The author seems to be confused. Scientists do try to validate their models (even the sniper author, via correlation). They do understand that their model must predict the future ... however, in some fields (like preventing sniper attacks, psychology) there are many external variables, so it is difficult (if not impossible) to prove that the model is exactly correct. However, that does not mean that the results are not on target or that we cannot learn anything from the study ...
If anything else, no one will take a scientist's model seriously unless they use it to predict future events accurately -- this is a fundamental requirement of a model, after all.
"If anything else, no one will take a scientist's model seriously unless they use it to predict future events accurately -- this is a fundamental requirement of a model, after all."
Except when it comes to many many people trying very hard to spend trillions of dollars to fight something that is only predicted in models (failed models) - global warming.
Here is a link to Freeman Dysons discussing this subject:
When politics get involved it gets ugly. Special interest groups always try to confuse the public over results which would have otherwise been accepted by the scientific community. This causes the public to form opinions on things which are not based in science but in emotion. For example, global warming, evolution, ex-gay therapies, etc.
Global warming is definitely scientific fact, but the issue here is moreso how much money do we need to spend to mitigate the (still somewhat unknown) risk.
> Global warming is definitely scientific fact, but the issue here is moreso how much money do we need to spend to mitigate the (still somewhat unknown) risk.
I think there's something to the indicators that global temperatures have been rising, of course, but the "science" involved has been so damned sloppy that we can't even get credible estimates of past trends, let alone credible predictions of future trends. There's a lot more at issue than "how much money do we need to spend". Hell, there's even significant doubt about the question of whether what is currently occurring is inconsistent with natural cyclic trends, and many temperature sampling sites have been found to be compromised by virtue of placement in the middle of parking lots and the like.
Get me some figures that don't look like they were compiled by twelve year olds, then we'll talk.
If anything else, no one will take a scientist's model seriously unless they use it to predict future events accurately -- this is a fundamental requirement of a model, after all.