The Origins of "Consensus" Science?

[downwardspiral 0]

  Quote

Does it make sense that turning a bicycle's handlebars to the left makes a bike turn right? Not really; common sense tells you that you turn the wheel left to go left.

If one thinks about it, it does.

www.FourWheelerHB.com

[StreetScooby 5]

First time I've ever read this author. While he did skit around a bit, I enjoyed reading it. Thanks for posting.

We are all engines of karma

[billvon 3,088]

>If one thinks about it, it does.

Right, but there's that "thinking" thing, combined with a bit of experience on how a bike works. If you've never ridden a bike it would make absolutely no sense - even to someone with common sense.

[downwardspiral 0]

well shit you got me there....that whole thinking thing is rare these days.

www.FourWheelerHB.com

[rushmc 23]

  Quote

> There are researchers out there today saying that man made CFC's
>effects were overblown by as much as 90%> True? I dont know. But the
>fact that some scientists are willing to stick their necks out idicates doubt.

That is true of most topics out there.

9/11? Some scientists, structural engineers and architects think that it was a controlled demolition perpetrated by the Bush administration. Since they are willing to stick their necks out, should we assume that the whole terrorism angle might be completely wrong?

Evolution? Lots of people don't believe in that, even some scientists. Again, should we stop worrying about antibiotic resistant staph aureus because some scientists don't agree?

Smoking? Back in the 1950's, tobacco companies opened the Tobacco Studies Institute; scientists there discovered that smoking wasn't all that bad for you. Indeed, it was touted as a healthy stress reliever. Should we stop warning people about the dangers of smoking, and start encouraging its adoption by teens? (Or go the creationist route - "encourage them to try it and make up their own minds.")

We now know more about climate change than we know about how smoking causes lung cancer. (That is to say, we do not understand all the details, but have a very good case for correlation.) Does that mean we can predict with 100% accuracy what will happen in 10, 20, 50 years? Nope, no more than we can say "if you smoke you will die in 17.6 years." But the smart money is still on the correlation in both cases.

I walked away thinking we were done but I got to thinking about this post.

You tend to use exteems and fringe examples. Why? If your case was trully there why not use a main steam nearly completely answered topic. Smoking? deals with human behavior and climate science has little to do with human "behavior" (I do know though that GWing advocates claim human effect but that is much different)

the towers deal with consperiousy claims

So, I am curious, do you have any new conclusions on the effects of CFC's and the ozone based on some of the new info/data/calims coming out ? After all, that is one I did bring up earlier.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,088]

>You tend to use exteems and fringe examples. Why? If your case was
>trully there why not use a main steam nearly completely answered topic.

The health effects of smoking, the causes of the World Tower collapses and the science of evolution are all main stream and nearly completely answered topics.

>do you have any new conclusions on the effects of CFC's and the
>ozone based on some of the new info/data/calims coming out ?

New conclusions? I've seen some contrarians, but given that we saw the ozone hole happen, saw the increase in CFC's in the atmosphere, reduced the amount of CFC's emitted, saw the CFC concentration decrease, and saw the ozone layer begin to recover - that's a pretty hard sell.

You spoke about your like of common sense. If you have a problem, identify a solution, implement it, and see the problem resolve itself - does common sense tell you that you have solved the problem, or not?

[rushmc 23]

  Quote

>You tend to use exteems and fringe examples. Why? If your case was
>trully there why not use a main steam nearly completely answered topic.

The health effects of smoking, the causes of the World Tower collapses and the science of evolution are all main stream and nearly completely answered topics.

>do you have any new conclusions on the effects of CFC's and the
>ozone based on some of the new info/data/calims coming out ?

New conclusions? I've seen some contrarians, but given that we saw the ozone hole happen, saw the increase in CFC's in the atmosphere, reduced the amount of CFC's emitted, saw the CFC concentration decrease, and saw the ozone layer begin to recover - that's a pretty hard sell.

You spoke about your like of common sense. If you have a problem, identify a solution, implement it, and see the problem resolve itself - does common sense tell you that you have solved the problem, or not?

Now you seem to reverse yourself here. You posted not too long ago that common sense sometimes lies.

As for the Ozone hole? Well, I think you know some of what you posted here is a distortion at best

Waht do I mean?

It is the same credit/tactic you will take if you get mass global warming changes implimented before the natural cycle reverses itself. Same with the ozone hole. Just cause it is smaller (it is not gone you know) you claim victory. But science is thinking that maybe we got it wrong. The "chemistry" is not working the way we sold it.

Hmmm, another natural cycle?
Oh and I love the label the new PC title. Need to insult to stop the debate again

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[TankBuster 0]

Very thought provoking article. Thanks Marc. I'm going to pass it on to fellow "skeptics" and "denyers." Ya know - those scoundrels who believe that true science doesn't march in lock step with anyone.

The forecast is mostly sunny with occasional beer.

[kallend 2,115]

  Quote

Very thought provoking article. Thanks Marc. I'm going to pass it on to fellow "skeptics" and "denyers." Ya know - those scoundrels who believe that true science doesn't march in lock step with anyone.

Oh, the same folks that believe Jurassic Park was a documentary.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 23]

  Quote

  Quote

Very thought provoking article. Thanks Marc. I'm going to pass it on to fellow "skeptics" and "denyers." Ya know - those scoundrels who believe that true science doesn't march in lock step with anyone.

Oh, the same folks that believe Jurassic Park was a documentary.

Finding that out was a hard one for you to swallow wasnt it

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[TankBuster 0]

Cmon John. You're smarter than that. Are you saying that just because a person writes fiction they have no grasp of reality? No other talents? I find just the opposite.

The forecast is mostly sunny with occasional beer.

[kallend 2,115]

  Quote

Cmon John. You're smarter than that. Are you saying that just because a person writes fiction they have no grasp of reality? No other talents? I find just the opposite.

On the whole I'd believe the opinions of real scientists at NOAA, NSIDC or NASA than those of a science fiction writer.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[1969912 0]

"He attended Harvard College in Cambridge, Massachusetts, as an undergraduate, graduating summa cum laude in 1964. Crichton was also initiated into the Phi Beta Kappa Society. He went on to become the Henry Russell Shaw Traveling Fellow from 1964 to 1965 and Visiting Lecturer in Anthropology at the University of Cambridge in the United Kingdom in 1965. He graduated from Harvard Medical School, obtaining an M.D. in 1969, and did post-doctoral fellowship study at the Jonas Salk Institute for Biological Studies in La Jolla, California, from 1969 to 1970. In 1988, he was Visiting Writer at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. While in medical school, he wrote novels...."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Crichton

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

[kallend 2,115]

  Quote

"He attended Harvard College in Cambridge, Massachusetts, as an undergraduate, graduating summa cum laude in 1964. Crichton was also initiated into the Phi Beta Kappa Society. He went on to become the Henry Russell Shaw Traveling Fellow from 1964 to 1965 and Visiting Lecturer in Anthropology at the University of Cambridge in the United Kingdom in 1965. He graduated from Harvard Medical School, obtaining an M.D. in 1969, and did post-doctoral fellowship study at the Jonas Salk Institute for Biological Studies in La Jolla, California, from 1969 to 1970. In 1988, he was Visiting Writer at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. While in medical school, he wrote novels...."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Crichton

I know all that - I think I've read ALL his books. So what are his qualifications in atmospheric science? (that's rhetorical, I know the answer is "none".

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[TankBuster 0]

  Quote

On the whole I'd believe the opinions of real scientists at NOAA, NSIDC or NASA than those of a science fiction writer.

He's commenting on the concensus mentality, not the actual science behind GW so....

Do you think "real" scientists disagree with him on that topic?

The forecast is mostly sunny with occasional beer.

[1969912 0]

The article that the OP posted isn't about atmospheric science.

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

[kallend 2,115]

  Quote

The article that the OP posted isn't about atmospheric science.

Right - that's why it has "Global Warming" in its title, no doubt.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Amazon 7]

  Quote

Oh, the same folks that believe Jurassic Park was a documentary.

It’s sad when people need to get their "science" from Lush Rimjob and his ilk.

They are bludgeoning the American people with stupid every day and so many love it , it never ceases to amaze me.

I would say.. there is more profit motive here than any attempt at "science"

[kallend 2,115]

  Quote

  Quote

Oh, the same folks that believe Jurassic Park was a documentary.

It’s sad when people need to get their "science" from Lush Rimjob and his ilk.

They are bludgeoning the American people with stupid every day and so many love it , it never ceases to amaze me.

Crichton isn't in the same league as Limbaugh when it comes to peddling trash to the ignorant and gullible.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[TankBuster 0]

  Quote

t’s sad when people need to get their "science" from Lush Rimjob and his ilk.

They are bludgeoning the American people with stupid every day and so many love it , it never ceases to amaze me.

Crichton isn't in the same league as Limbaugh when it comes to peddling trash to the ignorant and gullible.

So - we are discussing an article which promotes critical thinking, challenging the status quo, being "skeptical" regarding scientific discovery. This is the approach of true science. And we get stupid, ignorant, and gullible. From a college science professor?

The forecast is mostly sunny with occasional beer.

[jcd11235 0]

  Quote

So - we are discussing an article which promotes critical thinking, challenging the status quo, being "skeptical" regarding scientific discovery. This is the approach of true science. And we get stupid, ignorant, and gullible. From a college science professor?

Disregarding a mountain of peer reviewed scientific studies in favor of non-peer reviewed, non-science based opinion pieces on the scientific topic is not critical thought. It's the antithesis of critical thought.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[TankBuster 0]

  Quote

Disregarding a mountain of peer reviewed scientific studies in favor of non-peer reviewed, non-science based opinion pieces on the scientific topic is not critical thought. It's the antithesis of critical thought.

If that were the premise of his article, you'd have a point.

The forecast is mostly sunny with occasional beer.

[kallend 2,115]

  Quote

  Quote

t’s sad when people need to get their "science" from Lush Rimjob and his ilk.

They are bludgeoning the American people with stupid every day and so many love it , it never ceases to amaze me.

Crichton isn't in the same league as Limbaugh when it comes to peddling trash to the ignorant and gullible.

So - we are discussing an article which promotes critical thinking, challenging the status quo, being "skeptical" regarding scientific discovery. This is the approach of true science. And we get stupid, ignorant, and gullible. From a college science professor?

Yet another person who presses "Post" before reading what he's replying to.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[JackC 0]

  Quote

So - we are discussing an article which promotes critical thinking, challenging the status quo, being "skeptical" regarding scientific discovery. This is the approach of true science. And we get stupid, ignorant, and gullible. From a college science professor?

A certain amount of skepticism is good but there is a difference between scratching your arse and tearing lumps out of it. Unfortunately, people have discovered that by promoting extreme skepticism and willful ignorance, they can muddy the waters enough to make the public think there is some legitimate need for debate. This technique is being used more and more often especially in areas like evolution and climate change. It''s pretty fucking dishonest really.

[lawrocket 3]

There are plenty of peer reviewed papers that can lead to different conclusions. Alas, my business is that reasonable minds can differ in interpretation and prediction.

And this is what cannot be tested - prediction. What will be the increase in sea level in 2100? We can make predictions, but we cannot test them and get an answer until 2100.

This is admitted! It is why it is so frequently stated that we cannot afford to take the chance that the predictions are not correct.

Sebastian Janikowski just connected on a 57 yard field goal. I predict on the basis of his past kicks that he may kick a fg in excess of 64 yards by 2013. He may. May.

This cannot be tested.

Predictions are hypotheses. Science is the testing of these hypotheses under controlled condiditions. Good science includes making of little or no guesses and taking the relevant factors into account.

Hypothesis - if a person gets hit in the kneecap with a 32 oucne baseball bat at 20 kph that person will experience physical pain. I can test this on 10,000 people and each of them will report experiencing physical pain. Peer review will demonstrate no errors in analysis of the raw data. Good science proved my hypothesis that it would hurt.

Then some deniers report that their attempts to repeat the experiment failed, in that their subjects did not all report pain, which goes against consensus opinion, common sense a lay experience.

My data, having been peer reviewed, is solid. My interpretation of the data is entirely consistent with it. Nobody can reasonably deny the validity of my conclusion based on my data.

But someone points out, "you had nobody suffering parathesia in your sample.". Oops. A variable I did not consider, but this does not invalidate my data or my conclusion, whiched was based on that data.

This is why I am skeptical. What other variables are out there? We don't know.

My wife is hotter than your wife.