The Scientific Method

The Scientific Method

Ed Berry

The scientific method is the basis of all science, and 97% of scientists don’t know what it is.

Scientists who don’t know the scientific method have described it as follows:

• In physical science, the scientific method can be summarized by one question: Is it consistent with the physical evidence?
• The scientific method involves painstaking and honest investigation of a hypothesis by gathering data to evaluate it.

These scientists are like drivers who don’t know driving laws and can’t read road signs. Their descriptions do NOT describe the scientific method because:

• They incorrectly assume good predictions prove an assumption is true.
• They incorrectly omit that it is impossible to prove an assumption is true.
• They incorrectly omit that one bad prediction proves an assumption is false.

Climate fraud exists because of scientists and people who don’t understand the scientific method.

John Kemeny was a mathematics assistant to Albert Einstein and became Chairman of both the Mathematics and the Philosophy Departments at Dartmouth College. Kemeny and Richard Feynman described the scientific method as follows:

• Using data, we formulate an idea or assumption that (A) causes (B). We use our idea to make a testable prediction. If our idea can’t make a testable prediction, our idea is not a valid assumption.
• We insert data into our assumption to predict an effect. Then we compare our prediction with new data.
• If our prediction is true, this does not prove our assumption, because a future test may prove it false.

Aristotle taught us not to rely on data that reinforces our ideas. We must focus on data that disproves our ideas.

The key to science

If even one prediction is false, our assumption is false. We must discard our assumption. This is the key to science.

Einstein summarized the scientific method like this:

• Many experiments may prove me right, but it takes only one to prove me wrong.

Nobel laureate physicist Feynman emphasized (paraphrased):

• It doesn’t matter how beautiful your idea is, or how smart you are. If your prediction disagrees with the data, your idea is WRONG.

The IPCC contradicts the scientific method with this claim:

“There is an abundant source of published literature that shows, with considerable certainty, that the natural environment has acted as a net carbon sink throughout the industrial era, taking in significantly more carbon than it has emitted, and so the observed rise in atmospheric CO2 cannot be a natural phenomenon.”

There is no such thing as “considerable certainty” that an assumption is true.

Most people, including scientists, do not realize that the scientific method is directional. We can prove an assumption false, but we cannot prove it true.

Nothing can prove an assumption is true. So, arguments that the increase in global temperature proves Assumption (1) are invalid. Those who make such arguments do not understand how science works.

The scientific method says it is impossible to “prove” an assumption is true. “Extensive scientific evidence” is simply evidence piled higher and deeper.

The IPCC claims, “extensive evidence proves” Assumptions (1), (2), and (3) are true. Incompetent scientists claim that “evidence” piled higher and deeper overpowers the scientific method. 

The CO2 Coalition’s special report (EHB), which we discussed in another post, claims “multiple lines” of “extensive evidence” “conclusively” prove Assumption (1) is true. The scientific method says this is an invalid argument.

Consensus cannot prove an assumption is true.

When a climate assumption makes a bad prediction, alarmists argue, “a consensus of scientists proves the assumption is true.”

Alarmists argue we must “follow the scientists” because they think votes determine whether an assumption is true or false. Votes count in politics, but not in science.

Authority cannot prove an assumption is true.

Alarmists (and incompetent attorneys) incorrectly think scientists who have the most “publications” or who have warmed a university seat for the most years should decide whether an assumption is true. The scientific method rejects this argument.

Attorneys make this logical error when they ask the court to believe an expert witness based upon the irrelevant claim that the expert is deemed an “authority.”

The only thing that should matter in court is what the expert witness says. Then the opposition can try to prove this expert is wrong using scientific arguments. But it is invalid to claim an expert is wrong based on personal facts.

The CO2 Coalition commits a logical error by calling its scientists “top scientists,” implying that their opinions on everything must be taken as true.

The best scientists can be wrong. The only thing that matters in court or debate is how good an argument a scientist can make to prove an assumption is false.

Science is not about how much you know. Science is about how well you can think.

Affirming the Consequent cannot prove an assumption is true.

Alarmists focus on the bad stuff they claim happens in their Assumption (3). They argue that because (3) is true, (1) and (2) are true.

Here’s their illogic:

“If our CO2 changes the climate, then bad stuff happens. Bad stuff happens. Therefore, our CO2 changes the climate.”

One easy rebuttal to their argument is to show a parallel argument:

If Bill Gates owns Fort Knox, then Bill Gates is rich. Bill Gates is rich. Therefore, Bill Gates owns Fort Knox.

This invalid argument is called Affirming the Consequent because the second part assumes the consequent of the first part is true.

Events do not prove their cause.

Another invalid argument claims events prove their cause. But an event can have more than one cause. If the CO2 level increases, that does not prove that human CO2 caused the increase, because natural CO2 could have caused it.

Indeed, the question is whether Assumption (1) is true or false. Only valid scientific arguments can make this decision.

Held v Montana was a monkey trial, not a scientific trial.

Montana’s AG, in Held v Montana, stipulated at the beginning of the trial that the plaintiffs’ arguments prove Assumption (3) is true, and therefore (1) and (2) are true, and therefore human CO2 caused all the CO2 increase.

Montana’s Attorney General gave away the whole lawsuit at the beginning of the trial.

Evidence cannot prove an assumption is true, but evidence can prove an assumption is false.

Arguments that claim “evidence” proves an assumption is true contradict the scientific method.

The rules of the scientific method are like the rules in US criminal law, e.g., the accused is “innocent until proven guilty.”

Climate lawsuits accuse human CO2 of causing harmful climate change. A valid climate trial must begin by assuming human CO2 is innocent until proven guilty. In science, this is the required “null hypothesis.”

The null hypothesis requires that Assumptions (1), (2), and (3) are presumed to be false until proven otherwise. The null hypothesis places the burden of proof on those who claim that human CO2 causes the claimed damages.

Good attorneys use the scientific method. Bad attorneys do not.

Suppose you paid your attorney to defend you against an accusation that you shot and killed Jones, but you are innocent. Suppose the plaintiff presents “extensive data” and “multiple lines of evidence” that imply you shot Jones.

The plaintiff’s attorney argues:

“If you shot Jones, then Jones is dead. Jones is dead. Therefore, you shot Jones.”

Your attorney did not object to this logical error in the plaintiff’s attorney’s argument. Then, in your trial, your attorney stipulated that all the plaintiff’s evidence is true.

Thanks to your stupid attorney, off to prison you go.

(I use this example because Montana Attorney General Knudsen stipulated at the beginning of the Held v Montana climate trial that the plaintiffs’ “Affirming the Consequent” arguments were true. Whose side was he on?)

How to defend Smith.

My book, Climate Miracle, uses this murder-trial example to make an important point. The prosecution accuses Smith of murdering Jones. They present “extensive evidence” and “multiple lines of evidence” to support their argument. That’s what the climate lawsuits argue! But that is not sufficient evidence if it is countered.

Smith’s defense does NOT need to dispute all the prosecution’s evidence if they can prove Smith was 3000 miles away at the time of the murder.

That’s because the hidden assumption in the prosecution’s argument is that Smith was nearby when someone shot Jones.

Climate lawsuits incorrectly assume that the three key climate assumptions are true. No defense has properly challenged the three key assumptions, so no climate lawsuit has ever been valid.

How to defeat a climate lawsuit.

First, if it is like an Our Children’s Trust lawsuit, the defense must challenge the plaintiffs’ damage claims. The plaintiffs are thoroughly indoctrinated children who believe human CO2 has damaged them, when the truth is that their indoctrinators have damaged them.

Second, the defense must force the plaintiff’s experts to agree that their testimonies depend upon their assumptions that (1) and (2) are true. They must agree, or they will testify that (1) and (2) are false and lose their lawsuit.

Third, the defense must argue that the plaintiffs’ arguments for Assumption (3) are irrelevant because events do not prove their cause. The defense can also rebut any parts of the plaintiffs’ arguments for Assumption (3), but the defense cannot rely on only defending Assumption (3).

The defense must prove that Assumptions (1) and (2) are false.  

The defense must prove that Assumptions (1) and (2) are false and make it short. The defense will need a second rebuttal to show how the plaintiff’s expert rebuttals fail.

The defense must use experts who can prove that Assumptions (1) and (2) are false. This requirement eliminates 97% of climate scientists.

Arguments over Assumption (3) favor the plaintiffs because any judge and jury is preconditioned to believe (3) is true. Although evidence shows warming is good rather than bad, these arguments are squishy because they depend upon opinions.

The defense does not need to address Assumption (3) other than to say it is irrelevant. Arguing (3) takes longer and will cause the judge or jury to lose focus on the clean arguments that (1) and (2) are false.

Kemeny taught that the scientific method does not apply to what cannot be measured.

For example, science cannot prove God because we can’t measure what is outside our physical world. Science cannot tell us what to believe or not to believe outside our physical world. Therefore, we may believe what we wish to believe about God and other things we cannot measure without violating the scientific method.

However, if we extend our belief in God to our beliefs about the physical world, we can prove our physical beliefs false when they conflict with data. For example, we can prove the belief that the Earth is 6000 years old false.

The key point is that it is impossible to prove an assumption is true, but a single false prediction proves it is false.