I wonder why the term "greenhouse effect" isn't used today. Or global warming.

matters of science — Changeling

is a slippery slope. Many physicists and philosophers deny that psychology is a science by either physicists' or philosophers' standard, or for that matter by the standards of research psychologists themselves. But they're all wrong. Science is what science does.

@magritte I was joking, actually. Of course metaphysicians can discuss what they want. Just as long as they don't get too carried away. Pesky metaphysicians...

I wonder why the term "greenhouse effect" isn't used today — ssu

We wouldn't be alive without the greenhouse effect. We just don't want to screw it up.

And I disagree with you. Weather forecasting has become hugely more accurate since the advent of computer modelling, but it hasn't become more scientific, just better informed and capable of faster calculation. — unenlightened

Weather forecasting has become more scientific. The computers use observational data in producing
their models. It is the increase in available observational data, and the computer's increased capacity to process observational data which has made weather forecasting more accurate. A prediction made with an absence of observational data is completely unscientific, relying on something other than science. And observational data is essential to science. So an increase in observational data in the forecast, which is what computer modeling gives us. means a more scientific forecast.

The estimation of error is an important aspect of experimental science. — unenlightened

This I think is a feature lacking from common weather forecasts, which would improve the forecast, the estimation of error. Under some weather conditions, the forecast for tomorrow, or even the next day, is made with a high degree of certainty. Under other conditions the forecast is made with a lower degree of certainty. So the forecasters could include in the forecast a declaration of confidence. They could give the forecast for tomorrow for example, and qualify it with 'ninety per cent confidence', or maybe only 'seventy per cent confidence', or something like that. Then the further into the long range that the forecast extended, the lower the degree of confidence would be. It would be another tool in the forecaster's kit, giving interpretational guidance to the audience.

I might be the only one, but I don't think a mere metaphysician should be getting involved in matters of science. Metaphysician Undercover — Changeling

That may be true, but as I've explained already, this thread is not concerned with a matter of science, it is concerned with a matter of speculation, and that is where a metaphysician is right at home.

We wouldn't be alive without the greenhouse effect. We just don't want to screw it up. — Tate

Ah, of course. Well, there's a lot to do if we want to make the place like the surface of Venus. :wink:

I was joking, actually. Of course metaphysicians can discuss what they want. Just as long as they don't get too carried away. Pesky metaphysicians... — Changeling

:up: I always like it when metaphysicians put things in the perspective of science because they could get outside of it and critique. Scientists must think within the context of scientific situation, otherwise, they lose their credibility. I only started appreciating science when I got into philosophy.