Science site promoting critical rationalism

Scientia is dedicated to science practiced in the framework of critical rationalism formulated by Karl Popper along the lines “You may be right and I may be wrong and with an effort we may get nearer to the truth”.

Up to date commentary on all matters of interest in science including the black hole and climate science and policy. Check out the how Germans are getting more interested in climate realism, stirred up by Greta and the schoolkids in the street.

This entry was posted in Rafe, Western Civilsation. Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to Science site promoting critical rationalism

  1. LBLoveday

    For a spectacular example of the truth of “natural factors have always been in the driver’s seat in the past”, I recommend reading up on Mt Tambora.

    Just 200 years ago, in nearby Indonesia, Mt Tambora exploded with a fury unmatched in recorded times, cooling the entire world and causing crop failure in Europe, half a world away, in what was known as “the year without summer”

    Even more recently the better-known Mt Krakatau, also in Indonesia, erupted releasing just one quarter of the energy of Tambora, but still enough to be heard in Alice Spring and Perth, and it also cooled the earth, which took 5 years to return to normal.

  2. Mark M

    So that is how you dress in a warming climate, that is here, now.

    Fact-check: Over 97% of anti-fossil fuel climate activists prefer wearing warm clothes anda lifestyle created entirely with fossil-fuels.

  3. Colonel Crispin Berka

    No, Principia Scientific (what you linked to) is a bunch of unscientific ratbags who want a share of the prestige of science but are totally unable to apply the scientific method and unable to follow evidence no matter where it leads. A wilful blindness to observable facts, a total disbelief in verified atmospheric physics, strawman experiments, uncritical mutual back-slapping, motivated reasoning, and an inability to spot contradictions in their own mind are all part of a standard work day in Principia Scientific.
    Don’t forget where they came from, self-styled “Slayers” of a “sky dragon”. Yes they really call themselves slayers, and while that self-image might be a fascinating psychosis it is of no use in understanding nature.

    It was my assumption that their membership has not changed substantially in the last 6 years, so they are still ratbags. A brief glance at the front page of their web site today confirms this is indeed still the case. Amidst all the non-scientific political opinions we find that allegedly “Humans don’t control CO2 levels” from chief uber-slayer Postma, who doesn’t know the difference between a flux and a net flow. From another Breit-spark we hear that “Scientists Prove Man-made Global Warming a Hoax” simply because CO2 levels were just as high 3 million years ago. Did I mention an inability to reason logically? Yeah, they have that too. (It makes generating beliefs very easy, like, big round holes were being dug into the earth totally naturally in the ancient past, therefore man-made backhoes are a hoax, case closed.)

    Their foundational dogma is they don’t believe there is even such a thing as an atmospheric greenhouse effect. They even do half-baked experiments in their kitchens and back yards to “prove” this. Never mind what the US Air Force measures from the ground regionally in Alaska, or what infrared imaging satellites observe globally, or what common experience of local weather tells you, or… you know… the Fundamental Postulate of Physics that all physical laws operate the same way at all places and times.

    I remind readers that people who didn’t arrive at their opinion by reason are very unlikely to be dislodged from that opinion by reason. Don’t waste your time with slayers like I did for several years.

  4. Mitchell Porter

    Maybe that site is meant to discredit climate change skepticism? It has articles saying that human CO2 doesn’t even accumulate in the atmosphere, and that black holes aren’t real…

  5. Mitchell Porter

    Sorry, that was a “humorous” comment. The unfunny truth is just that these people are second- or third-rate as critics of scientific orthodoxy.

    I know a few things about fundamental physical theory, and about the various “alternatives” to it that exist. I read arxiv, the central clearinghouse for research by academic physicists, and I keep an eye on vixra, an unmoderated archive which functions as “arxiv for everyone else”. Insiders can be wrong, outsiders can have a point or, very rarely, can even be the wave of the future; but there are plenty of outsiders who are just going nowhere, who are enveloped in their own concepts and who no-one will ever bother trying to reach.

    For example: I recently heard from a fellow in Germany who has his own theory of electrons, protons, and electromagnetism, and who thinks he can dismiss quarks as a fiction, even though they are the basis for understanding hundreds of species of shortlived particle, but who still expects me to try to understand his theory. I’m sure that most of his correspondents just brush him off completely, and so he gets to continue sculpting his personal theory of everything, and even correctly claiming that it has been ignored by the academics.

    Scientia is not quite in that territory, but on the two topics mentioned, it’s kind of close. A reader who knows the subjects is going to think, if *that’s* the level of criticism that they offer, there’s nothing worth investigating here.

    P.S. If someone from the Scientia team reads this, maybe you should look up the German guy! His name is Dirk Freyling. He might fit right in.

Comments are closed.