in the finest traditions of Asimov bowing to Pauling

In <beeal2$mr5$1@news.iucc.ac.il> schultr RemoveThis @mail.biu.ack.il (Richard Schultz) writes:

 >In article <Pine.NEB.4.55.0307071759200.4349 RemoveThis @panix5.panix.com>, danny burstein <dannyb RemoveThis @panix.com> wrote:

 >: [a] the "Freon" -> ozone hole connection is widely believed, but isn't
 >: quite as firmly supported as generally thought.

 >Have you ever actually seen the data on which the conclusions were based?

yes.

 >Or do you think that it's just a coincidence?

While it certainly looks plausable I think it's not quite as solidly
grounded as the True Believers wish it were. I also find it fascinating
that Freons [a] manufactured in the US and Europe do this damage, but
similar chemicals manufactured in Mexico, Asia, (possibly Russia - the
info from there is unreliable), and quite a few other countries, seem to
be innocuous.

But I'm NOT going to get into a point by point on this.

Fortunately, there's a lot more cynicism about the CO2 ->global warming
issue, and in that one, the "science" is a lot, lot, more tenuous.

[a] "Freon" is a registered trademark by one of the big multinational
chemical companies for their brand of CFCs.
--
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
   dannyb RemoveThis @panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: in the finest traditions of Asimov bowing to Pauling 

In article <beeg08$cuu$2@reader1.panix.com>, danny burstein <dannyb.RemoveThis@panix.com> wrote:
: In <beeal2$mr5$1@news.iucc.ac.il> schultr.RemoveThis@mail.biu.ack.il (Richard Schultz) writes:

:>In article <Pine.NEB.4.55.0307071759200.4349.RemoveThis@panix5.panix.com>, danny burstein <dannyb.RemoveThis@panix.com> wrote:
:
:>: [a] the "Freon" -> ozone hole connection is widely believed, but isn't
:>: quite as firmly supported as generally thought.
:
:>Have you ever actually seen the data on which the conclusions were based?
:
: yes.
:
:>Or do you think that it's just a coincidence?
:
: While it certainly looks plausable I think it's not quite as solidly
: grounded as the True Believers wish it were. I also find it fascinating
: that Freons [a] manufactured in the US and Europe do this damage, but
: similar chemicals manufactured in Mexico, Asia, (possibly Russia - the
: info from there is unreliable), and quite a few other countries, seem to
: be innocuous.

If you've seen the data on which the conclusions were based, then you know
that the conclusions were drawn without any consideration of the origin
of the CFCs. It's not a question of "plausibility" (note the spelling);
Anderson et al. found a smoking gun in the form of a direct anticorrelation
between ClO and O3 concentrations as one crosses the Antarctic polar vortex.

-----
Richard Schultz schultr.RemoveThis@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"an optimist is a guy/ that has never had/ much experience"
 >> Stay informed about: in the finest traditions of Asimov bowing to Pauling 

In <beerua$49v$3@news.iucc.ac.il> schultr DeleteThis @mail.biu.ack.il (Richard Schultz) writes:

 >If you've seen the data on which the conclusions were based, then you know
 >that the conclusions were drawn without any consideration of the origin
 >of the CFCs.

However, the net results (which were eventually codified in the Montreal
Treaty) most assuredly did.

 > It's not a question of "plausibility" (note the spelling);
 >Anderson et al. found a smoking gun in the form of a direct anticorrelation
 >between ClO and O3 concentrations as one crosses the Antarctic polar vortex.

Correlation is NOT causality. It certainly warrants a close look, but does
not, in and of itself, prove anything.

--
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
   dannyb DeleteThis @panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: in the finest traditions of Asimov bowing to Pauling 

In article <beess4$hl5$1@reader1.panix.com>, danny burstein <dannyb.RemoveThis@panix.com> wrote:

:> It's not a question of "plausibility" (note the spelling);
:>Anderson et al. found a smoking gun in the form of a direct anticorrelation
:>between ClO and O3 concentrations as one crosses the Antarctic polar vortex.
:
: Correlation is NOT causality. It certainly warrants a close look, but does
: not, in and of itself, prove anything.

I look forward to seeing your altnernative explanation. It had better be
at least as plausible, and as consistent with known chemistry and meterology,
as the currently accepted one.

By the way, you might be interested to know that the first concerns about
human effects on the ozone layer were from considerations of the effects
of NOx emissions from the fleet of SSTs that was proposed in the early 70s.
(Supersonic planes fly in the atmosphere, and the concern was raised that
several hundred of them -- for you people that weren't born yet, yes, they
actually proposed to build a fleet of several hundred Concordes before
figuring out that such a fleet would never be able to pay for itself -- and
atmospheric chemists had done some calculations indicating that NOx radicals
might remove a significant fraction of the stratospheric ozone layer.)

-----
Richard Schultz schultr.RemoveThis@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers which smell bad."
 >> Stay informed about: in the finest traditions of Asimov bowing to Pauling 

schultr DeleteThis @mail.biu.ack.il (Richard Schultz) writes:
 > In article <beess4$hl5$1@reader1.panix.com>, danny burstein <dannyb DeleteThis @panix.com> wrote:
 >
 > :> It's not a question of "plausibility" (note the spelling);
 > :>Anderson et al. found a smoking gun in the form of a direct anticorrelation
 > :>between ClO and O3 concentrations as one crosses the Antarctic polar vortex.
 > :
 > : Correlation is NOT causality. It certainly warrants a close look, but does
 > : not, in and of itself, prove anything.

 > I look forward to seeing your altnernative explanation. It had better be
 > at least as plausible, and as consistent with known chemistry and meterology,
 > as the currently accepted one.

Now now, that would be called "shifting the burden of proof".
Logically, one can question the quality of a theory without being able
to come up with an alternative theory. Or do you deny the value of
literary criticism as well?

/
:@-) Scott
\<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: in the finest traditions of Asimov bowing to Pauling 

In article <jvqwuesyh3h.fsf DeleteThis @harper.uchicago.edu>, Lancelot appearing sideways <sa-hill1 DeleteThis @uchicago.edu> wrote:
: schultr DeleteThis @mail.biu.ack.il (Richard Schultz) writes:

:> I look forward to seeing your altnernative explanation. It had better be
:> at least as plausible, and as consistent with known chemistry and meterology,
:> as the currently accepted one.
:
: Now now, that would be called "shifting the burden of proof".
: Logically, one can question the quality of a theory without being able
: to come up with an alternative theory. Or do you deny the value of
: literary criticism as well?

I regret to inform you that you appear not to understand how science works.
Once a hypothesis has been presented that can explain all of the data, the
burden of proof is on the people who do not accept the hypothesis either
to find data that the hypothesis cannot explain (in which case whoever
proposed the hypothesis has to explain how the new results are in fact
explained by it, or to accept that his hypothesis has been disproved) or
to provide a new hypothesis that does a better job of explaining the data.
It's even better if there is an experiment that can differentiate between
the two competing hypotheses.

In the case of the ozone hole, the hypothesis that it is caused primarily
by halogen-containing radicals and that these radicals are of anthropogenic
origin is consistent both with the known chemistry of these species, with
the known meteorology of the Antarctic, and with the observation that the
depletion of the ozone layer in the Antarctic did not occur until the use
of CFCs became widespread. It's possible that there is another explanation,
but anyone who does not accept the current one has to show how it is
inconsistent with observation. Since Mr. Burstein apparently cannot do that,
I gave him the opportunity of presenting an alternative hypothesis instead.

-----
Richard Schultz schultr DeleteThis @mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
I'm sorry if I hurt you when I fell asleep last night,
But I was just exhausted from the act of being polite.
 >> Stay informed about: in the finest traditions of Asimov bowing to Pauling 

"Eric" <usenet.RemoveThis@DfAericE5fSgorr.DfZ1net> wrote in message
news:1fxtrw8.rinhlynhzctkN%usenet@DfAericE5fSgorr.DfZ1net...
> Richard Schultz <schultr.RemoveThis@mail.biu.ack.il> wrote:
>
> > In article <jvqwuesyh3h.fsf.RemoveThis@harper.uchicago.edu>, Lancelot appearing
> > sideways <sa-hill1.RemoveThis@uchicago.edu> wrote:
> > : schultr.RemoveThis@mail.biu.ack.il (Richard Schultz) writes:
> >
> > :> I look forward to seeing your altnernative explanation. It had
better
> > :> be at least as plausible, and as consistent with known chemistry and
> > :> meterology, as the currently accepted one.
> > :
> > : Now now, that would be called "shifting the burden of proof".
Logically,
> > : one can question the quality of a theory without being able to come up
> > : with an alternative theory. Or do you deny the value of literary
> > : criticism as well?
> >
> > I regret to inform you that you appear not to understand how science
works.
>
> I see, so, you would argue that we must all accept any bogus theory
> based on one of the greatest scientific fallacies (i.e. that correlation
> is equivalent to causation) until an alternative theory can be
> presented?
>

Are you able to quote the area where Richard Schultz implied the above? I
cannot find it in this thread. Furthermore, in this particular case (where
he did claim there was a "direct anticorrelation
between ClO and O3 concentrations"), I believe there is a well-defined
chemical mechanism that produces the anticorrelation.

Jason
 >> Stay informed about: in the finest traditions of Asimov bowing to Pauling 

"Eric" <egDfAusenetE5fz RemoveThis @verizon.net> wrote in message
news:1fxtvcb.1p1xn6ob0p6r8N%egDfAusenetE5fz@verizon.net...
> Jason Rhodes <jasondrhodes RemoveThis @hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > "Eric" <usenet RemoveThis @DfAericE5fSgorr.DfZ1net> wrote in message
> > news:1fxtrw8.rinhlynhzctkN%usenet@DfAericE5fSgorr.DfZ1net...
> > > Richard Schultz <schultr RemoveThis @mail.biu.ack.il> wrote:
> > >
> > > > In article <jvqwuesyh3h.fsf RemoveThis @harper.uchicago.edu>, Lancelot appearing
> > > > sideways <sa-hill1 RemoveThis @uchicago.edu> wrote:
> > > > : schultr RemoveThis @mail.biu.ack.il (Richard Schultz) writes:
> > > >
> > > > :> I look forward to seeing your altnernative explanation. It had
> > > > :> better be at least as plausible, and as consistent with known
> > > > :> chemistry and meterology, as the currently accepted one.
> > > > :
> > > > :> Now now, that would be called "shifting the burden of proof".
> > > > :> Logically, one can question the quality of a theory without being
> > > > :> able to come up with an alternative theory. Or do you deny the
> > > > :> value of literary criticism as well?
> > > >
> > > > I regret to inform you that you appear not to understand how science
> > > > works.
> > >
> > > I see, so, you would argue that we must all accept any bogus theory
> > > based on one of the greatest scientific fallacies (i.e. that
correlation
> > > is equivalent to causation) until an alternative theory can be
> > > presented?
> > >
> >
> > Are you able to quote the area where Richard Schultz implied the
above?
>
> I already did.
>

The text you quoted does not contain that implication, in my opinion. If
that is what Richard was implying, I stand corrected.

Jason
 >> Stay informed about: in the finest traditions of Asimov bowing to Pauling 

schultr.RemoveThis@mail.biu.ack.il (Richard Schultz) writes:

> In article <jvqwuesyh3h.fsf.RemoveThis@harper.uchicago.edu>, Lancelot appearing sideways <sa-hill1.RemoveThis@uchicago.edu> wrote:
> : schultr.RemoveThis@mail.biu.ack.il (Richard Schultz) writes:
>
> :> I look forward to seeing your altnernative explanation. It had better be
> :> at least as plausible, and as consistent with known chemistry and meterology,
> :> as the currently accepted one.
> :
> : Now now, that would be called "shifting the burden of proof".
> : Logically, one can question the quality of a theory without being able
> : to come up with an alternative theory. Or do you deny the value of
> : literary criticism as well?
>
> I regret to inform you that you appear not to understand how science works.

I regretfully disagree. I know how science works. If Mr. Burstein
had published his remarks in a scientific setting, it would have been
his responsibility to provide either an alternative hypothesis or a
demonstration that the current explanation is flawed. This newsgroup
isn't a scientific forum, however, and in more casual circles it is
acceptable to express skepticism for a theory based on one's
intuition. While it is very good to back up one's feelings in such an
instance with some facts (counterhypotheses or exceptions to the
original proposal), not everyone has the skills or the time to follow
up on such a feeling; I don't think such a lack should prohibit them
from expressing said feeling.

That being said, I was actually using the phrase "shifting the burden
of proof" in a more figurative sense. The exchange I witnessed seemed
to me to be analogous to a reader expressing dissatisfaction with an
author's latest novel, only to have the author respond with, "Well, I
can't wait to see your latest work, since you seem to know so much!"
(Although not as snotty as that.) I'm afraid, however, that I got
tangled up in the double appearance of the word "proof", and my
intention was not clear the first time, so I apologize.

I also apologize if you hold to a strictly rationalistic view of the
world, in which case my comments must seem rather silly.

/
:@-) Scott
\

P.S. And for the record, I disagree with Mr. Burstein's intuition.
Just a feeling.
 >> Stay informed about: in the finest traditions of Asimov bowing to Pauling 

In article <1fxtrw8.rinhlynhzctkN%usenet@DfAericE5fSgorr.DfZ1net>, Eric <usenet DeleteThis @dfaerice5fsgorr.dfz1net> wrote:

: I see, so, you would argue that we must all accept any bogus theory
: based on one of the greatest scientific fallacies (i.e. that correlation
: is equivalent to causation) until an alternative theory can be
: presented?

This is known as a "straw man," since that is not how the conclusion
about the cause of the ozone hole was reached.

: Nonsense.
:
: If someone presents a theory, they are required to prove it is correct.

This is totally wrong. In science, it is *impossible* to prove that a
hypothesis is correct, only that it is incorrect. Also, you should know
that in science, a "theory" is something that is already accepted as
being correct (e.g. Atomic Theory, the Theory of Relativity, etc.).

: Furthermore, no intelligent or ethical person is going to accept a
: theory based solely on correlation.

The hypothesis that anthropogenic chlorine is responsible for the
ozone hole is not based solely on correlation, so I'm not sure what
point you are trying to make in the present context.

-----
Richard Schultz schultr DeleteThis @mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"You don't even have a clue about which clue you're missing."
 >> Stay informed about: in the finest traditions of Asimov bowing to Pauling 

"Eric Gorr" <eRrEiMcOgVoErMrE.DeleteThis@cox.net> wrote in message
news:1fxvme8.1qzzjpvt95pkwN%eRrEiMcOgVoErMrE@cox.net...
> Richard Schultz <schultr.DeleteThis@mail.biu.ack.il> wrote:
>
> > In article <1fxtrw8.rinhlynhzctkN%usenet@DfAericE5fSgorr.DfZ1net>, Eric
> > <usenet.DeleteThis@dfaerice5fsgorr.dfz1net> wrote:
> >
> > : I see, so, you would argue that we must all accept any bogus theory
> > : based on one of the greatest scientific fallacies (i.e. that
correlation
> > : is equivalent to causation) until an alternative theory can be
> > : presented?
> >
> > This is known as a "straw man," since that is not how the conclusion
> > about the cause of the ozone hole was reached.
>
> But it is what you were arguing.
>
> > : If someone presents a theory, they are required to prove it is
correct.
> >
> > This is totally wrong. In science, it is *impossible* to prove that a
> > hypothesis is correct, only that it is incorrect.
>
> You, are, of course, correct.
>
> > : Furthermore, no intelligent or ethical person is going to accept a
> > : theory based solely on correlation.
> >
> > The hypothesis that anthropogenic chlorine is responsible for the
> > ozone hole is not based solely on correlation, so I'm not sure what
> > point you are trying to make in the present context.
>
> Only that you were clearly arguing that correlation is equivalent to
> causation.
>

I contend that he never said correlation is equivalent to causation. If you
think otherwise, please directly quote the sentence that you feel says this.

I assume you are referring to this sentence: "Anderson et al. found a
smoking gun in the form of a direct anticorrelation between ClO and O3
concentrations as one crosses the Antarctic polar vortex." Taken out of
context it might be construed to mean the writer believe correlation implied
causation. But taken in context, with the knowledge that there is a
well-defined causal mechanism whereby CFCs can deplete O3, it is clear that
the author is not contending that correlation alone implies causation.
Again, I will stand corrected if the author says he was implying correlation
equals causation.


>Now, if you no longer believe this or are willing to admit you made a
>mistake, please, tell us now.


Presumably, in the spirit of honesty, you will now admit your mistake if
Richard Schultz feels that my interpretation of his comments is more
accurate than yours. As I have already said, if that is not the case, I
admit my mistake.

Jason
 >> Stay informed about: in the finest traditions of Asimov bowing to Pauling 

> Also, you should know
> that in science, a "theory" is something that is already accepted as
> being correct (e.g. Atomic Theory, the Theory of Relativity, etc.).
>

How can a theory be accepted as being correct before it has been proposed?
The theory of relativity is accepted NOW. But it wasn't before 1920. And the
last time I checked there were a few competing theories about the expansion
of the universe. I guess those are ALL accepted as being correct, since they
are all theories.
..... .... ... OK, you can rephrase what you meant now.
 >> Stay informed about: in the finest traditions of Asimov bowing to Pauling 

In article <beeg08$cuu$2@reader1.panix.com>,
danny burstein <dannyb.DeleteThis@panix.com> wrote:
 >While it certainly looks plausable I think it's not quite as solidly
 >grounded as the True Believers wish it were. I also find it fascinating
 >that Freons [a] manufactured in the US and Europe do this damage, but
 >similar chemicals manufactured in Mexico, Asia, (possibly Russia - the
 >info from there is unreliable), and quite a few other countries, seem to
 >be innocuous.

It's also interesting how the big companies' patents on some of those
compounds just happened to be running out at around the time of the ozone
layer scare. It gave them another 20 years of monopoly.
--
Ken Arromdee / arromdee.DeleteThis@rahul.net / <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.rahul.net/arromdee" target="_blank">http://www.rahul.net/arromdee</a>

"How pleasant it would be if only we lived a hundred years ago when it was
easy to get servants."
"It would be horrible... We'd be the servants." -- Isaac Asimov<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: in the finest traditions of Asimov bowing to Pauling