Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
Global Warming - It's Our Fault
- Thread starter Tituscrow
- Start date
I got it figured out....all you have to do if you run across something you don't like , is to label it as "psuedo-something I like", and that thereby validates all your opinions and simultaneously invalidates the opinions of anyone who doesn't think like you do.
OK...got it.
OK...got it.
The term might get mis-used in these kinds of arguments, but "pseudoscience" is a long-standing term with a particular meaning. Semantically, it shouldn't be another rhetorical buzzword, but a clear label for certain types of claims.
The term doesn't label scientists who blatantly lie about their data. It labels people who don't use the scientific method or its underlying principles, but then use deceptive language to suggest that their opinions are "scientific."
All those ads for testosterone boosters are pseudoscience. The desperate, sinking, untenured researcher who fudged the numbers a bit in hopes of landing that next grant before anyone could review his work is just a bad scientist.
Once you're set in a position, who do you have to impress? You've still got a reputation to maintain, but you're not going to disolve into nothing like most non-tenured faculty if you fail to make a breakthrough in a relatively short period of time.
I know your point is the prevailing narrative, but it doesn't make much logical sense to me. Before you break through, you're desperate because the failure clock is ticking, once you break through, you can calm down and do good work (calm considering the million dead lines, colleagues trying to sink you, and high department expectations). Stability doesn't reinforce bias, it reinforces prudence and patience IME.
Strawman.....When you have no consequences/no reason for doing better, the rest of the arguement doesn't matter....sorry.
Well you won't get published or the big research monies unless you've stood up to every conceivable scrutiny under the sun.
People just perform better when they have stability, I know that doesn't line up with most people's romantic notion of productivity, but it's true, sorry.
And on top of your argument being invalid because there are still consequences, your underlying premise isn't true: people don't just do things because of a stick or a carrot, they do good work because the act itself is enjoyable and we have a basic instinctual compulsion to do so. When someone has no consequences/reason for doing better, they'll continue to strive towards better things because that's our natural state of desire. Good, sound science is one of those things.
Except that the very first scientist who shows good data undermining everyone else would have just found a goldmine and incredible fame. When you're in the business of negating results, disproving all of your colleagues makes you a top dog. By its very nature that environment encourages consensus breakers.
Edit** I'll take the blame and stop my PP contest with you Will. Our argument is one of perception and opinion and there's no point in me being belligerent about it. I can understand your viewpoint but don't happen to buy into it. I shouldn't antagonize you about it as I have been doing. I wasn't even participating in the main discussion since it has been better covered by others, just making a semantic point to begin with.
Incredible fame where?
True, scientists like to name things after themselves but nobody outside of science community knows who they are...except for Einstein.
They may get their name painted on some formula, but for the most part, it won't matter to anyone. It'll just be some old guy they're supposed to read about just enough to pass a test so they can go do shots at the bar on a weeknight.
True, scientists like to name things after themselves but nobody outside of science community knows who they are...except for Einstein.
They may get their name painted on some formula, but for the most part, it won't matter to anyone. It'll just be some old guy they're supposed to read about just enough to pass a test so they can go do shots at the bar on a weeknight.
I would like to bring up a couple of questions regarding the IPCC report that I genuinely want the answer to and I hope someone on the forum can provide them for me.
One necessary characteristic of a successful scientific theory is its ability to produce results that can be independently repeated by other scientists. The question is: What other scientific studies have been conducted that repeat the work of the IPCC and reach the same conclusions?
Temporarily overlooking the fact that the U.N. IPCC is an entity that has policy making as its primary function, not the discovery of scientific truths for their own sake, we will assume that the organization also produces quality science as a supporting function and that the findings and conclusions contained in its reports are products of a standard comparable to other respected scientific organizations and entities. Though vast amounts of the material that makes up the reports are from peer reviewed studies, the main conclusions regarding climate sensitivity (ECS) and the resulting predictions about future climate change are not peer reviewed.
I repeat the question : What independent, peer reviewed studies have been done that duplicate the predictions made by the IPCC reports? Specifically, its conclusion that the ECS is likely around 3 C (+/- 1.5 C)
One necessary characteristic of a successful scientific theory is its ability to produce results that can be independently repeated by other scientists. The question is: What other scientific studies have been conducted that repeat the work of the IPCC and reach the same conclusions?
Temporarily overlooking the fact that the U.N. IPCC is an entity that has policy making as its primary function, not the discovery of scientific truths for their own sake, we will assume that the organization also produces quality science as a supporting function and that the findings and conclusions contained in its reports are products of a standard comparable to other respected scientific organizations and entities. Though vast amounts of the material that makes up the reports are from peer reviewed studies, the main conclusions regarding climate sensitivity (ECS) and the resulting predictions about future climate change are not peer reviewed.
I repeat the question : What independent, peer reviewed studies have been done that duplicate the predictions made by the IPCC reports? Specifically, its conclusion that the ECS is likely around 3 C (+/- 1.5 C)
This was directed at dullsilver mike but upon further review, it applies to hbrcat just as much, so apply to both please.
Thank You,
-Will
Rubbish. Oil companies are throwing big money at the other side of the scientific debate. They still can't find much.
The Koch Brothers funded the BEST (Berkley Earth Surface Temperature) study, hiring prominent skeptical scientists to conduct the study. It backfired on them when they found their results confirmed the existing studies. Richard Muller is now no longer sceptical.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_Earth_Surface_Temperature
http://berkeleyearth.org
That is certainly a danger, and it is known to happen. Yet, there is a widespread atmosphere of contrariness among scientists which often manifests itself as a desire to prove other scientists wrong, especially when the ideas in question are popular.
The bottom line is that for every researcher who has a bias toward confirming the ideological notions of their benefactors, there are several researchers working hard to show everyone exactly how wrong those notions are.
As far as fame goes, scientists accept the fact that even the most spectacular career will only make you well known to other scientists and 99% of the public will never hear of you much less remember or care.
I saw those. Still, I couldn't help myself.
Thanks to you and others who have made this thread not only informative but also entertaining. Contentious at times, but not disrespectful, especially considering the potential for vicious disagreement on the issue.
vin*tone, in particular, is posting some incredibly useful and well researched information.
I'm thoroughly enjoying this.
I saw those. Still, I couldn't help myself.
Thanks to you and others who have made this thread not only informative but also entertaining. Contentious at times, but not disrespectful, especially considering the potential for vicious disagreement on the issue.
vin*tone, in particular, is posting some incredibly useful and well researched information.
I'm thoroughly enjoying this.
He, and yourself, most certainly are. It's just too smart to make drunk people laugh and cute girls dance.
Well.... theres a collection of independent studies which give slightly different results. And there are many people out there trying to find fault with their methodology.
Invalid Link Removed
