To heck with explaining it. I’m waiting on instructions on how to achieve it.
Comment on Why scientists should talk to philosophers by Tom Fuller
↧
↧
Comment on ‘Scientist’: the evolving story of a word by Fernando Leanme
The hijacking of a research concept into a single misguided focus area is quite common in corporate research. My first experience with such tragedies was in the late 1970′s, when I reviewed work done based on a completely wrong foundation.
When I reviewed meeting notes and talked to my boss about it I found out a single memorandum by an individual who was peripheral to the R&D team had changed their basic strategy and led them into a blind alley which cost over $30 million USD. Maybe I should inquire if my confidentiality agreement binds me to keep that old project a secret, because it sure would make an excellent article on how we can drive over a cliff when we focus too narrowly early on.
↧
Comment on Why scientists should talk to philosophers by beththeserf
I will watch it. Wonder if he’s related to Alan Chalmers who
wrote, ‘What is this thing called science?’ I am perhaps clan -
related to them both – Beth Chalmers Cooper. :)
↧
Comment on Why scientists should talk to philosophers by David Springer
Crank Alert!
↧
Comment on Why scientists should talk to philosophers by David Springer
“and I won’t bother anyone here with my input further.”
Thank you!
↧
↧
Comment on Why scientists should talk to philosophers by David Springer
Crank Alert!
↧
Comment on Why scientists should talk to philosophers by Jonathan Abbott
Judith wrote:
“Most of climate science is in ‘shut up and calculate’ mode. This is a very dangerous place to be given the substantial uncertainties, ignorance and areas of disagreement, not to mention the problems/failures of climate models.”
I have to say that this is the most succinct and damning summary of the failure of ‘consensus’ climate science I have yet seen. Thanks, Judith!
On the philosophy side, I find the work of the classic and enlightenment philosophers very interesting. Pretty much all of the post-WWII stuff I’ve read seems to devolve into arguing over the semantics of language. I’d agree with those who think philosophy has got stuck in a pretty deep rut. I think scientists and rational thinkers need to be very aware of the basics of philosophy, but I can’t see modern philosophers bringing anything much of value to the problems science is currently trying to solve.
↧
Comment on Why scientists should talk to philosophers by Tom Fuller
I highly recommend Bertrand Russell as an antidote to obuscatory gabblers. One of the clearest writers ever.
↧
Comment on ‘Scientist’: the evolving story of a word by Agnostic
That was an exceptionally good comment.
↧
↧
Comment on Why scientists should talk to philosophers by Tom Fuller
And he could certainly spell obfuscatory.
↧
Comment on Why scientists should talk to philosophers by Alistair Riddoch
Ah but Peter, the information you do not know is that behind the scenes I have offered enough information to DR. Curry personally and specifically, that while not all nice and neat and quantified, should be sufficient to the cause of conveying the nature of my suggestion. With a direct verbal exchange with her co-worker Greg. I have tried to restrain my observations but it is difficult. I may have trouble in writing, conveying the completeness, the amount of corroborating evidence I am aware of. But the essence of what I cumulatively have (in all honestly spouted) here, has never been with ill intent, or intent to provoke personal argument. Direct communication to Dr. Curry result in nil. Spring presumes to speak for all, and neither Dr. Curry nor anyone other than youself spoke up. Despite my high regard for most here, if I am correct, as I believe I am in essence, I at that point had no obligation for this to be the breeding ground for “person 2″ who has the insights and awareness of data to match my thoughts to their observations. I need specific insight to elicit specific recognition in order for concepts to be properly conveyed. The audience helps create the story regardless of the story. Should my theory hold true and be a gift, I preferred it to be somewhere where at least person 2 might be the one person capable of understanding. If that is the situation. Where you asked, the response, and I propose perhaps a gift of undrestanding, couldn’t in good grace be potentially denied you. Nor with your regard could the potential to share that be held from silent tolerators of potentially unnecessary dismissiveness.
As with IQ, as with “willingness to stand out” whether agreed with or not, percentages exist, and you are top 1%, by virtue of first. Thank you.
If I am right, then thank you again for asking.
If it’s not clear enough, I beg forgiveness this last appeal to your good senses, versus the potential my senses are that far off base as to require apology. Should it bear out that way. In advance.
now back to politics and philosophy.
Sincerely, Mr Peter Davies,
With regard, and sincere appreciation,
Alistair Riddoch
For potentially being the 1% that spoke for others from the more civil and correct perspective, awareness and motive. The voice of good, if you will.
Hat’s off. ?;-)
↧
Comment on Why scientists should talk to philosophers by R. Gates
“As usual you’re talking out of your ass …”
—
Ouch.. Hate that when it happens.
↧
Comment on Why scientists should talk to philosophers by Alistair Riddoch
Peter Davies….Should it bear out that I played connect the dots best, whether by luck, special gift, or just fact of inevitability of existence -fate (which is also luck!). Either way. If I turn out to be THAT good of a troubleshooter, for yourspecial knowledge, I became aware thta mosquitoes kill 725,000 humans a year indirectly and I intend to make a dent in that number.
If ever there was an opponent worthy of regard, and actually capable of mass death, not just mass fear, and mass accidental oppression.
Because despite our own ability to scare ourselves into states of silliness (2012) without cause, when viewed en masse, without refute, our largest singular truist harbinger of death with the longest history of survival and destruction on the globe, that I am aware of, thta at least near us should be a more easily cheaper solvable problem is the menace that is a vampire in the disguise of a trillion or two hateful little quick replicating, blood sucking vermon!!! Mark those words, a better mosquito trap.
Cimate should be done enough now. The data is there. Time to stop putting the puzzle together once it’s complete unless for the wrongful ill purpose of obfuscation for discord and attentions sake.
If my thoughts havent been clear enough to paint the necessary picture I’ll work on that in silence. Solve other problems before coming back to Climate mechanics. Let the truth reveal it’s self or not, believing at least in this venue, I have given it the fair effort.
Hope you understand all. Expect you probably do.
Cheers,
A.
↧
↧
Comment on Why scientists should talk to philosophers by R. Gates
“I suggest you try reading the wikipedia article I linked which echoes every statement I made.,
–/
Yes, wiki is the ultimate authority of course.
↧
Comment on Exploring controversy: NIPCC versus IPCC by mosomoso
“…are there specific sub-fields in climate science?”
It would be nice if enthusiasts of the miasma-enveloped swamp called “climate science” would stop referring to areas of more solid knowledge as “sub-fields” of their swamp.
↧
Comment on Exploring controversy: NIPCC versus IPCC by Don Monfort
A small fee of $1500 could have gotten the NIPCC paper reviewed and published in one of those pay-for-play journals-of-last-resort. Process wise that’s checking the box. Ain’t it, Steven?
↧
Comment on Exploring controversy: NIPCC versus IPCC by Alexander Biggs
Thank you, David Hagen, for your table of contents of a relevant document. If I can bring up its contents, I’ll study it. It is refreshing that there is some paper on the models. What do you think of their work? Do they explain the reasons for their decisions? Are the models truly independent? If so, why have 20 when one good validated one would do?
↧
↧
Comment on Exploring controversy: NIPCC versus IPCC by popesclimatetheory
there seems to be no review by the NPCC of the 20 or so mathematical climate models supported by the IOCC. [Sic}
When Model Output does not match real data, there is no need for additional review. Flawed is flawed!
↧
Comment on Exploring controversy: NIPCC versus IPCC by popesclimatetheory
Do they have any chance of matching the qualifications and depth of those on the IPCC?
Have you read about who the lead writers of the IPCC junk are. No one would want to match the lack of qualifications and lack of depth there.
The people who contribute to the IPCC, who do have qualifications and depth are ignored. Many have left and told or wrote about the sad state of the IPCC.
↧
Comment on Exploring controversy: NIPCC versus IPCC by mosomoso
I’ll bet even Faustino is an Aussie today.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
