On Jan 14, 7:33 am, Frederick Williams <freddywilli...@btinternet.com> wrote: > Transition Zone wrote: > > Worst of all, they deny the conclusions of those most experienced in > > the field. > That's the sort of thing one sees in sci.logic/sci.logic everyday.
And I, of course, am one of those sci.logic/sci.math posters whom Williams sees doing that everyday.
A global warming thread on sci.math? Well, at least it's somewhat related to math (the OP's commnents about what _fraction_ of the planet is warming or cooling), but of course the AGW debate is a highly politicized discussion.
As I've said before, I accept all mainstream scientific theories, and since the existence of AGW is the mainstream scientific view, I accept it.
So now one wonders, why do I accept the conclusions of those most experienced in _science_, but not in _math_? It's because I see science as describing the actual, but math as more abstract. If one doesn't accept, say, standard quantifiers, or the statement that exactly two of N,Q,R are the same size, then one should be able to come up with an alternate theory -- an _abstraction_ -- where quantifiers don't exist or N,Q,R have other relationships among their sizes. But coming up with an alternate abstract world in which AGW doesn't exist does _nothing_ to address the problem of AGW in the _real_, _physical_ world.
Professional mathematicians are experts in the theories in which they are the most experienced. That says nothing about any alternate abstract theories in which they aren't experienced. So we shouldn't reject, say, nonstandard analysis merely because a mathematician experienced in classical analysis tells us to.
Therefore, I reject Williams's analogy in which he compares us to global warming deniers.