fizzy,
A scientific paper with demonstrably bad math should be rejected.
I’m guessing here, but you’re not actually someone who is directly involved in academic research? If only it were as nice and simply as you suggest it should be.
Comment on Christopher Essex on suppressing scientific inquiry by ...and Then There's Physics
↧
↧
Comment on Christopher Essex on suppressing scientific inquiry by Willard
Ice, Koldie:
http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/tagged/antartica
A ClimateBall episode that may be related to Essex’ concerns.
***
Another chapter from Kuhn:
http://www.philosophy.org.vt.edu/files/8813/4455/4391/Kuhn.pdf
↧
Comment on Christopher Essex on suppressing scientific inquiry by mosomoso
What could be bigger or more tangled than climate? Yet we have been sending people into that unknown jungle with maps drawn up by green theologians and instructions to cull heretics and search for imaginary beasts.
Is freedom expensive, confusing and perilous? Always is. But, given freedom, someone eventually emerges from the jungle with a better map or smarter idea.
↧
Comment on Christopher Essex on suppressing scientific inquiry by kim
Willard, I’m struggling to find sure footing through the mists and the marshes. Your stuff makes mucky and sucking sounds off to the side.
=====================
↧
Comment on Christopher Essex on suppressing scientific inquiry by gbaikie (@gbaikie1)
–However, overall this essay just seems completely unbalanced and full of unverified assertions, such as
climate science remains frozen and deeply flawed with no way to grow up, despite avalanches of funding thrown at it. —
Well, it has the appearance of being frozen.
It’s my guess [and only a guess] is that it’s thawing.
But if consider the amount funding throw at, and if one believes that a large
amount funding should have results, then it’s quite frozen.
↧
↧
Comment on Christopher Essex on suppressing scientific inquiry by Fernando Leanme
54 of the 57 people who saw Merchants of Doubt rated it highly at Rotten Tomatoes.
↧
Comment on Christopher Essex on suppressing scientific inquiry by Aphan
Joshua said:
Sorry –
“I made a mistake there, by presuming to be able to assess “intent.”
Bad me.
I don’t have the information to judge his intent. Actually, I assume that his intent is to advance the convo – but that his biases lead him to wrongly think that will be the outcome of this dreck.”
Good job admitting that you presumed to be able to assess “intent”. But you should have stopped there. Instead you went on to demonstrate that you are just as prone to the same behavior you called others out for earlier:
“Many people on both sides, IMO, think an appeal to authority (or self-authority) is not fallacious when they do it, and fallacious when “others” do it – because they circle right back to their own appointed self-authority as a justification.”
Not only did you presume to be able to assess intent, you ALSO circled back to your own self authority (in this case, your lack OF self authority at all on what Christopher’s intent is) as if you are STILL justified in believing that “his biases lead him to wrongly think that will be the outcome of this dreck.”
If you’re incapable of presuming what his intentions are, I’m going to bet you are equally incapable of knowing what his biases are, or what his thoughts on the outcome of this essay are either.
↧
Comment on Christopher Essex on suppressing scientific inquiry by kim
Joshua’s a loudspeaker from the clowns on the left, Fan blares from the jokers on the right.
==============
↧
Comment on Christopher Essex on suppressing scientific inquiry by Willard
Start here:
On Revealing the Identity of Reviewers
http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/post/3263252036
Don’t worry, it’s NG’s stuff.
***
Do you know by any chance why NG’s categorized as a lukewarmer at Tony’s?
Many thanks!
↧
↧
Comment on Christopher Essex on suppressing scientific inquiry by Fernando Leanme
Dr George it’s Paris. The Western side pumps up papers about melting ice, the chinese lie about their coal consumption, and Pacific Islanders scream for help to save their Drowning Islands.
↧
Comment on Christopher Essex on suppressing scientific inquiry by nutso fasst
How do vicious badgers act toward scientists? By mercilessly badgering them?
↧
Comment on Christopher Essex on suppressing scientific inquiry by fizzymagic
fizzy: <i> A scientific paper with demonstrably bad math should be rejected. </i>
attp: <i>I’m guessing here, but you’re not actually someone who is directly involved in academic research? If only it were as nice and simply as you suggest it should be.</i>
Well, that's complicated right now. But I have lots of publications and I have done lots of refereeing and it's hard to believe things have changed that much in just a few years.
Of course there are bad papers out there that everyone in the field knows are bad and that are discreetly ignored so as not to offend the (sometimes famous) authors. I have first-hand knowledge of several examples, e.g. Greenberg's famous narrow electron peaks in heavy-ion collisions. That one was conclusively shown to be bad statistics, but I don't think it was ever retracted.
The point, however, is not that some bad papers make it through peer review and get published, and even generate some discussion. That happens in every field. What doesn't happen in every field is that a terrible paper gets published and more than a decade later people are still defending it <b>not because the science is good but because they like the conclusions.</b>
I'm sure examples of similar things could be shown in other fields, but none with such a high profile, for which the integrity of the science is so crucially important.
↧
Comment on Christopher Essex on suppressing scientific inquiry by kim
What’s for dinner, Honey, Badger?
=============
↧
↧
Comment on Christopher Essex on suppressing scientific inquiry by Fernando Leanme
We do need to run for more geoengineering research. And I sure wish they installed tethered buoy arrays around Antarctica. It’s a really neat engineering challenge.
↧
Comment on Christopher Essex on suppressing scientific inquiry by Willard
12 / 147, Koldie.
↧
Comment on Christopher Essex on suppressing scientific inquiry by kim
Obligatory Josef Conrad reference, The Heart of Climate.
===============
↧
Comment on Christopher Essex on suppressing scientific inquiry by kim
At Kobenhaven, the Chinese covered their chagrin at the failure of the shakedown of the developed countries by scolding The Obama for his neo-colonial maneuvers.
The actors are in place, memorizing lines, finally primping. The plot is still in the dramatist’s pen.
==============
↧
↧
Comment on Christopher Essex on suppressing scientific inquiry by samD
Tactically, the media running with the activists campaign to pin yellow stars on those not toeing the full Greenpeace catastrophe line (see where the stories are being sourced from) will backfire totally. Scientists are generally mild mannered people who like to see fair play. What scientists would want to be associated with this spewing of hatred and the enforced conformance to a single world view? I would expect the better scientists to start to distance themselves from the activists fervour which will in the long run help moderate and more nuanced views to be heard.
↧
Comment on Christopher Essex on suppressing scientific inquiry by kim
I have a marvelous editor. How about you?
===================
↧
Comment on Christopher Essex on suppressing scientific inquiry by kim
What’s the sich?
Tat the snitch.
Hang the stars,
Pin the bars.
==========
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
