|
Post by socold on Jul 2, 2010 23:04:54 GMT
Once upon a time the standard theory was that light must propagate as a wave, like sound, but through the "aether". The Michelson-Morley Experiment upset that "knowledge". From the rubble arose Special Relativity and a paper that extended the concept of light to light particles (quanta). Repeating myself: "just because you can point to isolated examples of scientific ideas being overturned many years after becoming established as consensus doesn't mean they aren't the best bet. The worst bet is to believe newly published papers (and WUWT blog posts), because they have a worse track record for refutation than arrived consensus ideas." We could suitably rename the title of this thread "Don't believe anyone" Afterall is anyone seriously suggesting "don't believe experts - believe non-experts instead"? I hope not. A lot of my knowledge of science doesn't come from me having spent decades researching them and being an expert on the subject. It's come from me reading what the consensus view is. I don't know the details of how they calculated the age of the Earth, neither have I audited that work to make sure it is correct. Yet I've read that it's been pinned down to about 4.5 billion years. I accept that. It's consensus. If someone goes "ah it might be only 1 billion years old" I tend to distrust that and stick with what the majority of experts have concluded. Dealing a 10 of Clubs from the top of a shuffled pack of cards is far less likely than dealing a diamond. Yet if I deal a 10 of Clubs by your logic that means the above statement is false. But there are several alternative explanations: - The 1 in 52 probability of turning up a 10-of-Clubs from a well-shuffled honest deck occurred.
- The deck consisted of 52 10-of-Clubs.
- The deck was stacked.
Enter ClimateGate stage left.[/quote] So you are saying that we shouldn't believe experts because we should assume they are liars. Okay there goes my visits to the hospital. How can I trust the doctors? Maybe the scientologists are right about psychologists too. And the young earth creationists. They might have a point. Back to the dark ages. Burn the books.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jul 2, 2010 23:17:20 GMT
the credibility of scientific research is not ultimately determined by how many researchers agree with it or how often it is cited by like-minded colleagues, but whether or not it conforms to reality He misses the point. How many experts agree with it is a sign of it's credibility.
|
|
|
Post by Pooh on Jul 3, 2010 6:11:53 GMT
I begin to suspect that SoCold has not perused the ClimateGate e-mails. Nor the Wegman report: Wegman, Edward J., David W. Scott, and Yasmin H. Said. Ad Hoc Committee Report On The ‘Hockey Stick’ Global Climate Reconstruction, July 11, 2006. republicans.energycommerce.house.gov/108/home/07142006_Wegman_Report.pdfIt is important to note the isolation of the paleoclimate community; even though they rely heavily on statistical methods they do not seem to be interacting with the statistical community. Additionally, we judge that the sharing of research materials, data and results was haphazardly and grudgingly done. In this case we judge that there was too much reliance on peer review, which was not necessarily independent. Moreover, the work has been sufficiently politicized that this community can hardly reassess their public positions without losing credibility. Overall, our committee believes that Mann’s assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade of the millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year of the millennium cannot be supported by his analysis. I.e., not "unprecedented". Section 5. Social Network Analysis Of Authorships In Temperature Reconstructions (page 38 et. seq.) has some interesting analyses bearing on how " consensus" is achieved. Of special interest is the diagram "Figure 5.3: The classic social network view of the Mann co-authors. Each block or subcluster is represented along an arc. (page 41).
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jul 3, 2010 13:33:17 GMT
the credibility of scientific research is not ultimately determined by how many researchers agree with it or how often it is cited by like-minded colleagues, but whether or not it conforms to reality He misses the point. How many experts agree with it is a sign of it's credibility. It may be a "sign" of credibility but it is not "evidence" of credibility. On that you are the one totally missing the point. The job of science is to bring evidence to the table, not opinions. It is the job of policy makers to make decisions based upon the weight of the evidence and not based upon the credibility of the person or persons bringing the evidence to the table. If you doubt that then think for a second (a challenge for some) of a society where you are convicted of crimes not based upon evidence but instead based upon the opinion of experts where there is no requirement for evidence. This is fundamental area where many policy makers and nations fall into a trap of basing decisions on the politics of a small special interest group as opposed to making decisions based upon science and evidence. We see the US EPA making decisions based upon such principles and it is observed in their responses where they pick a single study as a response on a topic of the oceans warming (a freaking frog study no less) and ignore the majority of the studies and they ignore the evidence within the studies themselves (the frog study provides no evidence as they fail to disclose their selection criteria or even a rationale). Policy makers that do that have no business running a regulatory agency. Either they are too stupid or they are too evil (take your pick) As for what a "sign" of credibility means, that would be something that would indicate the need of a public discourse on the quality of evidence. It would be the phase in a crime where the police and prosecutor decide to level a charge but no more than that it is and should be of zero help and consequence in a member of the jury/public to base their opinion on. That is why juries are instructed to base their decision instead upon the weight of the evidence.
|
|
|
Post by throttleup on Jul 3, 2010 16:27:49 GMT
“The great tragedy of Science - the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact." Thomas Henry Huxley (1825-95)
|
|
|
Post by scpg02 on Jul 3, 2010 17:18:32 GMT
“The great tragedy of Science - the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact." Thomas Henry Huxley (1825-95) LOL I think you have those dates wrong. Either that or that dude lived for a heck of a long time.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jul 3, 2010 22:21:27 GMT
He misses the point. How many experts agree with it is a sign of it's credibility. It may be a "sign" of credibility but it is not "evidence" of credibility. On that you are the one totally missing the point. It's the same thing. It is indeed evidence of credibility. When most doctors tell me that anthipocian nidroxate is harmful, I bow to their expertize and refuse to drink any of the stuff. When most experts believe there is an elementary particle that should exist but hasn't been observed yet, I find the idea more credible than if a single scientist was claiming it. Why do policymakers listen to scientists then and not say plumbers on matters of science? Credibility does play a big role because policymakers (and any other non-experts) cannot assess the evidence as experts can. They require a summary provided by experts. If they could assess the evidence they would be experts themselves. And there is no way in the world a policymaker can become an expert on every topic they are involved with. Fingerprint evidence, experts claim that there's something like 1 in a million or something chance of having the same fingerprints as someone else. I haven't checked that, neither probably have any judges or juries. Yet we are happy to convict people based on fingerprint evidence because the experts tell us its a sound enough method to identify someone. Same thing with DNA evidence and plenty of other stuff. Why do they call experts into the stand during trials? All the major scientific organizations in the world accept AGW. It's not some small special interest group, it's a consensus of expert scientists worldwide.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jul 3, 2010 23:49:20 GMT
Fingerprint evidence, experts claim that there's something like 1 in a million or something chance of having the same fingerprints as someone else. I haven't checked that, neither probably have any judges or juries. Yet we are happy to convict people based on fingerprint evidence because the experts tell us its a sound enough method to identify someone. Same thing with DNA evidence and plenty of other stuff. Why do they call experts into the stand during trials? Obviously you did not read what I wrote. I said it is the role of a scientist to bring forth the evidence. Likewise I have no idea of where your contempt of plumbers come from, they really are the best choice for plumbing advice. A scientists fits well in the role of witness. But I have to ask you if you are OK with people being convicted with zero evidence but whether you are guilty by a plurality of a vote of 6 scientists taken with each vote weighted by the number of publications they have? Scientists are generally poor policy makers. They are poor policy makers because they tend to live very different lives than most. That does not mean they should be ignored it means they should do what they do best which is bring evidence. But the evidence should be weighted based upon its weight not the weight of the scientists behind it. One hurdle auditors have to overcome is to understand the most complex of concepts is understandable if sufficient evidence is obtained. William Happer is the Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics at Princeton University understands that concept. And if perchance there is anything right about AGW the reason that the public is not accepting it is because of a generally sloppy approach to science that the journals and universities have condoned. Auditors are ultimately responsible for their opinions as a result they very carefully document their work. The Dog Ate my Raw Data just simply is an unacceptable excuse for an auditor. Journals more concerned with selling subscriptions than the quality of the science they publish haven't done much to fix that. It also seems the science community in general (probably because everybody does it) hasn't exactly been helpful either. Funny you should mention fingerprints. Fingerprints are once again going through a lot of attacks by defendants. The high profile case of the FBI misidentifying the Madrid bomber after saying they had a 100% match was a major embarrassment. Fingerprints may be highly reliable but they are only as reliable as the people doing the interpretation. In fact since 1977 fingerprint experts are subject to license and certification to help ensure diligence. They can be drummed out of the profession for not diligently following standards. But recent tests given to the scientists who were interpreting fingerprint evidence they found a 22 percent error rate. This is why when you have a trial that is going to rely on fingerprint evidence you bring the fingerprint expert they put the two fingerprints up on a big magnified screen and the fingerprint expert explains how the partial print matches the booking print of the defendant and then the jury decides, by looking at the fingerprints and not so much from listening to the finger print expert. That process is happening today as the public rejects global warming. Its the right process even though I can't say for certainty if its the sloppiness in the way that academia pursues its work, the lack of integrity of the people interpreting the evidence, or the fact that no evidence has been provided is influencing people more. I tend to think it is the latter. But you don't fix that by simply transferring your responsibilities to somebody else. If you don't see what I am talking about then you are just naive. A piece from Wikipedia on fingerprinting: Despite the absence of objective standards, scientific validation, and adequate statistical studies, a natural question to ask is how well fingerprint examiners actually perform. Proficiency tests do not validate a procedure per se, but they can provide some insight into error rates. In 1995, the Collaborative Testing Service (CTS) administered a proficiency test that, for the first time, was “designed, assembled, and reviewed” by the International Association for Identification (IAI).The results were disappointing. Four suspect cards with prints of all ten fingers were provided together with seven latents. Of 156 people taking the test, only 68 (44%) correctly classified all seven latents. Overall, the tests contained a total of 48 incorrect identifications. David Grieve, the editor of the Journal of Forensic Identification, describes the reaction of the forensic community to the results of the CTS test as ranging from “shock to disbelief,” and added:
"Errors of this magnitude within a discipline singularly admired and respected for its touted absolute certainty as an identification process have produced chilling and mind- numbing realities. Thirty-four participants, an incredible 22% of those involved, substituted presumed but false certainty for truth. By any measure, this represents a profile of practice that is unacceptable and thus demands positive action by the entire community."
What is striking about these comments is that they do not come from a critic of the fingerprint community, but from the editor of one of its premier publications.
|
|
jtom
Level 3 Rank
Posts: 248
|
Post by jtom on Jul 4, 2010 0:01:53 GMT
Posted by scpg02 on Today at 12:18pm
Today at 11:27am, throttleup wrote:“The great tragedy of Science - the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact." Thomas Henry Huxley (1825-95)
LOL I think you have those dates wrong. Either that or that dude lived for a heck of a long time ................................................
scpg02 - ? 70 years? Thomas Henry Huxley PC FRS (4 May 1825 – 29 June 1895)
Reading comprehension - don't log on without it.
|
|
|
Post by throttleup on Jul 4, 2010 1:06:40 GMT
Posted by scpg02 on Today at 12:18pm Today at 11:27am, throttleup wrote:“The great tragedy of Science - the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact." Thomas Henry Huxley (1825-95) LOL I think you have those dates wrong. Either that or that dude lived for a heck of a long time ................................................ scpg02 - ? 70 years? Thomas Henry Huxley PC FRS (4 May 1825 – 29 June 1895) Reading comprehension - don't log on without it. Next time, scpg02, (I know you have a real name -- I keep forgetting it, sorry!) I'll use the 4-digits in the year to remove any confusion! I was being lazy!
|
|
|
Post by scpg02 on Jul 4, 2010 1:36:32 GMT
Posted by scpg02 on Today at 12:18pm Today at 11:27am, throttleup wrote:“The great tragedy of Science - the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact." Thomas Henry Huxley (1825-95) LOL I think you have those dates wrong. Either that or that dude lived for a heck of a long time ................................................ scpg02 - ? 70 years? Thomas Henry Huxley PC FRS (4 May 1825 – 29 June 1895) Reading comprehension - don't log on without it. Yeah I think you are right. Never log on without it. I, for some weird reason, read that 1995. You have to admit that makes a difference. I bought some blond hair dye. I'll blame it on that.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jul 4, 2010 1:37:24 GMT
Posted by scpg02 on Today at 12:18pm Today at 11:27am, throttleup wrote:“The great tragedy of Science - the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact." Thomas Henry Huxley (1825-95) LOL I think you have those dates wrong. Either that or that dude lived for a heck of a long time ................................................ scpg02 - ? 70 years? Thomas Henry Huxley PC FRS (4 May 1825 – 29 June 1895) Reading comprehension - don't log on without it. Yeah I think you are right. Never log on without it. I, for some weird reason, read that 1995. You have to admit that makes a difference. I bought some blond hair dye. I'll blame it on that. Did you apply it as well?
|
|
|
Post by scpg02 on Jul 4, 2010 1:38:40 GMT
Posted by scpg02 on Today at 12:18pm Today at 11:27am, throttleup wrote:“The great tragedy of Science - the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact." Thomas Henry Huxley (1825-95) LOL I think you have those dates wrong. Either that or that dude lived for a heck of a long time ................................................ scpg02 - ? 70 years? Thomas Henry Huxley PC FRS (4 May 1825 – 29 June 1895) Reading comprehension - don't log on without it. Next time, scpg02, (I know you have a real name -- I keep forgetting it, sorry!) I'll use the 4-digits in the year to remove any confusion! I was being lazy! Oh it wasn't you. Read my reply above this one. I'm going to blame it on the blond hair dye. LOL I'll have to watch that. As for my real name, it's Maggie. No big deal if you don't remember. I am really bad with names.
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Jul 4, 2010 7:45:48 GMT
[Snip] As for my real name, it's Maggie. No big deal if you don't remember. I am really bad with names. Maggie, is that you? Was it you who said, "The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money." I thought you had retired. Good to see you back!
|
|
|
Post by scpg02 on Jul 4, 2010 7:53:33 GMT
[Snip] As for my real name, it's Maggie. No big deal if you don't remember. I am really bad with names. Maggie, is that you? Was it you who said, "The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money." I thought you had retired. Good to see you back! LOL smart ass. You know she was one of the first to push AGW.
|
|