
Philosophers should talk more about climate change. Yes, philosophers - burakemir
http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2020/02/philosophers-should-talk-more-about.html?m=1
======
burakemir
Sabine Hossenfelder discusses science and scientific method. She points out
that falsifiability is an inadequate criterion, Occam's razor and that climate
change deniers are quite unmoved by evidence since they are unable to tell
what science is.

There is something in here that is relevant to models, of any kind.

> The more and the better data you have, the higher the demands on your
> theory. Sometimes this means you actually need a new theory. Sometimes you
> have to adjust one or the other parameter. Sometimes you find an actual
> mistake and have to correct it. But more often than not it just means you
> neglected something that better measurements are sensitive to and you must
> add details to your theory. And this is perfectly fine as long as adding
> details results in a model that explains the data better than before, and
> does so not just because you now have more parameters. Again, there are
> statistical measures to quantify in which cases adding parameters actually
> makes a better fit to data.

