SimonD

No, my arguments were and are not intended to be anti-science at all. Never have been. They've been about how science is more messy, complex and revisionary than has been put forward, but also that mainstream science represents a limited perspective on knowledge about the world that needs modern revision and enhancement. In latter parts its also that the body of knowledge of science, just like society, has a tendency toward herd mentality with both current and historical problems of accuracy and correctness (you can look this up to confirm that it isn't a conspiracy theory). This really is an unfortunate example of how it is now almost impossible to have a balance and nuanced rational debate about such an important topic. It has been reduced down to a couple of dualistic boxes. If someone comes along that doesn't completely agree with the box you associate with, then that person must be alien and belong in the other box. Just to reiterate, the point of my argument and others on this thread who've also been flamed and accused of denial (which is entirely untrue) is much more to with knowledge, or epistemology, which sadly seems to have gone over yours and others heads. The important part of this debate on knowledge is that there are other forms of knowledge that provide alternative guidance to action in the real world. Let me spell that out - it can tell us what to do about climate change in the real world, in possibly more effective ways than those approaches currently being proposed at a grand scale. Because, lets not forget, that while there is almost conclusive evidence that climate change has been brought about by human activity, there is almost no evidence whatsoever that the solutions proposed are going to have anywhere near the effect it is hoped. Nor is there any robust evidence that the proposals aren't going to cause more damage. There is actually growing modelling, evidence and opinion to the contrary. If you take the time to read some sensible scientific texts and studies about this very topic rather than interpretions in more popular media - one of them I may have linked to already by Tom Murphy, Energy and Human Ambitions on a Finite Planet - you might find that there is significant amount of scientific thought put into the problem but in ways that question the sanity and scientific basis of current proposed fixes. One of these goes straight back to the very start of the thread and heat pumps. Heat pumps are part of the solution but they are also a dangereous distraction as they take our eyes of much more important balls. I'll sign off with a quote from the beginning of Tom Murphy's book (he's actually a 'proper' scientist too and professor of physics in case anyone wondered so there,'s no confusion) and then if you want to explore more and reflect on it, that's great; if not and you want to call me an inferior infant in the shadow of you, a proper grown up, then so be it : " " Laters ?

My sister used to live in Dumfries & Galloway not far from Castle Douglas, my brother in law eventually got to counting the days with no rain. One year he said he could count it on his two hands (possibly a slight exageration there but I got his point) ?

I think it is even worse as the scientific method and science as described by @SteamyTea is a simplistic and categorical one that doesn't include the complexities and uncertainty of exploring and developing new knowledge and understanding about our world, let alone communicating it. Unfortunately, despite his assertions otherwise, science is a best guess based on current knowledge and understanding, not a truth and certainly not cast in stone (if it were it would amount to religion). To quote an article from the Guardian about the science involved in the Hadron Collider a few years ago: "Welcome to science in the real world: it is messy, inconclusive and subject to revision. As Lord May, former chief scientific adviser to the government once said, science is best represented as "organised scepticism" - and science's results and conclusions have to be included in that scepticism. Science is not the arbiter of truth. All it can do is offer opinions about the answers to certain questions that we ask of nature. And it reserves the right to revise those opinions in the light of future discoveries." So for me this is a reminder to remain sceptical, even in light of the current consensus around anthropogenic climate change, and particularly in light of the suggested means to deal with it. I seem to be one of the few that seriously question current mainstream suggested approaches, thinking that the simplistic focus on carbon emissions is misguided. In my view we need to massively reduce energy and resource use, and regenerate the natural environment. Current focus doesn't actually do this, and in many cases might cause more harm to the environment. Unfortunately what seems to be happening in this thread in particular, but also more generally in the climate debate, is that healthy and necessary scepticism is being misinterpreted and mislabelled as "denial." A term entirely of political and social origin. You're dead right it doesn't embrace, or even permit for that matter, any validity of alternative forms of knowledge, which may actually be more valuable to us in enhancing science. For example, in parallel to your comment about ancient Greek philosophers, I listened to a fascinating programme on Radio 4 this afternoon. I missed the beginning but basically some real, yes real, scientists had read some ancient medical remedy recipes from the Dark Ages and found one that is extremely effective at killing MRSA and other bacteria. It's now being tested for approval and use. They explained that during the Enlightenment, this knowledge had been dismissed as irrelevant, partly down to politics and economics. They said that we now really need to revisit this knowledge and seriously reassess our current view of it. The same thing is happening in various areas of scientific study into the environment, biology and ecology where they're finding ancient knowledge to be far more developed and effective in guiding real world action than knowledge derived from modern science. Obviously there needs to be an amalgamation of all these forms of knowledge, but it does mean that your prototypical western scientist does need to open his/her mind to this.

There are multiple problems with this statement which yields it to be highly dubious and almost as bad as the misinformation it's trying to dispel. It doesn't actually reflect the herding mentality that still exists within science. From a study from 2014 from London School of Economics blog to illustrate: " there are concerns that many published research findings may be incorrect. The true extent of this problem is difficult to know with certainty, but pressure on academics to publish (the “publish or perish” culture) may incentivise the publication of novel, eye-catching findings. However, the very nature of these findings (in other words, that they are surprising or unexpected) means that they are more likely to be incorrect – extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Peer review has been criticised because it sometimes fails by allowing such claims to be published, often when it is clear to many scientists that the claims are extremely unlikely to be true. Is peer review as unsuccessful as is sometimes claimed? And how might it be improved? We explored this question recently in a mathematical model of reviewer and author behaviour... When a paper is published, the manuscript begins to partially influence the conclusions that later scientists reach. As a result, the amount of new information transmitted decreases. In other words, authors begin to “herd” on a specific topic...." If you've ever lived in that world, which is highly political and egostistical in many spheres, your papers can make or break your career and thus herding of mentality is many times a function of not just surviving but getting ahead - you've got to build on existing knowledge whether or not it's correct. Therefore the differentiation suggested by the above statement is pretty questionable as is the one about funding as all areas of research can be funded for a variety of reasons by parties who have a financial, or political interest in the outcome.

So why don't you answer the question? It's actually a genuine question because your statement was so general and vague, I really don't know who or what you're talking about. I have to say I'm also genuinely bemused by someone calling themselves a scientist saying that there's no need to look for anything else - the whole point about science is to continually revisit your findings and/or assumptions, it is not?

Okay, so what you said about there being enough ignorance so you don't need to look for anything else was stupid and not based on any evidence?

You've lost me here. Who's ignorant of what exactly?

So just to build on this comment of mine a little further. I've just started reading a new book by Tom Murphy, Energy and Human Ambitions on a Finite Planet Assessing and Adapting to Planetary Limits and what do I find, but a better illustration of what I said re knowing about the component parts: "Problems in this book are formulated to emphasize understanding the underlying concepts, rather than execution of a mathematical recipe. When students say they have math difficulties, it is usually not a problem carrying out the operations (+,−,×,÷), but in formulating an approach. Therefore, the main difficulty is a conceptual one, but blamed on math because casting a problem in a mathematical framework forces a mastery of the conceptual underpinning: nowhere to hide. Given two numbers,should one divide or multiply them to get the answer sought? Resolving such questions requires a deeper understanding of the meaning behind the numbers in the problem (and associated units, often). By focusing on what the numbers represent and how they relate to each other, problems aim to build a more meaningful and permanent understanding of the content."

Ah okay, so it's a left liberal conspiracy to make science more messy and complicated than it is and we obviously don't need education above GCSE level for scientific enquiry. Got it.

Indeed it does, but seems to me to presume that science isn't messy, full of complexity, and shrouded in various scales of grey, particularly at the forefront of knowledge. I do think there's a limit to how accessible you can make some parts of science without dumbing it down to descriptions like a fridge in reverse that make the general public more comfortable in their understanding but make a scientist shudder... Yup, a vast number of people really don't want to look at an equation as it usually means they also need to know what the components parts are of that equation - pandora's box.

I suspect it's more a thing that isn't done here in the UK, mostly because the understanding and practise isn't very well developed here. It's perfectly fine to install xps or eps externally to the bricks below dpc. The example I attached isn't my design, it's just an image I sourced from a quick search. With mine, I have some parts where I go below ground, but others where I can't because the existing shallow foundations don't allow it. Instead I have eps that goes down to just above the existing foundations but there is a small amount of gravel between bottom of eps and the existing shallow foundations to allow drainage. You can get brick slips to go on the plinth, or you simply render, or even use slate as others have done here on Buildhub.

I would also be adding plinth insulation below the EWI as you can extend that below ground to below your floor insulation. Here's a detail example but for passivhaus (i.e. using insulating blockwork below dpc).

What you really need to do first is understand the nature of the noise you're dealing with and then the sound pressure levels. You can download some basic audio spectrum analysis apps for your smartphone - start there and that will better guide what you need to do. Noise will not just be the sound coming in but also the nature/shape of the room and how it responds to those frequencies.

SAP is a total mess on this one. I found a document somewhere from the government on the methodology, which also relates to grants and RHI whereby it said they're excluded because they provide cooling. Apparently the system needs to be heat only. However, there seems to be a bit of oversight in that A2W can also provide cooling, but its main purpose is heating ?. Would be interesting to find out if any of the manufacturers are prepared at any point to try and get their systems added to the database and if there are any specific models on there.

I've always used that equation for motorbikes and mountain bikes. Now I'm glad to know there's a formal designation I already know for my tool collection too! Japanese saw instead perhaps? I think that with a lot of these problems it's actually down to not knowing how to use the tools, or the task at hand. It's a bit like someone who doesn't know how to ride jumping on a bicycle and blaming the bicycle when they fall off. The solution for me would be a number of demonstration videos and drop-in demonstrations to show how to use them, even for those tools we think are so simple they don't require any training. Years ago when I started building motorcycle engines I was always surprised by how much my ability to use basic tools improved over time. So there is much skill in using an adjustable spanner well.

Definitely worth a look for space heating. You will usually get a much better COP than A2W (up to 4.6) and the latest life cycle assessment I read said A2A gave a 34% reduction in carbon emmissions over A2W. The only limitation can be the max number of indoor units for a multi-split system. You'd also get handy cooling as they're usually sold as air-conditioners with heating capability.

+ 1 to that. Timber prices naturally fluctuate at any time and to predict what it's going to do as a layman is nigh on impossible. I reckon it's still going to take a good couple of years for the timber market to settle down as some of the supply difficulties are down to lower yields from forests due to poor winter conditions, adding to the whole mix. The other side to it is that supply of timber products has gradually fallen behind demand over the last decade or so, so any investment in additional production capacity will take some time. I suspect the only thing that will dramatically affect prices short-term is if there's a sudden crash in demand, possibly from China due to its precarious property market right now. The problem is that as an individual, it's impossible to beat the market, so just buy when you can afford it. I'd also recommend just going for the whole lot. There's nothing worse than having a job partially completed on your mind and then having to re-engage in getting it finished later on down the road (or having the stress of having parts of the house exposed) - I've been there and I'm also partially in that situation due to supply problems over the last couple of years.

How I wish more people saw it in that way. Couldn't be more true. It's also healthier and provides a much more pleasurable and comfortable environment to be in, providing it's done right of course. I personally think that due to their mostly passive nature, thermal upgrades are cheap for what you get.

+1 to induction hobs. I used to be wedded to gas thinking it was the only way to cook properly. Having used induction for the last 3 years, I wouldn't go back to gas again.

I'm just prepping a bathroom for a microcement walk-in shower. I've decided to take a bit of a punt with it to see what it's like and how it works over the long term. I've looked at shower panels and decided against them, and I'm not tiling the place either. I'm doing the whole install myself so will be fully responsible for prep and finish - this also means I'm better able to select the full build-up spec and resins that I use for the waterproof finish. Having done a search I was unable to find anything specific on BH already, so thought I'd ask if anyone has personal experience of using microcement in a shower and how has it faired for them?

I've installed the woodfibre boards using woodscrews, but nowadays the woodfibre manufacturers are recommending Ejotherm STR H screw-in anchors as they do reduce cold bridging. A few of the eco and passivhaus merchants sell them. HTH

That isn't what I said though, was it? I said: I don't think that you have to have what you call 'proper' scientific training to be a scientist, just that you use a systematic process to gain knowledge and understanding. That specific process - i.e. inquiry method and methodology - will be defined by domain and context and its suitability to the question at hand.

Yeah, totally! Now I'm going to go and hide....

My next BC inspection is pre-plaster and while I'm aware that stud walls etc. should still be open, I'm just wondering whether, if I half complete internal partition walls, leaving one side open, my BCO is likely to get annoyed. The reason I want to do this is because we've always been using part of the existing house as toilet, kitchen, and utility during the build. I now need to move these to their new location so I can get on with working on and fitting out this part of the house and to do so, I need partial walls, like round the new toilet/shower and for a basic working kitchen. I've also set up one room as a basic gaming and tv room for the kids as due to the various delays during COVID and cabin fever being in the caravan for to long. Anyone reckon I'll get blowback from BC for doing this?

You've done it again, I did say about Quantum Physics: What's interesting here is that you don't actually say what a real scientist or science is. And it just goes to show how we're in completely different paradigms in our perspective. In my mind it's also emblematic of a certain snobbery and elitism that persists in certain quarters of the scientific community. Science is merely about having a curiousity for the world, and using that to gain knowledge and understanding about phenomena in the world using a systematic process. Anyone can be a scientist, from a primary school child, to a retiree gardener. I'd even go as far at to say that master craftsmen are scientists in that they explore the materials they work with to understand them more fully, gaining more knowledge about them and passing that knowledge on to others - that's just applied science, but it may not be published in a highbrow journal. Science is merely about knowledge. People are an interconnected part of the natural world and so the study of people, individually and collectively, is a scientific process. How you can exclude this from science as whole is rather unfathomable to me, as is the exclusion of mathematics, particularly because mathematics is fundamentally about patterns, not necessariy just numbers, and patterns are integral to knowledge and understanding about our world. I'd suggest it's also pretty methodised ? This points back to my earlier comment, that a lot of scientists don't realise or understand that science grew out of philosophy, which is rather selective. Science is philosophical and the way science is pursued is driven by that philosophy - i.e. the predominant scientific world view - which includes reductionism and mechanism. This philosophy, unwares to most people is also driving the approach to climate change in that the remedies are seen to be technical, material and mechanical. I agree with you that the problems really start to show, because when you understand the underlying philosophy upon which mainstream science is based, you not only understand better its strengths, but its limitations and problems. You then also understand the bias that is contained within all mainstream science since its inception and that its 'truth' is only truth from this perspective and world view. This is uncomfortable for some in the scientific community so the inevitable response becomes one of ? rather than constructive revision. ?