust is knowledge we can test... and that is one of the aspects that science has the advantage on a lot of religious ramblings. However... we have to remember that many of the sages who wrote those ramblings will have spent much of their lives fasting, perhaps in retreat, perhaps taking drugs, and maybe even meditating to achieve a different state of consciousness. Therefore, we shouldn't be quick to imagine they found nothing of any merit simply because we can't replicate it in our modern cosy comfortable moderate suburban lifestyles. I think extreme aestheticism can potentially lead you to profound truths... but one's which others might find hard to believe

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *risky_MareWoman over a year ago

...Up on the Downs

Have you read 'The Structure of Scientific Revolutions' by Thomas Kuhn a classic read on the philosophy of science, bet you would enjoy!

Looks like an interesting read thx

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Lol I take it you guys didn't bother reading my 5 descending stages of a scientific argument above

I admit to paying less and less attention almost word by word, but I did read it and many other posts on the thread.

There is some reason to confuse invention with discovery, and many discoveries are accidental whilst looking for something else, some are of course beneficial others not so much! not strictly science but it follows the principle of Columbus discovering his route to India was blocked.

The point is that if you don't make the journey/ do the research then you won't discover anything.

The problem is Scientific papers are now too available, what would have circulated amongst other explorers years ago and maybe started a new voyage is now available to the layman who always wants to know what does it do for me.

As for science leading to god, OP you cheated! you redefined your god to fit your theory which is just not allowed

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

"As for science leading to god, OP you cheated! you redefined your god to fit your theory which is just not allowed

That was always my definition of God

It's just others who leap to the assumption that I'm talking about some white bearded bloke on a cloud without asking me if I am

Ask me next week and you'll find I still believe in the same God... no redefinitions going on here... just a religious view point that makes logical sense

Shock horror!!

can there really be such a thing?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Some good posts mpassion.

A step away from dogma's on many levels would be very beneficial

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ensualtouch15Man over a year ago

ashby de la zouch

I suspect not many!

Lol I take it you guys didn't bother reading my 5 descending stages of a scientific argument above

Eclectic, but hardly compelling..lol

All perfectly valid, but then I'm not in denial.

Thought your original post was interesting, because you were targeting institutionalised science, or to be accurate scientists, and I would agree there is a case to answer.

However the thread became predictably polarised with little understanding of how science works.

I agree with this

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *hetalkingstoveMan over a year ago

London

Science is a tool used by humans, so of course it isn't being wielded perfectly.

Makes no difference whether or not any gods or supernatural beings of any kind exist, though.

Sad that some people have to attack science to bolster their beliefs.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *icketysplitsWoman over a year ago

Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound

Firstly I don't believe we were made in God's image, nor that God is male

I think the universe and God are the exact same thing... and we don't particularly look like a massive amorphous blob filled with tiny specs of light do we? lol

Amorphous blob with specs of light is a good description for me.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

always knew you were worth worshipping, all hail Licketysplits

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ivilizedkinkCouple over a year ago

harrow

"Science over that bullshit called religion any day of the week... God is dead long live Newton

I'd love to hear that one argued out with Einstein......

If it can't be proven by science then it's not true this god thing can be put in the same book of mythical beings as unicorns griffins giants trolls Cyclops and friendly cockneys.. "

ooooh you had to go and burst my bubble didnt you there I was happily playing with my unicorn in the golden medows in my mind and POP .....mummy make the bad person go away lol

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *bi_scotlandTV/TS over a year ago

Glasgow

This is untrue. The Genesis story in the bible tells us god created light and yet he didn't create the stars or sun until the 4th day.

So completely different from what science tells us.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ensualtouch15Man over a year ago

ashby de la zouch

The 5 descending stages of a 'scientific' argument...

1) Assert that a certain thing is true because a bunch of scientists say it is

Excellent number 1

Energy transmitted through a wide spectrum of the emf when in contact with certain metals will induce a pd

Ok find me anyone and I'll show them the experiment x

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *risky_MareWoman over a year ago

...Up on the Downs

This is untrue. The Genesis story in the bible tells us god created light and yet he didn't create the stars or sun until the 4th day.

So completely different from what science tells us."

Sorry it was not my study and I did not recall correctly - it was the sequence of formation of the earth's atmosphere.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

& can you be sure that science wasn't the cause of the cancer in the first place?

& what would happen to us all without the web, I wonder????? Maybe we'd all get out more often!!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ensualtouch15Man over a year ago

ashby de la zouch

This is untrue. The Genesis story in the bible tells us god created light and yet he didn't create the stars or sun until the 4th day.

So completely different from what science tells us.

Sorry it was not my study and I did not recall correctly - it was the sequence of formation of the earth's atmosphere."

Can I just note .

I have read watchtower

We all can look now .

Above in this thread are watchtower quotes used to convince the vulnerable that science is wrong x

Be aware from where your "scientific" knowledge comes from

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

On a lighter note

Matrix was on TV tonight

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Early on in this thread things quickly (& predictably) turned in to Science vs Religion, war - but also predictably there was only ever going to be one fact - that is that there is no proof!!

Now, where did I put that bottle of kiwi red?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *imiUKMan over a year ago

Hereford

Head, meet desk,

Desk, head.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *omMLMan over a year ago

The Centre of the Universe

This is untrue. The Genesis story in the bible tells us god created light and yet he didn't create the stars or sun until the 4th day.

So completely different from what science tells us.

Sorry it was not my study and I did not recall correctly - it was the sequence of formation of the earth's atmosphere.

Can I just note .

I have read watchtower

We all can look now .

Above in this thread are watchtower quotes used to convince the vulnerable that science is wrong x

Be aware from where your "scientific" knowledge comes from"

I have listened to All along the watch tower and it's great. But I didn't learn much science from it.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *risky_MareWoman over a year ago

...Up on the Downs

Sorry it was not my study and I did not recall correctly - it was the sequence of formation of the earth's atmosphere.

Can I just note .

I have read watchtower

We all can look now .

Above in this thread are watchtower quotes used to convince the vulnerable that science is wrong x

Be aware from where your "scientific" knowledge comes from"

Hahaha, oh I am sorry to laugh but you are WAY off beam on that one, I have never in my life even read a copy of Watchtower - though my ex used to invite Jehovahs Witnesses in to blow their minds over a cup of tea..........it was his study.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *risky_MareWoman over a year ago

...Up on the Downs

"On a lighter note

Matrix was on TV tonight

And we all know THAT'S real for sure!!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"On a lighter note

Matrix was on TV tonight

And we all know THAT'S real for sure!!

The title was inspired by Max Planck

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Sorry it was not my study and I did not recall correctly - it was the sequence of formation of the earth's atmosphere.

Can I just note .

I have read watchtower

We all can look now .

Above in this thread are watchtower quotes used to convince the vulnerable that science is wrong x

Be aware from where your "scientific" knowledge comes from

I didn't pick up on any of that either. But I guess it sums up what parts of this thread were about......Observation.

The observer only sees what they are looking for.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Science is an artform of curiosity. Like many examples of art, it is grossly misunderstood and berated. Revel in the creative process, people of Rome.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Science is an artform of curiosity. Like many examples of art, it is grossly misunderstood and berated. Revel in the creative process, people of Rome."

Terrific race, the Romans, - salt of the earth!!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *emmefataleWoman over a year ago

dirtybigbadsgirlville

"Science is an artform of curiosity. Like many examples of art, it is grossly misunderstood and berated. Revel in the creative process, people of Rome.

Terrific race, the Romans, - salt of the earth!!

"
Caligula was a top chap!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Science is an artform of curiosity. Like many examples of art, it is grossly misunderstood and berated. Revel in the creative process, people of Rome.

Terrific race, the Romans, - salt of the earth!!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Science is an artform of curiosity. Like many examples of art, it is grossly misunderstood and berated. Revel in the creative process, people of Rome.

Terrific race, the Romans, - salt of the earth!!

Caligula was a top chap!"

I say, old Caligulypoohs!!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ensualtouch15Man over a year ago

ashby de la zouch

Sorry it was not my study and I did not recall correctly - it was the sequence of formation of the earth's atmosphere.

Can I just note .

I have read watchtower

We all can look now .

Above in this thread are watchtower quotes used to convince the vulnerable that science is wrong x

Be aware from where your "scientific" knowledge comes from

From watchtower

In harmony with the views of many scientists today, the ancient Hebrews also believed that the universe had a beginning. “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth,” says Genesis 1:1. Also, some 3,500 years ago, God revealed to his servant Job that the earth ‘hangs on nothing,’ or is suspended in space.

There is a fair bit above which is blatently paraphrased from creationist propaganda .

Whether people knew this was their source is academic x

I would say from much written some don't wish to understand science

Humans have been doing the main objective of science since before we evolved into humans ie watch n learn

However humans have a few weakness , we can be emotional , subjective , intoxicated , misdirected by illusion , dishonest

Modern science only adds a layer or two of verification , methods and rules that aim to filter out wild claims and hoaxes in order to collect data that is statistically more reliable than a man telling us his dream is a reality

Bottom line science is evidence based and unless we have data it's best to say I don't know not enough data x

Ironically ,scientifically speaking we too lament the poor examples of science and scientific reporting, the human condition scientific method is trying to shelter from is a strong invasive force . The irony being the op trying to discredit science is actually supporting it by illustrating how bad science or guess work hunches or visions cannot be trusted and indeed are likely to be manipulated to suit the person x

As I have repeated if a person understands science one can know if a study has been carried out correctly .

In science belief is not required .

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

"Ironically ,scientifically speaking we too lament the poor examples of science and scientific reporting, the human condition scientific method is trying to shelter from is a strong invasive force. The irony being the op trying to discredit science is actually supporting it by illustrating how bad science or guess work hunches or visions cannot be trusted and indeed are likely to be manipulated to suit the person x

As I have repeated if a person understands science one can know if a study has been carried out correctly .

In science belief is not required ."

Some interesting posts, although I don't know where the whole watchtower thing came from lol

Maybe a work of your own fantasy Taoist

I just wanted to say that the purpose of the OP was to convey a different vision of science as flawed and human. It wasn't to discredit science... although obviously the title of the thread was a joke in that direction... a joke mainly because science obviously isn't full of shit

My assertion is that it is the scientific optimists who don't "wish to understand science", contrary to what Taoist suggested. These optimists ignore all the flaws and the uncertainties in order to paint a simplistic perfect picture of science which is actually such a caricature that it is effectively pseudo-science, at least that would be my assertion. The problems of this vision of science go much deeper than human error. It goes to the root of the assertion behind the word 'science'... which translates into 'knowledge'. Taoist correctly states that scientific certainty can only rest upon a weight of data. But the truth is that, even then, there is disagreement over how much data equates to certainty. What is 'enough data'?

Finally, I feel that a more objective view of science as something human, uncertain, and flawed, is actually a move forward on the progress of science itself. Understanding what role belief plays in science, and it does play a vital role, helps us to understand how we are coloring it.

I have said for many years, and I still stand by it... that there is only one hard science; psychology... and all the other sciences are soft. That this is true does not diminish our accomplishments in all the other soft sciences. Showing how flawed and fallible we are; how uncertain and unreliable our knowledge is likely to be; and yet how much we have been able to accomplish despite all of that... is a genuine achievement we humans should be proud of

I think physics and meta-physics are entwined, with falsehoods and 'truths' in both. For me there is a fluidity between science and religion... or perhaps between outward observation and testing and inward observation and testing. They do not conflict and it is neither an either/or nor a this vs that scenario. I feel that this warring mentality is more a bone of contention for those scientific materialists who see themselves as crusaders against the irrational religious hordes

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *risky_MareWoman over a year ago

...Up on the Downs

As I have repeated if a person understands science one can know if a study has been carried out correctly .

In science belief is not required .

Some interesting posts, although I don't know where the whole watchtower thing came from lol

Maybe a work of your own fantasy Taoist

Not sure about psychology being the only hard sceince but i agree so much with most of this - it's when science becomes a faith with it's own dogma that we need to be wary.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

As I have repeated if a person understands science one can know if a study has been carried out correctly .

In science belief is not required .

Some interesting posts, although I don't know where the whole watchtower thing came from lol

Maybe a work of your own fantasy Taoist

Not sure about psychology being the only hard sceince but i agree so much with most of this - it's when science becomes a faith with it's own dogma that we need to be wary."
Would that be scientology yes i quite agree.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *risky_MareWoman over a year ago

...Up on the Downs

Not sure about psychology being the only hard sceince but i agree so much with most of this - it's when science becomes a faith with it's own dogma that we need to be wary.Would that be scientology yes i quite agree."

No, I was thinking very generally that was my point - people can 'believe' in science so much they become blind to any other truth sometimes, and dogmatic about it, sometimes on a par with the religious zealots! What was the saying - first remove the plank from your own eye brother? Haha!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ensualtouch15Man over a year ago

ashby de la zouch

"But from what I believe, global warming is a fact......isn't it???

It could turn out that it's not so much global warming as... global little tiny bit milder

Aaaaagh, yes but there's nothing too scientific about dunking thermometers in to oceans & exclaiming ; - oh look, they seem to be getting warmer!!

Seems like a no-brainer to me, but why it is, now that's the real question!!

Yes, you're right... DuPont

Did I ever mention scientific ignorance ?

Ignorance is a state of being uninformed (lack of knowledge).[1] The word ignorant is an adjective describing a person in the state of being unaware

You seem to have made the school boy misunderstanding of the scientific data regarding the effects of cfcs ?

Many soundbite news papers reported the science wrongly but actually cfcs were not banned because of climate change concernes but because they are proven to destroy o3 ,ozone .

From bbc today

y Roger Harrabin

BBC environment analyst

The ozone layer that shields the earth from cancer-causing ultraviolet rays is showing early signs of thickening after years of depletion, a UN study says.

The ozone hole that appears annually over Antarctica has also stopped growing bigger every year.

The report says it will take a decade before the hole starts to shrink.

Scientists say the recovery is entirely due to political determination to phase out the man-made CFC gases destroying ozone.

The study was published by researchers from the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the UN Environment Programme (UNEP).

"International action on the ozone layer is a major environmental success story... This should encourage us to display the same level of urgency and unity to tackle the even greater challenge of tackling climate change," said WMO Secretary-General Michel Jarraud.

Dr Ken Jucks from the US space agency Nasa told BBC News that humans "have started to do the right thing in order to convert the atmosphere back towards what it was before the industrial revolution started".

Scientists cannot be absolutely certain yet that the hole will heal itself. Prof David Vaughan from the British Antarctic Survey (BAS) said that test results from his organisation would throw extra light on the WMO's findings.

That is the role of science

"Throw extra light " by using methods that can be repeated and verified ensuring the data is as robust as humans and their primitive equipment can manage.

Not I hear voices therefore that proves angels exist

Scientific community laments the bad reporting of good science and those who distort data for attempt ed glory the way the charlatans are uncovered and the untruths quashed is by the scientific community being diligent applying good scientific methods not by someone saying they have a hunch

We all have a hunch a gut feeling , and indeed it could be right , however there are a multitude of methods we call scientific , but really is just precise note taking and data recording which can be used to substantiate or unsubstantiate a hunch to a high degree of statistical accuracy .

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ensualtouch15Man over a year ago

ashby de la zouch

Oh note the

Science cannot be certain line ?

Aparantly that is evidence that not all are nasty bolshy arrogant I am right I know everything scientists x

The above is a piece of reporting about science , it contains opinions they are not facts and can easily be rationalised .

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

I'll still take science over religion anytime!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"But you can't believe in both. Science contradicts religion. Take the bible for example.

Even if we do solve every scientific problem, find a way to travel to distant stars or invent time travel, we still will not be gods or god like. We will still be plain old human beings, just with a much greater understanding of the universe around us. With our vast knowledge we have now, if an alien race was to suddenly appear in front of you out of nowhere... would you think they were gods or god like, or would you think they were just more advanced than us to have invented some kind of transportation device? If someone thinks someone else is god like because they can do strange things, it doesn't make them right, it just makes them primitive with a lack of understanding. Should we start treating Dynamo, David Copperfield, Penn & Teller, Paul Daniels etc gods or say they were god like? Why not? They can all do tricks that can make people & things disapear, read our minds, levitate. Dynamo has even walked on water, on the Thames. Are they god like doing "miracles" or do we understand that they are just doing tricks & illusions knowing that they can't really fly, levitate or walk on water, knowing they have no more special powers than the rest of us?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Ignorance is a state of being uninformed (lack of knowledge).[1] The word ignorant is an adjective describing a person in the state of being unaware"

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

"But from what I believe, global warming is a fact......isn't it???

It could turn out that it's not so much global warming as... global little tiny bit milder

Aaaaagh, yes but there's nothing too scientific about dunking thermometers in to oceans & exclaiming ; - oh look, they seem to be getting warmer!!

Seems like a no-brainer to me, but why it is, now that's the real question!!

Yes, you're right... DuPont

Did I ever mention scientific ignorance ?

Ignorance is a state of being uninformed (lack of knowledge).[1] The word ignorant is an adjective describing a person in the state of being unaware

You seem to have made the school boy misunderstanding of the scientific data regarding the effects of cfcs ?

Many soundbite news papers reported the science wrongly but actually cfcs were not banned because of climate change concernes but because they are proven to destroy o3 ,ozone .

From bbc today

y Roger Harrabin

BBC environment analyst

The ozone layer that shields the earth from cancer-causing ultraviolet rays is showing early signs of thickening after years of depletion, a UN study says.

The ozone hole that appears annually over Antarctica has also stopped growing bigger every year.

The report says it will take a decade before the hole starts to shrink.

Scientists say the recovery is entirely due to political determination to phase out the man-made CFC gases destroying ozone.

The study was published by researchers from the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the UN Environment Programme (UNEP).

Well what do you know? A bunch of people using hairspray with CFC's in which weigh between 4 to 8 times heavier than air were destroying the ozone layer!

You've got me there

Nice to hear the ozone hole is closing by itself though

Always thought it probably would

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"But you can't believe in both. Science contradicts religion. Take the bible for example.

Even if we do solve every scientific problem, find a way to travel to distant stars or invent time travel, we still will not be gods or god like. We will still be plain old human beings, just with a much greater understanding of the universe around us. With our vast knowledge we have now, if an alien race was to suddenly appear in front of you out of nowhere... would you think they were gods or god like, or would you think they were just more advanced than us in their understanding to have invented some kind of transportation device? If someone thinks someone else is god like because they can do strange things, it doesn't make them right, it just makes them less advanced with a lack of understanding. Should we start treating Dynamo, David Copperfield, Penn & Teller, Paul Daniels etc like gods or would you say they were god like? No? Why not? They can all do tricks that can make people & things disapear, read our minds, levitate. Dynamo has even walked on water, on the river Thames. Are they god like doing "miracles" or do we understand that they are just doing tricks & illusions knowing that they can't really fly, levitate or walk on water, knowing they have no more special powers than the rest of us? Just because we don't understand how they do their tricks, & they won't be telling us any time soon, doesn't make them god like.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ensualtouch15Man over a year ago

ashby de la zouch

"But from what I believe, global warming is a fact......isn't it???

It could turn out that it's not so much global warming as... global little tiny bit milder

Aaaaagh, yes but there's nothing too scientific about dunking thermometers in to oceans & exclaiming ; - oh look, they seem to be getting warmer!!

Seems like a no-brainer to me, but why it is, now that's the real question!!

Yes, you're right... DuPont

Did I ever mention scientific ignorance ?

Ignorance is a state of being uninformed (lack of knowledge).[1] The word ignorant is an adjective describing a person in the state of being unaware

You seem to have made the school boy misunderstanding of the scientific data regarding the effects of cfcs ?

Many soundbite news papers reported the science wrongly but actually cfcs were not banned because of climate change concernes but because they are proven to destroy o3 ,ozone .

From bbc today

y Roger Harrabin

BBC environment analyst

The ozone layer that shields the earth from cancer-causing ultraviolet rays is showing early signs of thickening after years of depletion, a UN study says.

The ozone hole that appears annually over Antarctica has also stopped growing bigger every year.

The report says it will take a decade before the hole starts to shrink.

Scientists say the recovery is entirely due to political determination to phase out the man-made CFC gases destroying ozone.

The study was published by researchers from the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the UN Environment Programme (UNEP).

Well what do you know? A bunch of people using hairspray with CFC's in which weigh between 4 to 8 times heavier than air were destroying the ozone layer!

You've got me there

Nice to hear the ozone hole is closing by itself though

Always thought it probably would

How do you know it is ?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ensualtouch15Man over a year ago

ashby de la zouch

"But from what I believe, global warming is a fact......isn't it???

It could turn out that it's not so much global warming as... global little tiny bit milder

Aaaaagh, yes but there's nothing too scientific about dunking thermometers in to oceans & exclaiming ; - oh look, they seem to be getting warmer!!

Seems like a no-brainer to me, but why it is, now that's the real question!!

Yes, you're right... DuPont

Did I ever mention scientific ignorance ?

Ignorance is a state of being uninformed (lack of knowledge).[1] The word ignorant is an adjective describing a person in the state of being unaware

You seem to have made the school boy misunderstanding of the scientific data regarding the effects of cfcs ?

Many soundbite news papers reported the science wrongly but actually cfcs were not banned because of climate change concernes but because they are proven to destroy o3 ,ozone .

From bbc today

y Roger Harrabin

BBC environment analyst

The ozone layer that shields the earth from cancer-causing ultraviolet rays is showing early signs of thickening after years of depletion, a UN study says.

The ozone hole that appears annually over Antarctica has also stopped growing bigger every year.

The report says it will take a decade before the hole starts to shrink.

Scientists say the recovery is entirely due to political determination to phase out the man-made CFC gases destroying ozone.

The study was published by researchers from the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the UN Environment Programme (UNEP).

Well what do you know? A bunch of people using hairspray with CFC's in which weigh between 4 to 8 times heavier than air were destroying the ozone layer!

You've got me there

Nice to hear the ozone hole is closing by itself though

Always thought it probably would

Chlo

uorocarbons (CFCs) are heavier than air, so how do scientists suppose that these chemicals reach the altitude of the ozone layer to adversely affect it?

Oct 21, 1999

Jean M. Andino, in the department of environmental engineering sciences at the University of Florida, replies:

"One must consider two issues: the mechanisms for mixing between the troposphere (the bottom layer of the atmosphere) and the overlying stratosphere, and the average time that CFCs remain in the troposphere before chemical processes scrub them from the air. In very general terms, mixing within the atmosphere is caused by differences in temperature and by pressure gradients. These irregularities make some parcels of air buoyant, which results in the transport of pollutants throughout the atmosphere. Given sufficiently large variations in temperature and pressure, air parcels containing contaminants can be transported through the troposphere and into the stratosphere, in much the way that a hot air balloon can be used to loft people high above the ground and transport them from one place to another. Pollutants can reach the stratosphere, however, only if there are no major mechanisms that pull them out of the air while they are still in the troposphere.

"In general, there are two main mechanisms that remove compounds in the atmosphere: deposition and reaction. A common example of deposition is 'rain out': compounds that are soluble in water can be removed from the atmosphere by precipitation. This phenomenon is responsible for acid rain. The most abundant CFCs emitted into the troposphere are CFC 11 and CFC 12. These CFCs are not soluble in water, so deposition does not removed them from the air.

"The only other mechanism that removes compounds from the troposphere is reaction with an abundant oxidizing agent--such as hydroxyl radicals, ozone, or nitrate radicals. Atmospheric researchers have determined the rates at which several CFCs react with hydroxyl radicals; the lifetimes for these CFCs with respect to hydroxyl radicals is approximately 80 years. In other words, if hydroxyl radicals were the only thing reacting with the CFCs, it would take 80 years to completely remove them from the atmosphere. That is a long time! In comparison, methanol, a component of some alternative fuels, has a lifetime with respect to hydroxyl radical reaction of just 17 days. Ozone and nitrate radicals are even less effective at breaking down CFCs.

"Because CFCs are so long-lived in the lower atmosphere, there is ample time and opportunity for them to become well mixed and eventually to reach the stratosphere."

F. Sherwood Rowland of the University of California at Irvine, who won a Nobel Prize for his work on atmospheric chemistry, answers:

"This is indeed a persistent question--so much so that the most recent report of the World Meteorological Organization, entitled 'Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion: 1994,' included it among a list of common questions that have been persistently raised and long since answered. Susan Solomon of NOAA Aeronomy Laboratory in Boulder and I are listed in the document as the Coordinators of Common Questions about Ozone. We had as many as 22 of them, but pared them down to the most frequently asked ones.

"The response to this particular question reads as follows."

HOW CAN CHLOROFLUOROCARBONS (CFCs) GET TO THE STRATOSPHERE IF THEY'RE HEAVIER THAN AIR?

Although the CFC molecules are indeed several times heavier than air, thousands of measurements have been made from balloons, aircraft and satellites demonstrating that the CFCs are actually present in the stratosphere. The atmosphere is not stagnant. Winds mix the atmosphere to altitudes far above the top of the stratosphere much faster than molecules can settle according to their weight. Gases such as CFCs that are insoluble in water and relatively unreactive in the lower atmosphere (below about 10 kilometers) are quickly mixed and therefore reach the stratosphere regardless of their weight.

Much can be learned about the atmospheric fate of compounds from the measured changes in concentration versus altitude. For example, the two gases carbon tetrafluoride (CF4, produced mainly as a by-product of the manufacture of aluminum) and CFC-11 (CCl3F, used in a variety of human activities) are both much heavier than air. Carbon tetrafluoride is completely unreactive in the lower 99.9 percent of the atmosphere, and measurements show it to be nearly uniformly distributed throughout the atmosphere as shown in the figure. There have also been measurements over the past two decades of several other completely unreactive gases, one lighter than air (neon) and some heavier than air (argon, krypton), which show that they also mix upward uniformly through the stratosphere regardless of their weight, just as observed with carbon tetrafluoride. CFC-11 is unreactive in the lower atmosphere (below about 15 kilometers) and is similarly uniformly mixed there, as shown. The abundance of CFC-11 decreases as the gas reaches higher altitudes, where it is broken down by high energy solar ultraviolet radiation. Chlorine released from this breakdown of CFC-11 and other CFCs remains in the stratosphere for several years, where it destroys many thousands of molecules of ozone.

"The measurements of CFC-11 in the stratosphere were first described in 1975 by two research groups in Boulder, Colorado, and have been similarly observed innumerable times since. The uniform mixing of CF4 versus altitude was reported from balloons around 1980 and many times since, and from an infrared instrument aboard the space shuttle Challenger (which exploded in 1986) in 1985. My own research group has measured CFC-11 in hundreds of air canisters filled while flying in the NASA DC-8. We once did a descent directly over the North Pole and found uniform mixing in the lower atmosphere, and slightly less CFC-11 in the stratosphere.

Let's be clear above is a mix of fact and opinion

Some of the above can be substantiated by compound data x

Belief would be daft understanding the above could lead to a conclusion of plausible and further research

However let's give two observable facts which blow your non scientific guess into the realms of talking nonsense

It has been smugly suggested

Well what do you know? A bunch of people using hairspray with CFC's in which weigh between 4 to 8 times heavier than air were destroying the ozone layer!

You've got me there

That stuff heavier than air cannot reach the higher atmosphere

Ok two examples

Acid rain caused by sulphur dioxide that is heavier than air

As is water but if you can see clouds or experience rain then you have just witnessed a liquid with a density just under one at a set temp ,rise high above the planet

Your example was one of many reasons we prefer to use scientific experimental method and controls for our data as apposed to quick assumptions based upon I'll informed sound bite science

You mocked my watchtower reference my clear point is they and or creationism sources have so called scientific data , watchtower use a Dr behe .so when it is suggested scientist don't all agree on evolution let's look at the so called scientific methods they use .

Just in case it was not clear obviously I cut and pasted the cfc atmospheric transport theory's .

Coupled with the facts we know about atmospheric systems cfc reaching ozone zone is extremely plausible

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ensualtouch15Man over a year ago

ashby de la zouch

Oh and Co2 is more dense than air but guess where we can find it

There is a scientific observation called

Diffusion!

to my knowledge no one scientific has disputed diffusion

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ensualtouch15Man over a year ago

ashby de la zouch

Oh and Co2 is more dense than air but guess where we can find it

There is a scientific observation called

Diffusion!

to my knowledge no one scientific has disputed diffusion

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

I'm no expert on CFCs... but I'm happy to bounce the ball round a little more just for kicks

For me it's a number of things that ring alarm bells...

1) CFCs can be shown to sink quite quickly and stratify, showing they are quite significantly heavier than air in that they displace the air in the process of sinking.

2) The argument that they find their way into the stratosphere relies upon the idea that CFCs just hang around on the floor waiting to be sucked up i.e. that there are no serious 'sinks' which destroy CFCs other than via atmospheric radiation. In fact studies have shown that soil is a powerful CFC destroyer, and that the oceans act as sinks for it, with oceanic data showing deposits of CFCs sitting at the bottom of the ocean. Of course I'll concede that this might get sucked up via precipitation. But ocean organisms, as well as soil organisms, do also break down CFCs... from what I've read.

3) Scientists note a marked decrease of CFCs when moving from the troposphere to the stratosphere. Some point to this as a sign that CFCs are being broken down into chlorine. Whilst others suggest it is because they are effectively sinking back down.

4) Scientific types are keen to ridicule homeopathy for it's 'ridiculous' assertion that something dilluted down to 1 part per million can make a difference... and yet, at it's height, there was only ever 1 CFC molecule to 1 billion ozone molecules... again... from what I've read.

5) The two main producers of CFCs were Du Pont and ICI. Margaret Thatcher's key advisor on the issue of CFCs was Denys Henderson, the Chairman of ICI.

6) The executive director of Greenpeace in the UK, one of the key groups calling for a CFC ban, was, at the time, Peter Melchett... the grandson of Alfred Mond, ICI's founder. He sold all his stocks in ICI in order to lend his activities credibility.

7) Back in 1951 DuPont and ICI were convicted in the US of cynically attempting to divide up worldwide munitions, chemicals, and small arms trade between themselves. The case revealed hundreds of documents detailing a massive conspiracy between the companies to form a monopoly.

8) In the early 80's the Bronfman family, a family who got rich bootlegging liquor during the prohibition era, mounted a take over bid of DuPont. At this time they caused the company to make a U turn on CFCs. Patenting replacements, and becoming an active participant in their ban.

9) Conventional CFCs were nearing the end of their patent life, meaning that people other than DuPont and ICI could've made them for cheaper. After the Montreal protocol, we once again became reliant on new CFCs patented by DuPont... knocking out most of the competition and leading to another monopoly... at least that's my understanding

10) In 1988 CFCs sold for 50 cents per pound. By 1992 it was being traded at $3 to $5 per pound.

In short... both DuPont and ICI have made billions from the ban of their previous product. They have been shown to have been involved in, and indeed instrumental in, bringing that ban into law. And all the time scientists have been enjoying all the money being thrown at them to try and prove that something which hasn't been observed to have been occuring... has been occuring.

Doesn't it strike you as strange how certain everyone suddenly was that this little known thing called CFC was the cause of this massive effect in the ozone? And yet today... convincing and compelling 'smoking gun' evidence that humans are the cause of global climate change still evades us

All this is...of course... just my opinion... but it is something worth questioning in my opinion.. and... it's a rather neat way of returning back to the purpose of the OP i.e. to show how big business, corruption, flawed humans, and science sometimes do not make for good bed fellows

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

Oops I meant evaporation not precipitation... for anyone bothering to read what I wrote. Shot my scientific credibility right in the foot there lol

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ensualtouch15Man over a year ago

ashby de la zouch

Using Simple Linear Regression to Assess the Success of the Montreal Protocol in Reducing Atmospheric Chlo

uorocarbons

Dean Nelson

University of Pittsburgh at Greensburg

Journal of Statistics Education Volume 17, Number 2 (2009), www.amstat.org/publications/jse/v17n2/nelson.html

Copyright © 2009 by Dean Nelson all rights reserved. This text may be freely shared among individuals, but it may not be republished in any medium without _xpress written consent from the author and advance notification of the editor.

Key Words: Regression analysis; Introductory statistics; Ozone; GAISE recommendations.

Following the Guidelines for Assessment and Instruction in Statistics Education (GAISE) recommendation to use real data, an example is presented in which simple linear regression is used to evaluate the effect of the Montreal Protocol on atmospheric concentration of chlo

uorocarbons. This simple set of data, obtained from a public archive, can be used to tell a compelling story of success in international diplomacy solving a global environmental problem. A description of the use of these data and analyses are presented for a number of courses in applied statistics including introductory statistics.

1. Introduction

The recently adopted Guidelines for Assessment and Instruction in Statistics Education (GAISE) guidelines (www.amstat.org/education/gaise/GAISECollege.htm) made six general recommendations for the teaching of introductory statistics. The second recommendation was to "Use real data". We would like to suggest an expanded version, "Use real data that tell a compelling story". This paper is meant to provide an illustration of this amended recommendation. The data and accompanying analysis presented in this paper provide both a meaningful example of data analysis using simple linear regression and a story of remarkable success of international cooperation addressing a global environmental problem.

The Montreal Protocol was an international agreement undertaken in 1987 by 191 countries to reduce the levels of ozone depleting substances (ODSs) in the atmosphere. The agreement has met with unprecedented success. Kofi Annan, former Secretary General of the United Nations referred to the Montreal Protocol as "perhaps the single most successful international agreement to date." The schedule for reductions in manufacturing and use of ODSs was not only met but accelerated. Manufacturers of ODSs, rather than resist the phase-out of ODSs, embraced the challenge and developed replacement compounds reversing possible detrimental economic consequences of the treaty (Shende, 2007).

In all of these qualitative ways, the Montreal Protocol has been uniformly successful, but this paper is not about qualitative measures. Rather, it describes how students are introduced to this story using a set of data that was collected in relative obscurity until discovery of the "hole" in the ozone layer in 1985 (Farman, Gardiner, and Schanklin, 1985). Many of these data are made publicly available, on the website (gaw.kishou.go.jp/wdcgg/) of the World Data Centre for Greenhouse Gases (WDCGG) maintained by the Japanese Meteorological Agency in cooperation with the World Meteorological Organization (see detailed instructions on how to download the data used in this paper in the Appendix). Some of these data tell compelling stories, as do the data on atmospheric concentrations of chlo

uorocarbons (CFCs), measured monthly by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration on Mauna Loa in Hawaii since 1977.

2. The Story

The story of the Montreal Protocol, describing the international cooperation of nearly the entire world, is both interesting and compelling. This global story, however, starts very small, at a molecular level.

2.1 There’s a Hole in the Ozone

Ozone is the name given to the molecule O3. Ozone is formed in the stratosphere when regular oxygen molecules, O2, are split by the ultraviolet radiation of the sun. The oxygen atoms become attached to molecular oxygen to form O3. The amount of ozone in the atmosphere is very small. Even so, the ozone in the atmosphere, along with oxygen molecules, absorbs most of the ultraviolet radiation from the sun. Since ultraviolet radiation is harmful to animal and plant life, the ozone in the stratosphere has a very important protective role for life on earth.

In 1972, Lester Machta reported (Rowland and Molina, 2007) that James Lovelock had discovered a new compound in the earth’s atmosphere, trichlo

uoromethane, a chlo

uorocarbon (CFC). Researchers at the Atomic Energy Commission became interested in these new atmospheric components and asked the question "What happens to these compounds in the environment?" The answer they found (which later became one of the reasons they were awarded the 1995 Nobel Prize in Chemistry) was that these compounds slowly rise into the stratosphere where they encounter ultraviolet light that is energetic enough to break them apart. When they break apart, they release chlorine atoms that can act as catalysts for destruction of ozone (Molina and Rowland, 1974).

Subsequent to the discovery of CFCs in the atmosphere, and an understanding of their potential for ozone destruction, scientists throughout the world began to investigate the problem. Even so, only sporadic measurement and analysis of the ozone layer was conducted until a comprehensive report summarizing the literature was released in 1986, (WMO, 1986). Even though the report was nearly 1,100 pages with 86 pages of reference, it did not claim to provide proof that CFCs were depleting the ozone layer. It was another three years before a joint NASA-NOAA report (WMO, 1988) was released that provided sound evidence that CFCs were depleting the ozone layer.

The most dramatic evidence of ozone depletion was the seasonal creation of an ozone "hole" over the Antarctic first reported in 1985 (Farman, Gardiner, and Schanklin, 1985). Particularly in the months of September and October, when Antarctic air is isolated from milder air, the extreme cold facilitates the breakdown of the ozone resulting in depletion of up to 80% in that region. Depletion at that level over population regions of the earth could have dramatic detrimental effects on human, animal, and plant life.

2.2 The Montreal Protocol

While scientists were hard at work trying to determine the extent of the CFC problem, governments and industry were debating what should be done about it. A series of international meetings were organized to address the problem. The end result was the Montreal Protocol of 1987, an agreement signed by 191 countries to begin the process of cooperative action toward a solution.

The Montreal Protocol created a schedule for phasing out manufacturing and use of CFCs by participating countries. Table 1 below shows the initial schedule and subsequent revisions. When the Montreal Protocol was first agreed upon, it was not certain that suitable safe replacements could be found for all the purposes for which CFCs were used. Even so, after the Montreal Protocol, CFC manufacturers were quick to dedicate themselves to developing new compounds that could be used for the same purposes as CFCs without ozone depletion potential. The success of these manufacturers to develop suitable replacements for CFCs allowed the acceleration of the phase-out schedule (also shown in Table 1).

Table 1. Original and Revised Phase-Out Schedules for CFS in Developed Countries

1987

Original Montreal Protocol

1990

London Montreal Protocol

1992

Copenhagen Montreal Protocol

1990

U.S. Clean Air Act Amendments

1994

European Community Schedule

1990

100%

1991

100%

85%

1992

100%

80%

1993

80%

75%

50%

1994

80%

25%

15%

1995

80%

50%

25%

1996

80%

50%

1997

80%

15%

1998

80%

15%

1999

50%

15%

2000

50%

Source: Alternative Fluorocarbons Environmental Acceptability Study: www.afeas.org/montreal_protocol.html

2.3 Evaluating the Effect of the Montreal Protocol

Every year since full implementation of the protocol, a yearly review has been produced to assess the success of global efforts. In 2007, a panel of scientists from countries around the world produced a 206-page report (UNEP 2007) that describes progress since the previous report in 2006. We cannot hope to reproduce the detail necessary to assess the entire scope of the Montreal Protocol, but there are publicly available data that can be used to assess the effect of the Montreal Protocol on one very important aspect of the problem, the presence of CFCs in the atmosphere.

3. Presentation of the Montreal Protocol Story to Students

We have used this story in statistics courses of varying difficulty; a first introductory course, a second semester course, and an applied regression course. In each course, the presentation of the problem, the data, and the analysis follows the same pattern, although the expectations of the students differ according to the level of the course. The sequence below was used in these courses for this case study:

Present the environmental problem similar to the presentation in section 2 above, requiring some independent investigation by the students. The independent investigation provides the students with the opportunity to encounter, and struggle with, original source material. The purpose is two-fold, to increase their understanding and awareness of the immense amount of work required to address this problem and recognize their limits of understanding, and to enable groups of students to contribute the knowledge they have gained in subsequent discussions. We have found it useful to assign this as a group task, each group being asked to expand on some aspect of the problem that interests them. Some possible topics are

The dangers of ozone depletion

The 1995 Nobel Prize for Chemistry

A simple description of gas chromatography

Some aspect of the Montreal Protocol

Atmospheric measurements using the flask method

CFC measurements at other sites around the world

After a basic understanding of the environmental problem has been achieved, introduce the students to the data on the WDCGG web site. A detailed description of how to navigate the site to these data as well as the ftp URL for these data is provided in the Appendix. These data are provided in an ASCII file, which can be read using any standard analysis package. Only three numbers are read from each record; the year, month, and CFC concentration (labeled CFC-11). This provides a good opportunity to demonstrate how to read ASCII files with statistical software being used in the course.

After reading the data, ask the students to think about the numbers they now have available for analysis as shown below:

Year Month CFC

1977 01 139.90

1977 02 139.50

1977 03 139.00

1977 04 134.10

1977 05 135.00

1977 06 143.40

1977 07 140.30

1977 08 142.60

1977 09 144.70

1977 10 144.20

1977 11 144.80

1977 12 145.70

1978 01 148.60

1978 02 144.80

1978 03 148.40

What does a value of 145 for CFC concentration mean? This is not an easy question, and one that does not have a definitive answer. Abstractly, it means that 145 parts of every trillion parts are CFC molecules, even though "parts" could mean mass, volume, or molecular count. Students should be able to provide this abstract answer, but they should also be able to tell us why that answer is not actually true. In practice, we can never measure anything without error, and the error in our measurement may have many sources. In order to identify our sources of error, we need to understand how the measurement was taken, what procedures and instruments were used. With a little forethought on our part in assigning independent investigation by students in part 1 above, descriptions of the procedures and instruments can be provided by students in the class.

Although knowing how the measurement was taken allows us to ask the right questions in order to assess the accuracy of the measurement, it will not be possible to answer these questions fully in class. The chemistry, physics, and engineering behind the gas chromatography measurement instruments are too complex. Therefore, we are forced to rely on faith, that the scientists who designed, built, tested, used these instruments did so correctly. That is not too great a leap of faith, because those scientists used the same kind of science that resulted in other technology we rely on every day. Still, our aim here is not to arrive at a definitive answer to the questions, but to determine the right questions to ask, and to assess the degree to which we can rely on our answers, both to gauge the success of our modeling efforts and to determine when we need other expert assistance.

Ask the students to produce a graph similar to Figure 1 below. This entails a discussion on how to create the variable for the time axis since the data are provided by year and month, which are measured on different scales. In order to produce a graph, time is a single dimension measured on a single scale. For year, one unit equals one year. For month, one unit equals one month. To combine them into a single measure of time, either year or month has to be transformed into the scale of the other. Give this to students as an exercise. Some will transform years into months, and some will transform months into years. For instance, time in months is obtained by the formula (Year*12)+Month. Time in years is obtained by Year+Month/12. Notice that in the last formula, it is assumed that December of 1977, say, will become 1978. This is equivalent to assuming that the measurements were taken at the end of each month. However, the data seem to indicate that the measurements were taken at the beginning of each month. Therefore, time in years should be calculated as Year+(Month-1)/12.

Figure 1. Monthly Atmospheric Concentrations of CFCs (parts per trillion) from January 1977 to September 2004

Before talking about the effect of the Montreal Protocol, it is necessary to identify and agree upon the time periods that will be used for ‘before’ and ‘after’ the Montreal Protocol. It can be seen from Table 1 that the original treaty called for a 50% reduction by the year 2000. However, because of the leadership role exhibited by the CFC industry in not only embracing the phasing out of CFCs but also in developing non-ozone-depleting alternatives, the schedule was accelerated by revisions to the treaty in 1990 and 1992. Although the rate of decline in CFC manufacturing declined quickly through 1995 and then began to decline more slowly, (Figure 2), a reversal in the trend in atmospheric CFC concentrations can be seen during the years during which the decreases were being enacted. By 1995, the cumulative effect of this 5-year, rapid decline in CFC manufacturing had established a new pattern of change. We usually define the period before the Montreal Protocol as before January 1990 and the period after the Montreal Protocol as after December 1994.

After producing a graph like Figure 1, ask the students if these data could be useful in determining whether the Montreal Protocol had been successful in reducing atmospheric CFCs. They will, of course, say yes right away, in part because they are perceptive enough to reason that we wouldn’t be going through the trouble of presenting these data if the data did not show an effect. Because the reasoning for their answer was superficial, it will require some time before they can articulate why they think the data can be useful. For instance, one student said, "CFCs were rising, and after the Montreal Protocol CFCs were falling." Our reply was "That is what the data show, but the data also show that the level of CFCs before and after the Montreal Protocol looks about the same, and may even be higher if we look at right before and right after the Montreal Protocol." Discussions we have had generally result in a number of proposed definitions of the effect of the Montreal Protocol. They include

a. The difference between the mean CFC concentration before the Montreal Protocol and the mean CFC concentration after the Montreal Protocol.

b. The difference between the annual rate of CFC concentration change before the Montreal Protocol and the annual rate of CFC concentration change after the Montreal Protocol.

c. For some given time value, the difference between the predicted CFC levels using two models, one for before the Montreal Protocol and one for after the Montreal Protocol.

After further discussion, students usually agree that a. falls short of capturing the most important feature of the data, that is the rate of change.

Ask the students to estimate and/or test their claim of an effect using the statistics that they know. They will have been introduced to both estimation and hypothesis testing. Our expectation is that after our discussion on what "effect" means in the context of our research question, students will translate that definition into a problem of estimation and/or a hypothesis test. Depending on the level of the course, they may choose the following corresponding to the two definitions of "effect" in 5b. and 5c. above.

5b - The annual rates of change can be estimated by slope values obtained in a simple linear regression. This can be done using separate regressions, or by doing simultaneous regressions within a single model, depending on the level of the class. A point estimate of the difference is done by simply computing the difference in the slopes. An interval estimate and hypothesis test for the difference between the slopes may be presented in a more advanced course.

5c - Point estimates for any selected value of time can be estimated by evaluating the model at the selected value of time. A point estimate of the difference between predicted values is obtained by subtracting one from the other. An interval estimate and hypothesis test for the difference between the predicted values may be presented in a more advanced course.

4. Data Analyses

After understanding the underlying environmental problem and formulating an acceptable definition for "effect", the students are asked to conduct data analyses to determine the extent to which the data confirm an effect on atmospheric CFCs attributable to implementation of the Montreal Protocol. We have used this problem in an introductory course, in the second semester of an introductory course sequence, and in a regression course. With respect to the analysis of these data, a set of expectations for the different levels are listed below.

First Introduction Course

1. Estimate separate regression equations for the time periods before and after the Montreal Protocol

2. Interpret of the slopes and intercepts

3. Calculate the predicted values, given some value for the independent variable.

4. Create a graph with the regression lines and predicted values labeled.

5. Produce point estimates of the effect of the Montreal Protocol, both a difference in slopes and a difference in predicted values.

Second Introduction Course

1. Items listed for the First Introduction Course.

2. Recognize that the point estimates of the effect of the Montreal Protocol should include a statement of uncertainty.

3. Recognize the problem of extrapolation.

4. A deeper understanding of the model, demonstrated by a questioning of the assumptions.

Advanced Course

1. Items listed for the Second Introduction Course.

2. Create interval estimates for the point estimates of the effect of the Montreal Protocol.

3. Perform hypothesis tests for the effect of the Montreal Protocol.

4. Assess assumptions of the model.

The time-series graph of monthly measurements of CFC concentrations from 1977 to 2004 in Figure 1 makes quickly apparent two systematic, yet distinctly different, trends before and after the Montreal Protocol implementation. In order to determine, and justify, the implementation period of the Montreal Protocol, data on CFC manufacturing and use are presented. The international community had agreed at the 1987 meeting to a phase-out schedule (see Table 1) beginning in 1990 to reach 50% by 2000, but this schedule was accelerated by agencies within specific countries or groups of countries so that by 1995, most countries had drastically reduced or eliminated the manufacture and use of CFCs (UNEP, 2007) resulting in dramatic decreases in the manufacture of CFCs worldwide (Figure 2).

Figure 2. Worldwide Production of CFCs 1985-2004

The phase-out period of 1990-1995 corresponds closely to the period of trend reversal in the data depicted in Figure 1. Prior to 1990, the pattern of atmospheric CFC concentration showed a constant rate of increase over time. In contrast, the pattern after 1994 showed a constant rate of decrease in atmospheric concentrations of CFCs over time. The students should recognize that we can estimate and compare these rates of change before and after the Montreal Protocol using estimation from simple linear regression models in and introductory class or using hypothesis testing within a simultaneous regression model in a more advanced class.

4.1 Simple Linear Regression Models

Since the data show remarkably constant rates of change during periods that correspond to the times prior to and subsequent to implementation of the Montreal Protocol, these rates of change can be modeled with a simple linear equation. If we take y to be equal to the atmospheric concentration of CFCs in parts per trillion and x to be time in years, then we can use the simple linear regression models in (1) to predict atmospheric concentrations of CFCs over time for before, y1, and after, y2, the Montreal Protocol implementation respectively.

%Equation (1)

\begin{equation}

\begin{array}{r{}l}

y_{1} =\beta_{10}+\beta_{11}x+e_{1} \\

y_{2} =\beta_{20}+\beta_{21}x+e_{2}

\end{array}

\end{equation}

Using least squares criteria, we obtain estimates for the models in (1).

%Equation (2)

\begin{equation}

\begin{array}{r{}l}

\hat{\mu}_{y_{1} \vert x}} =\hat{\beta}_{10}+\hat{\beta}_{11}x \\

\hat{\mu}_{y_{2} \vert x}} =\hat{\beta}_{20}+\hat{\beta}_{21}x

\end{array}

\end{equation}

In addition, the Montreal Protocol provides a clear rationale for deciding what dates to use to partition our data. We fit this simple linear model separately for two distinct time periods; prior to1990, and subsequent to 1994, corresponding to data before and after the Montreal Protocol implementation. The results of these analyses are given in Tables 2 and 3.

Table 2. ANOVA Table for the Simple Linear Regression Models

Period

Source

Sums of Squares

Means Square

Before 1990

Model

203118.741

35093

.000

Error

874.001

151

5.788

After 1994

Model

3061.553

-73.863

.000

Error

63.973

114

.561

Table 3. Parameter Estimates for the Simple Linear Regression Models

Period

Parameter

Estimate

Standard Error

Before 1990

ß10

-19064.219

102.825

-185.405

.000

ß11

9.712

.052

187.330

After 1994

ß20

3929.678

49.626

79.185

.000

ß21

-1.833

.025

-73.863

After estimating the regression models, students are asked a series of questions that prompt reflection on the estimated models:

Interpret the intercepts for each of the regression lines. Do they make sense to you? If so, why? If not, why not?

Many students will be confused by the intercept estimates until they reason out the correct interpretation as the estimated concentration at year 0. Even so, the negative value of the intercept in the ‘Before 1990’ model makes no logical sense with respect to the quantity being measured, because levels of concentration cannot be less than zero. This provides an opportunity to make the distinction between a mathematical model and reality. The model is an abstract conceptualization that can be useful in describing reality, but the model itself is not reality. One of our primary aims is to provide our students with the appropriate mixture of respect and skepticism for statistical analysis of data, the ability to recognize the value while at the same time the limitations of our ability to describe our experience with abstract models.

CFCs are man-made. What year would you guess CFCs were first manufactured using the regression equation estimated with the data from 1977-1990?

Using the parameter estimates in Table 3, the answer to this question is 1962.955, or around January 1963. This question requires an understanding of the relationship between time (x) and CFC concentration (y) described by the regression equation. Although we have discussed the problem as if knowing the value of time allows us to derive the level of concentrations, our mathematical representation can just as easily allow derivation of the value of time from a known level of concentration. Recognition of these symmetric interpretations of the model indicates a deeper understanding of the relationship described by the model.

CFCs were first manufactured in 1931. How would you explain the discrepancy between the actual year they were first manufactured and the year you predicted?

Thinking about this question can provide students with several significant insights. First, they will recognize that the model predicts a time that is about 32 years off. That is a large error. This may initially cause them to infer that the model is a poor model. However, examination of a graph like Figure 3 (see Section 5.1) and/or interpretation of the R2 value of .996 for this model, is convincing evidence that the regression model does a very good job of describing the data. Resolving this apparent contradiction provides an important insight, one that can be generalized to all of science, and if we want to be very philosophical to all human experience. The truth is that there is no logical reason to assume that the ability of our model to successfully describe the data observed between 1977 and 1990 guarantees that it can successfully describe data outside that time period. The insight gained by recognizing this can be profound, because it tells us something about ourselves as humans. Our natural inclination is to assume that discovered patterns are extensible. This kind of reasoning is called induction, and even though it is not logically defensible, empirically it has been fabulously successful.

Second, students will recognize that this is a case in which the inductive reasoning, so often used successfully, does not work. The model cannot be successfully used to make predictions into the past. Why not? They will correctly surmise it is because the patterns we observe during the time period of the observed data were not true of CFC concentrations at all times since 1931.

What year would you predict the level of CFCs in the atmosphere will reach zero? Based on their experience with the previous question, most students will not just solve the ‘After 1994’ regression model for x when y=0 and present that as the answer. They will realize that to do so requires a strong assumption that needs to accompany the prediction. The answer is not simply ‘the year 2143.851 or around October 2143’, but ‘the year 2143.851 if we assume that the rate of decline remains constant until that time’.

4.2 Simultaneous Linear Regression Model

Alternatively, a simultaneous regression could be used in a more advanced class to estimate parameters for both lines in the same model. For this analysis, the following model is used,

%Equation (3)

\begin{equation}

y =\beta_{10}+\beta_{11}x_{1}+\beta_{20}+\beta_{21}x_{2}+e

\end{equation}

where x1 is the CFC concentration prior to 1990 and equal to zero otherwise and x2 is the CFC concentration after 1994 and equal to zero otherwise. Again using least squares criteria, we obtain estimates for the parameters in (3).

%Equation (4)

\begin{equation}

\hat{\mu}_{y \vert x}}}=\hat{\beta}_{10}+\hat{\beta}_{11}x_{1}+\hat{\beta}_{20}+\hat{\beta}_{21}x_{2}

\end{equation}

The results of this analysis are shown in Tables 4 and 5.

Table 4. ANOVA Table for the Simultaneous Linear Regression Models

Model

Source

Sums of Squares

Means Square

Simultaneous

Model

206180.294

103090.147

262.611

.000

Two Lines

Error

937.974

265

392.559

Table 5. Parameter Estimates for the Simultaneous Linear Regression Models

Period

Parameter

Estimate

Standard Error

Simultaneous

ß10

-19064.219

80.409

-237.091

.000

Two Lines

ß11

9.712

.041

239.554

.000

ß20

3929.678

124.635

31.530

.000

ß21

-1.833

.062

-29.410

.000

Estimating this model with standard software will require that the data be set up to explicitly define the design matrix. The data will consist of four columns, x_{1} and x_{2} as described and two additional indicator columns, each paired with an x column indicating with a value 1 that the x-value is not zero and a value of 0 if the x-value is zero. The data below show the setup of the data to explicitly define the design matrix:

Int1 x1 Int2 x2

1.00 1977.00 .00 .00

1.00 1977.08 .00 .00

1.00 1977.17 .00 .00

1.00 1977.25 .00 .00

1.00 1977.33 .00 .00

1.00 1977.42 .00 .00

1.00 1989.58 .00 .00

1.00 1989.67 .00 .00

1.00 1989.75 .00 .00

1.00 1989.83 .00 .00

1.00 1989.92 .00 .00

.00 .00 1.00 1995.00

.00 .00 1.00 1995.08

.00 .00 1.00 1995.17

.00 .00 1.00 1995.25

.00 .00 1.00 1995.33

.00 .00 1.00 2004.33

.00 .00 1.00 2004.42

.00 .00 1.00 2004.50

.00 .00 1.00 2004.58

.00 .00 1.00 2004.67

Using SPSS, we were unable to run the model using the Regression procedure without resorting to executing syntax since it is not possible to alter the collinearity tolerance within the interface dialogue boxes. The following syntax produced the correct parameter estimates for the model above:

REGRESSION

/MISSING LISTWISE

/STATISTICS COEFF OUTS R ANOVA

/CRITERIA=PIN(.05) POUT(.10) tolerance(.00000000001)

/ORIGIN

/DEPENDENT CFC

/METHOD=ENTER int1 x1 int2 x2 .

Notice that we explicitly declared that no overall intercept should be included in the model. This prevents the software from adding another column of ones to our design matrix.

Discussion of this model with students is centered on recognizing that the parameter estimates are identical to the estimates obtained when the models were fit separately. The model was parameterized specifically so that this would explicitly occur. The obvious question then arises as to whether there is any difference between estimating the models together or separately. The difference is easily explained by comparing the separate models in (1) to the combined model in (3). For the separate models, two error terms are used, e1 and e2. For the combined model, only a single error term is used, e. The difference between the models, therefore, is that the combined model estimates a single error variance rather than the separate error variances estimated by the separate models. This difference results in several questions:

Why would we choose to use one model instead of two? The most compelling reason, and one that students will readily understand, is that combining the models increases our sample size. If we increase our sample size, we can obtain more accurate estimates, that is estimates with narrower confidence intervals. However, this is only made possible because we have assumed that the error variance is constant across all the data. That brings up the second question.

Are we justified in assuming a single error variance? If we examine both the mean squared error of the separate regressions (Table 2) and the residual plots from those models (Figures 4 and 5 in Section 6), it is obvious that the error variance for the data prior to 1990 is larger by about an order of magnitude than the error variance after 1994. Given such a large difference, are we justified assuming that they are equal? It is outside of the scope of this paper to diverge into testing this assumption, but it is useful to have the students think about what might cause this order of magnitude difference. By examining the data file, it is clear that the monthly values we used are actually the mean of a sample of measurements taken each month. Our first inclination would be to assume that perhaps the sample sizes after 1994 were larger than before 1990. That would cause the sample means to have smaller variances. However, the sample sizes after 1994 were not larger than before 1990. Therefore, the difference in variances must be due to a decrease in variance between measurements. In other words, the measurement technique was improved. We have not found independent verification of this, but there is a period of time in which no observations were recorded. Prior to that hiatus, the variances were larger than afterwards. Perhaps an ambitious group of students could track down the necessary information to verify this surmise.

How does use of the simultaneous model change our estimates and hypothesis tests? This is a question that the students should be able to answer in general after the discussion of point 1. Our point estimates are unchanged, but the margin of error will be different, and our t-values for our hypothesis tests will be different. In other words, anything computed from a formula containing the error variance will be affected.

5. Estimation, Inference, and Interpretation

After the discussion described in Section 3 item 5, students have developed an understanding of what the definition of an "effect" of the Montreal Protocol means with respect to the data. Depending on the level of the class, this understanding still needs to be translated into statements about population parameters and the corresponding sample statistics used to estimate those parameters. The effect defined in 5b of section 3 is written in terms of the difference between the slopes,

%Equation (5)

\begin{equation}

d_{S}= \beta_{11} - \beta_{21}

\end{equation}

Our estimate of this difference uses the slope estimates from our regression analyses,

%Equation (6)

\begin{equation}

\hat{d}_{S}= \hat{\beta}_{11} - \hat{\beta}_{21}

\end{equation}

The effect defined in 5c is written in terms of the difference between two predicted values,

%Equation (7)

\begin{equation}

d_{P}=\mu_{y_{1} \vert x}-\mu_{y_{2} \vert x}

\end{equation}

Our estimate of this difference uses the predicted values for some value of x from our regression analyses,

%Equation (8)

\begin{equation}

\hat{d}_{P}=\hat{\mu}_{y_{1} \vert x}-\hat{\mu}_{y_{2} \vert x}

\end{equation}

Depending on the level of the class, students are expected to provide point estimates for (6) and (8), and inference in the form of interval estimates and/or hypothesis tests using either the simple linear models estimated in Section 4.1 or the simultaneous regression model estimated in Section 4.2 or both.

5.1 Simple Linear Regression Models

Our estimates of the slopes, and , in the simple linear regression models for before and after the Montreal Protocol implementation are interpreted as rates of change per year in atmospheric CFCs concentration. Our model estimates that atmospheric concentration of CFCs of increased at a rate of 9.712 parts per trillion per year prior to the Montreal Protocol. Contrast that to the rate of change after the Montreal Protocol, a decrease of 1.833 parts per trillion per year. We have defined our point estimate of the effect of the Montreal Protocol as this difference in the rate of change in (6), a decrease of 9.712-(-1.833)=11.545 parts per trillion in the annual CFC atmospheric concentration rate of change.

We can construct a confidence interval for the rate of change difference as

%Equation (9)

\begin{equation}

\hat{d}_{S} \pm t_{\frac{\alpha}{2}} s_{\hat{d}_{S}}

\end{equation}

where

%Equation (10)

\begin{equation}

s_{\hat{d}_{S}}=\sqrt{V_{1}+V_{2}}

\end{equation}

and

%Equation (11)

\begin{equation}

V_{i}=s^2_{\hat{\beta}_{i1}}

\end{equation}

The degrees of freedom for the t-distribution are

%Equation (12)

\begin{equation}

d.f.=\frac{(V_{1}+V_{2})^2}{\left(\frac{V^2_{1}}{n_1-2}+\frac{V^2_{2}}{n_2-2}\right)}

\end{equation}

Thus we find our 95% confidence interval for the rate of change difference is 11.545±.113.

If we further ask whether this difference is more than we would expect by chance, a hypothesis test can be conducted comparing the two slopes. Although it is unlikely that the students will suggest the appropriate test, they can readily understand that we may use a t-test for this hypothesis, since the comparison of the two slopes is directly analogous to the comparison of two means. The null and alternative hypotheses are

%Equation (13)

\begin{equation}

\begin{array}{r{}l}

H_{0}: d_{S}=0 \\

H_{A}: d_{S} \neq 0

\end{array}

\end{equation}

The t statistic is calculated as

%Equation (14)

\begin{equation}

t=\frac{\hat{d}_{S}}{s_{\hat{d}_{S}}}

\end{equation}

with the standard deviation of the difference and degrees of freedom given by (10) and (12) respectively. Calculation of the test statistic gives t=200.861 with a p-value smaller than .001.

The other way we define the effect of the Montreal Protocol is to determine the difference between what the atmospheric CFC concentration would have been (assuming the same trend were to continue) had the Montreal Protocol not been enacted and what the predicted the atmospheric CFC concentration will be now that the Montreal Protocol has been enacted. Symbolically, the effect is defined as (7) and our estimate of this effect is given in (8)

In order to define the effect, we need to choose a date (a value for x) at which the comparison will be made, say January 2009. The predicted concentration levels of CFCs using the pre-Montreal Protocol and the post-Montreal Protocol regression models are shown in Figure 3 as the straight lines obtained by our regression estimates. For the pre-Montreal Protocol model, it was assumed that the CFC concentration levels would continue to rise at the same rate, 9.712 parts per trillion a year until 2009. The predicted level is 446.226 parts per trillion in January 2009. For the post-Montreal Protocol model, it is assumed the CFC concentration levels would continue to fall at the same rate, 1.833 parts per trillion a year until January 2009. The predicted level is 247.408 parts per trillion in 2009. It seems clear that the Montreal Protocol was responsible for this reversal from a yearly increase in CFC concentration levels to a yearly decrease in CFC concentration levels, since the pattern of CFC concentration change over time coincides exactly with the implementation of the protocol. When we calculate the difference between the predicted CFC levels for the two models, that the Montreal Protocol is responsible for a decrease of 198.818 parts per trillion in CFC concentration in January, 2009.

Figure 3. Comparing Predicted Levels of Atmospheric Concentrations of CFCs (parts per trillion) Using the Pre-Montreal Protocol and the Post Montreal Protocol Data

We can construct a confidence interval for this estimate of the difference between predicted values as

%Equation (15)

\begin{equation}

\hat{d}_{P} \pm t_{\frac{\alpha}{2}} s_{\hat{d}_{P}}

\end{equation}

where

%Equation (16)

\begin{equation}

s_{\hat{d}_{P}}=\sqrt{V_{1}+V_{2}}

\end{equation}

and

%Equation (17)

\begin{equation}

V_{i}=s^2_{i}\left[ \frac{1}{n_{i}}+\frac{(x-\bar{x}_i)^2}{\sum(x_{ij}-\bar{x}_i)^2}\right]

\end{equation}

The degrees of freedom for the t-distribution are computed by (12). Our 95% confidence interval for the difference between predicted values is 198.818±2.734.

A hypothesis test to determine whether the difference between the predicted values is due to chance is constructed similar to (13).

%Equation (18)

\begin{equation}

\begin{array}{r{}l}

H_{0}: d_{P}=0 \\

H_{A}: d_{P} \neq 0

\end{array}

\end{equation}

The test statistic used for this hypothesis is calculated as

%Equation (19)

\begin{equation}

t=\frac{\hat{d}_{P}}{s_{\hat{d}_{P}}}

\end{equation}

with the standard deviation of the difference and degrees of freedom given by (16) and (12) respectively. Calculation of the test statistic gives t=328.020 with a p-value smaller than .001. Again, the p-value is very small, indicating that observing these data when the null hypothesis is true is highly unlikely.

5.2 Simultaneous Linear Regression Model

The parameter estimates for the linear terms are identical to those obtained in the separate regressions. Our interpretations of the estimated parameters in the simultaneous model are also identical to those of the simple linear models in 5.1. What differs is that the data are pooled to calculate a single error variance instead of two error variances as was done using separate models, one for each regression model. Consequently, the t-values testing whether the before and after the Montreal Protocol slopes are equal to zero are different, 239.554 and -29.410 respectively.

Because the estimated model parameters are the same as in the separate regressions, our point estimates of the slope difference and of predicted values difference are also the same. What differs when using the simultaneous regression model are our inferences based on the stochastic part of the model. With a single error variance for the entire model, we construct our confidence intervals and t-tests as before except with the assumption of homogeneous rather than heterogeneous variances.

The confidence interval for the difference between the slopes is calculated as before, using (9) with the standard deviation of the difference defined by (10). However, the slope variances, (11), do not have the same values as previously since the error term used in their calculation is estimated from all the data. The degrees of freedom for the critical t value are calculated using

%Equation (20)

\begin{equation}

d.f.=n-4

\end{equation}

Therefore, the 95% confidence interval for the slope difference is 11.545±.146.

The value of t-statistic used to test the hypothesis of no slope differences in (13), is computed as in (14). The standard deviation of the slope difference is calculated as in (10). The t-value is 155.278. Evaluated with 265 degrees of freedom, this t-value results in a p-value of 3.158x10-262. Again, this p-value is very small indicating that the probability of observing these data when the null hypothesis is true is highly unlikely.

The confidence interval for the difference between the two predicted values is computed using (15) with the standard deviation of the difference defined in (16) and Vi defined as

%Equation (21)

\begin{equation}

V_{i}=s^2\left[ \frac{1}{n_{i}}+\frac{(x-\bar{x}_i)^2}{\sum(x_{ij}-\bar{x}_i)^2}\right]

\end{equation}

This results in a 95% confidence interval for the predicted values difference of 198.818±2.366.

The test statistic used to test the hypothesis is calculated as (19) with the standard deviation of the difference and degrees of freedom given by (16) and (20) respectively. Calculation of the test statistic gives t=371.288 with a p-value so small neither the algorithms used in either Excel or SPSS are able to calculate its value. Again, we reject the null hypothesis in favor of the alternative that there is a difference between predicted values that is not due to chance.

6. Evaluation of the Models

We introduce some form of evaluation of the models in classes at every level, although the extent of the evaluation varies dramatically. For introductory classes, we confine ourselves to defining, computing, reporting, and interpreting the R2 value. We avoid calling it the coefficient of determination, since the words are not intrinsically enlightening. Instead we call it a measure of the goodness of fit, a phrase that is jargon, but also descriptive. We define it as both the ratio of the regression sum of squares divided by the total sum of squares and, in the case of simple linear regression, the square of the correlation coefficient between x and y. The students are taught to interpret the R2 value as the proportion of the variance in the data explained by the model.

The goodness of fit, measured by the proportion of variability in the data accounted for by the model, is extremely good for each of the models. The R2 values are .996 and .980 for the simple linear regression models fit to data observed before and after the Montreal Protocol respectively. When combining the models, a single error variance is estimated for the simultaneous model. Therefore, the R2 value combines the model sums of squares of both individual models in the numerator and the total sums of squares of both individual models in the denominator, and is equal to .995. This is between the R2 values of the two separate linear models. It, too, is extremely high.

Additional evaluation of the models is performed in the second introductory and advanced courses. In both courses, we examine the residuals plots shown in Figures 4 and 5.

Figure 4. Residual Values for the Simple Linear Model fit to Pre-Montreal Protocol Data

Figure 5. Residual Values for the Simple Linear Model fit to Post-Montreal Protocol Data

In both residual plots, there is a noticeable pattern that is not consistent with the assumption of the linear model that the errors are normally distributed about zero with a constant variance. In both plots, there is a curvilinear pattern in the residuals. Therefore, a quadratic term was added to both of the models to create the quadratic model

%Equation (22)

\begin{equation}

\begin{array}{r{}l}

\hat{\mu}_{y_{1} \vert x}} =\hat{\beta}_{10}+\hat{\beta}_{11}x +\hat{\beta}^2_{12}\\

\hat{\mu}_{y_{2} \vert x}} =\hat{\beta}_{20}+\hat{\beta}_{21}x +\hat{\beta}^2_{22}

\end{array}

\end{equation}

The results are displayed in Tables 6 and 7.

Table 6. ANOVA Table for the Simple Linear Regression Models

Period

Source

Sums of Squares

Means Square

Before 1990

Model

203437.656

101718.828

27487.316

.000

Linear

203118.741

Quadratic

318.915

Error

555.086

150

3.70057333

After 1994

Model

3119.199

1559.5995

5086.140

.000

Linear

3090.876

Quadratic

28.323

Error

34.650

113

0.30663717

Table 7. Parameter Estimates for the Simple Linear Regression Models

Period

Parameter

Estimate

Standard Error

Before 1990

ß10

427555.191

48109.963

8.887

.000

ß11

-440.634

48.511

-9.083

.000

ß12

.114

.012

9.283

.000

After 1994

ß20

-280061.630

29041.620

-9.643

.000

ß21

282.180

29.044

.000

ß22

-.071

.007

.000

The R2 values were .997 and .989 for the two periods respectively. The parameter estimates for the linear term in both regression equations were highly significant with t-values of -9.083 and 9.716 respectively. The parameter estimates for the quadratic terms were highly significant as well with t-values of 9.283 and -9.779 respectively. It is worthy of note that the signs of the quadratic terms indicate whether the change in atmospheric concentrations of CFCs is accelerating up, if the term is positive, or accelerating down, if the term is negative.

Review of the residual plots from the quadratic models shows that the expected pattern of error randomly distributed about zero with a constant variance is now plausible, and a deviation from that pattern is less noticeable. For a class that includes the topic of autocorrelation, connecting the errors from time to time will reveal that there is still a pattern of autocorrelation in the data that could be investigated by further analysis. Although those analyses are not considered within the scope of this paper, these data could be a useful example in a course that covers autocorrelation.

Although the quadratic model is statistically justified in both models, i.e. the quadratic terms account for a statistically significant proportion of the variability in the data, the proportions of variance explained are very small compared to the linear terms. For the purposes of analyzing these data in introductory classes, the quadratic terms have not been used when investigating the primary research question, the impact of the Montreal Protocol. The justification for this is threefold. First, introduction of the quadratic terms makes interpretation of the model more difficult if the purpose of the class is to introduce specific concepts, like rates of change, rather than to be statistically exhaustive. Second, even if we felt compelled to select the best model statistically, the quadratic model would be prone to larger error when extrapolating outside the range of the data, hence requiring a greater degree of caution. In this case, using a linear model without the quadratic term will underestimate the difference between predicted values at some point in the future outside the range of the data. Even so, the differences are highly significant. Third, once a firm grasp of the linear model has been achieved, then further refinement of the model by adding the quadratic term can be introduced. Emphasis in this paper is placed on an understanding of the linear model.

7. Conclusion

This case study tells a compelling story of international cooperation resulting in the successful collaboration on a global environmental problem. Further, evidence of this success can be encapsulated in a simple set of data that is accessible to students in an introductory course, yet complex enough to allow for use in more advanced courses. This case study also provides a rich context within which to introduce and explore many of the concepts central to the statistical analysis of data, the assumptions entailed by methods of measurement, sampling, and analysis. Lastly, there is a moral to the story. Even though a complete evaluation of success of the Montreal Protocol with respect to ozone layer depletion is beyond the scope of this paper, it is clear that we can claim the Montreal Protocol had a real, positive effect on the levels of atmospheric CFC concentration. So we return to the beginning of the story and ask the students to ponder whether similar international efforts could have similar effects on other global problems.

Appendix

Instructions to Download Mauna Loa Monthly Atmospheric CFC Data

The data used in this paper can be found at the World Data Centre for Greenhouse Gases (WDCGG) web site maintained by the Japanese Meteorological Agency in cooperation with the World Meteorological Organization. Navigation steps to this file are:

Go to the web site’s main page, gaw.kishou.go.jp/wdcgg/

On the left side of the page, click on the navigation rectangle labeled "Data/Quick Plot".

Scroll down through the list of collection sites to "Mauna Loa". This site is listed twice. Select the one that has "CFCs" in the list of parameters shown at the far right.

Scroll down through the list of parameters and click on "CFCs (flask)".

In the table entitled "MONTHLY Data Total", select the cell that has "cfc11 (flask)" as the row heading and "Data" as the column heading. The link is labeled "27.4K", which is the size of the file.

This link is an ftp URL that downloads the ASCII data file into your browser. The direct link is ftp://gaw.kishou.go.jp/pub/data/current/cfcs/cfc11/monthly/mlo519n00.noaa.as.fl.cfc11.nl.mo.dat.txt

Acknowledgment

The author would like to acknowledge the work of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration for collection of the data used in this paper.

References

Farman, J. C., Gardiner, B. G. and Shanklin, J. D. (1985), "Large Losses of Total Ozone in Antarctica Reveal Seasonal CLOx/NOx Interaction", Nature, 315, 207-10.

Molina, M. J. and Rowland, F. S. (1974), "Stratospheric Sink for Chlo

uoro-methanes: Chlorine Atom Catalyzed Destruction of Ozone", Nature, 249, 810-14.

Ott, L. (2001) An Introduction to Statistical Methods and Data Analysis. Pacific Grove: Duxbury.

Rees, D. G. and Henry, J. K. (1988), "On comparing the predicted values from two simple linear regression lines", The Statistician, 37, 299-306.

Rowland, F. S. and Molina, M. J. (2007), "The CFC-ozone puzzle: environmental science in the global arena". In Kaniaru, D. (ed.) The Montreal Protocol Celebrating 20 Years of Environmental Progress Ozone Layer and Climate Protection. London: Cameron May.

Satterthwaite, F. E. (1946), "An approximate distribution of estimates of variance components", Biometrics Bulletin, 2, No. 6, 110-114

Shende, R. (2007), "From Montreal to Kyoto: The Refrigeration Industry’s Journey Toward Sustainability". In Kaniaru, D. (ed.) The Montreal Protocol Celebrating 20 Years of Environmental Progress Ozone Layer and Climate Protection. London: Cameron May.

UNEP (2007), Report of the UNEP Technology and Economic Assessment Panel, United Nations Environmental Programme, Montreal Protocol On Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer. http://www.unep.ch/ozone/Assessment_Panels/TEAP/Reports/TEAP_Reports/Teap_progress_report_April2007.pdf

Welch, B. L. (1938) "The significance of the difference between two means when the population variances are unequal", Biometrika 29, 350-362

World Meteorological Organization (1988), Report of the International Ozone Trends Panel—1988 (Report 18, Global Ozone Research and Monitoring Project, World Meteorological Organization, Geneva).

World Meteorological Organization (1986), Atmospheric Ozone 1985 (Report 16, Global Ozone Research and Monitoring Project, World Meteorological Organization, Geneva).

Dean Nelson

University of Pittsburgh at Greensburg

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *bi_scotlandTV/TS over a year ago

Glasgow

The issue isn't so much science as scientific reporting in the media. Reporters will basically look for any sort of detail from a report of a scientific study and then grasp the one that gives the sexiest article. In a sense this us understandable but unfortunately it does more harm than good.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ensualtouch15Man over a year ago

ashby de la zouch

Note that the author cites references and limitations

He also notes that data is subject to error

Please could I have the references of the conspiracy sites that you obtained your data .I'm quite sure some is true regarding dupont however there is a wealth of data supporting the conclusion regardless that it suits one company

Let's note the chemistry that illustrates cfc in concentrations of 200 000 in a trillion (aprox) cause ozone break down won a Nobel prize x not the easiest task to do to pass fictitious data to win although I'm sure it's possible

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ensualtouch15Man over a year ago

ashby de la zouch

Let us note the error in falsely comparing homeopathy with the above

Within 1000 000 ml of gas 1 1000th of a ml will be cfc that's within cubic meter in the atmosphere that's 1000 ml for every 10 m cubed the gas will be moving and interacting with the other compounds .This is evidenced x

However it is suggested that based upon the dilution rate not every bottle would even contain an atom of ingredient

But let's suppose it does

It is then evidenced that results done in double blind trials show no difference between the active bottle and placebo

There is little doubt telling some humans a product will make them better actually will regardless of contents.

The fact of placebo is one reason rigorous scientific methods should be used to out false causation correlation senareos

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ensualtouch15Man over a year ago

ashby de la zouch

"The issue isn't so much science as scientific reporting in the media. Reporters will basically look for any sort of detail from a report of a scientific study and then grasp the one that gives the sexiest article. In a sense this us understandable but unfortunately it does more harm than good."

The daily hate mail and its biased soundbite science has done much to harm the understanding of science

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

Wow I think Taoist just did a brain fart lol

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *icketysplitsWoman over a year ago

Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound

There is a feed you can get that looks at the press stories and gives you a digest of the research that generated the story.

I have found it useful in different jobs where I don't have the time to read such a wide range of research papers but I have needed to know broadly what is going on.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Indeed, there is a need for great humility in science, and it has been guilty of great arrogance.

In the 60's Nixon declared a war on cancer , and so began a multi billion dollar investment in science trying to find a cure .

Every year , billions and billions get raised , and spent , and yet we are no nearer to finding a cure !

This is just one example of medical science and it's lack of value and success .

Infact , but for antibiotics and a handful of vaccines , it simply doesn't work at all !

Yet we are led to believe that so called cures are continually being made by the pharmaceutical scientists .

Perfectly said.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)