by Ferretlover » Thu 11 Dec 2008, 18:44:51
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', 'H')ow will people with little or no money spend it on developing a sustainable economy?
Exactly. TPTB seem to assume that all they have to do is a few bailouts and everything will be hunky-dory. They don't seem to understand that if people don't have any money to spend, it doesn't matter what They do to shore up failing businesses.
"Open the gates of hell!" ~Morgan Freeman's character in the movie, Olympus Has Fallen.
-
Ferretlover
- Elite
-
- Posts: 5852
- Joined: Wed 13 Jun 2007, 03:00:00
- Location: Hundreds of miles further inland
-
by newbonic » Thu 11 Dec 2008, 18:55:58
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('dorlomin', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jasonraymondson', 'I') was a 100% believer,
Here in lies a problem. The 'peak oil' theory is a scientific theory from the field of geology. No one should believe in a scientific theory, one should instead take some theories as producing better models of the physical world rather than others. .....
Just to be pedantic: In scientific terms I'd say Peak oil is an hypothesis...moving on to theory status as the evidence comes in.
Put simply: A hypothesis is an idea based on reasoning, from which predictions can be made.
It gets 'promoted' to theory status when it's backed by evidence e.g. when the predictions are bourne out by observation or experimentation.
When the theory becomes axiomatic then it becomes a law, e.g. the laws of thermodynamics, or Newton's Laws of Motion (yes I know the LoM are untrue near light speed etc., but they're good enough to keep planes in the air and predict the flight of a bullet or motion of a piston etc.).
The non-scientists' lack of differentiation between hypothesis & theory are a constant source of confusion (but helpful to creationists!). And it seems to be the case for Peak Oil 'Theory' - or should that be hypothesis.
You're right that peak oil shouldn't be treated as a religion though, it's in the realm of science, and its effects are in the realm of geopolitics, and economics.
by TheDude » Thu 11 Dec 2008, 19:15:27
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('newbonic', 'J')ust to be pedantic: In scientific terms I'd say Peak oil is an hypothesis...moving on to theory status as the evidence comes in.
Seems to work. You're free to conclude that for whatever basket of reasons it won't apply to the world in toto for decades of course.
It doesn't pay when discussing peak oil to get all wrapped up in the rainbow of pet causes people bring to the table, either; that is, if you want to examine the phenomenon in isolation. By extension, some have concluded the ramifications are so dire they direct all their energies towards preparation, and wonder about the mental status of those who continue to dawdle. Hi, Pops!
Cogito, ergo non satis bibivi
And let me tell you something: I dig your work.
-
TheDude
- Expert
-
- Posts: 4896
- Joined: Thu 06 Apr 2006, 03:00:00
- Location: 3 miles NW of Champoeg, Republic of Cascadia
-
by TonyPrep » Thu 11 Dec 2008, 19:52:37
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('newbonic', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('dorlomin', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jasonraymondson', 'I') was a 100% believer,
Here in lies a problem. The 'peak oil' theory is a scientific theory from the field of geology. No one should believe in a scientific theory, one should instead take some theories as producing better models of the physical world rather than others. ..
Just to be pedantic: In scientific terms I'd say Peak oil is an hypothesis, moving on to theory status as the evidence comes in.
Put simply: A hypothesis is an idea based on reasoning, from which predictions can be made.
It gets 'promoted' to theory status when it's backed by evidence e.g. when the predictions are bourne out by observation or experimentation.
A theory will have testable predictions. An hypothesis can be backed by evidence, but until it makes testable predictions, it can't be thought of as a theory.
However, which peak oil theory are you referring to?
That a finite resource will have some associated limit of extraction/production, I don't think is in dispute. Would you say this is a theory or an hypothesis, or something else?
What may be in dispute are the many and varied hypotheses of when peak will happen, at what level and with what effect.
by Serial_Worrier » Thu 11 Dec 2008, 20:10:37
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('newbonic', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('dorlomin', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jasonraymondson', 'I') was a 100% believer,
Here in lies a problem. The 'peak oil' theory is a scientific theory from the field of geology. No one should believe in a scientific theory, one should instead take some theories as producing better models of the physical world rather than others. .....
Just to be pedantic: In scientific terms I'd say Peak oil is an hypothesis...moving on to theory status as the evidence comes in.
Put simply: A hypothesis is an idea based on reasoning, from which predictions can be made.
It gets 'promoted' to theory status when it's backed by evidence e.g. when the predictions are bourne out by observation or experimentation.
A theory will have testable predictions. An hypothesis can be backed by evidence, but until it makes testable predictions, it can't be thought of as a theory.
However, which peak oil theory are you referring to?
That a finite resource will have some associated limit of extraction/production, I don't think is in dispute. Would you say this is a theory or an hypothesis, or something else?
What may be in dispute are the many and varied hypotheses of when peak will happen, at what level and with what effect.
by TheDude » Fri 12 Dec 2008, 05:13:52
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('sparky', ' ')Peak oil , as seen in several countries , is also a fact, Extrapolating this to the global oil production is a Theory.
This is special pleading - the world's oil production has never peaked, ergo it can't. People apply the same questionable logic to Saudi Arabia; the cloud hovering over the details of their production helps immensely. Again, you can protest that the world hasn't been explored sufficiently, or that unconventional oil can fill the gap, or that reserves are adequate for high output levels to be sustained for a long time; but a finite region will inevitably peak, given sufficient demand - and it is a relapse in demand that brought the price down, not some enormous bounty of extra oil.
Cogito, ergo non satis bibivi
And let me tell you something: I dig your work.
-
TheDude
- Expert
-
- Posts: 4896
- Joined: Thu 06 Apr 2006, 03:00:00
- Location: 3 miles NW of Champoeg, Republic of Cascadia
-
