Some thoughts

Thinking is essentially the recollection of memories and hence forecasting is the extrapolation of those memories, and hence thought,  in both direct and indirect forms, into the future.

 

Hence the future, as thought, is always and axiomatically, the past; without exception.

 
So, as a runaway greenhouse effect has never been observed happening anywhere, it can therefore never be considered a physical phenomena in the here and now requiring the framing of a theory, or belief, and hence a thought pattern, to explain it.
 
And we have not actually observed a greenhouse effect occurring on Venus, but merely have conjectured that it must have happened, as a consequence of Venusian atmospheric chemistry that is composed of 90% CO2, in order to explain Venus’ anomalous thermal state, or temperature, as measured, in order to counter Velikovsky’s interpretation that Venus had to be hot because it was a recently formed planet.
 
So how do we as humans deal with physical novelty?
 
If we deny the novelty by comparing it’s characteristics with  what we know, then we are being religious.
 
And if we are prepared to change our knowledge under the light of novelty, then we are being scientific.
 
And this dichotomy introduces a conundrum, that we can only recognise a scientific manner of thinking because of its opposite, the observation or manner of religious thinking; one cannot exist without the other, and it’s that contradiction that seems to be the problem.

About Louis Hissink

Retired diamond exploration geologist. I spent my professional life looking for mineral deposits, found some, and also located a number of kimberlites in NSW and Western Australia. Exploration geology is the closest one can get to practicing the scientific method, mineral exploration always being concerned with finding anomalous geophysical or geochemical data, framing a model and explanation for the anomaly and then testing it with drilling or excavation. All scientific theories are ultimately false since they invariably involved explaining something with incomplete extant knowledge. Since no one is omniscient or knows everything, so too scientific theories which are solely limited to existing knowledge. Because the future always yields new data, scientific theories must change to be compatible with the new data. Thus a true scientist is never in love with any particular theory, always knowing that when the facts change, so too must he/she change their minds.
This entry was posted in Science. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s