kallend 2,150 #76 February 14, 2013 QuoteJerry: In perfect agreement with everything you said. I'm just trying to find the justification for the "98%" quote. I tried Kallends' first link. It didn't work. Works for me. Here's the abstract: Quote Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States 10.1073/pnas.1003187107 PNAS June 21, 2010 201003187 Expert credibility in climate change William R. L. Anderegg a , 1 , James W. Prall b , Jacob Harold c , and Stephen H. Schneider a , d , 1 Author Affiliations Contributed by Stephen H. Schneider, April 9, 2010 (sent for review December 22, 2009) Abstract Although preliminary estimates from published literature and expert surveys suggest striking agreement among climate scientists on the tenets of anthropogenic climate change (ACC), the American public expresses substantial doubt about both the anthropogenic cause and the level of scientific agreement underpinning ACC. A broad analysis of the climate scientist community itself, the distribution of credibility of dissenting researchers relative to agreeing researchers, and the level of agreement among top climate experts has not been conducted and would inform future ACC discussions. Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #77 February 14, 2013 Quote Quote Quote Quote It is indeed a major problem that while we are certainly changing the climate, we don't yet have a full understanding of the ramifications of our actions. The case is not closed and it is not settled. 98% of bona-fide climate scientists agree that AGW is real. Only the wilfully ignorant or those with a vested interest deny it . What remains to be determined is the details of the effect it will have on local weather patterns, ocean currents, etc. ------------------------------------------------------------ Breaking news! Looks like the new 98% looks a lot like 36% "Don’t look now, but maybe a scientific consensus exists concerning global warming after all. Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis, according to a survey reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies." Well would you look at that, all peer reviewed and everything! http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/13/peer-reviewed-survey-finds-majority-of-scientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/ Quote By James Taylor Contributor I am senior fellow for environment policy at the Heartland Institute and managing editor of Environment & Climate News. I write about energy and environment issues, frequently focusing on global warming. Heartland Institute - now there's an organization with a lot of credibility. Definitely trumps the National Academy of Sciences of the United States, NOT. And who are the "professional engineers and scientists" surveyed by your hero? Quote We examine the discursive contestation of climate change and associated expertise by professional engineers and geoscientists. We use an instrumental case to examine the debate among these professionals who dominate the oil industry in Alberta, with the oil sands as a source of particularly ‘dirty’ oil. In answering our research question, this article discusses both the construction of expertise in discursive battlefields and elucidates a more nuanced understanding of climate change frames. From this, we make several contributions. Sheesh, Brent, you hardly do yourself a service by quoting this garbage as if it's unbiased.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 444 #78 February 14, 2013 Contributed by Stephen H. Schneider, April 9, 2010 (sent for review December 22, 2009 ------------------------------------------------- We have learned a lot in the last three + years. BTW NOAA just came out and said that for CONUS, January 2013 was warmer and wetter than average. Tied with 1958 for the 39th warmest. Ooooooh, now that is some UNPRECEDENTED warming. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #79 February 14, 2013 QuoteContributed by Stephen H. Schneider, April 9, 2010 (sent for review December 22, 2009 ------------------------------------------------- We have learned a lot in the last three + years. BTW NOAA just came out and said that for CONUS, January 2013 was warmer and wetter than average. Tied with 1958 for the 39th warmest. Ooooooh, now that is some UNPRECEDENTED warming. You just make yourself look more and more foolish with every post you make.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #80 February 14, 2013 QuoteQuote So you don't think that people can contribute to a deterioration in the weather? People can. But often it doesn’t mean “deterioration.” (Sure, a 65 degree day in Chicago in January may be unusual, but it would probably pretty nicely appreciated). QuoteDo you think we should go back to CFC's in our air conditioners? Depends. If the ozone hole is what is keeping down the earth’s temperature (as has been suggested) then there may be merit to the idea that CFCs can avert catastrophe. Likewise, perhaps scrubbing a little less sulfur from smokestacks can give enough stratospheric aerosols to increase albedo and effectuate cooling. While some discuss such things as terraforming Mars, we may want to start with terraforming Earth. Since humans lack the political will to radically decarbonize the atmosphere, then geoengineering some mitigation may be on the table. QuoteIs it really your thought that things are now as good as they can be, I think there’s a legitimate argument that, considering human survivability, it’s never been better. The climate has been pretty good for us (ice ages aren’t good. Tough to grow spring wheat in North Dakota when there’s a mile thick glacier on top (which there was fewer than 10k years ago). What is the best climate for humans? Like anything subjective it depends on what you want to do. Quoteor just that the government shouldn't be involved at all, and should let business take all the action that's necessary? I don’t like the certainty of “at all.” Part of my problem is that the justification is made that, “We cannot afford to take the risk.” It’s the “we don’t know what will happen, but let’s drop $50 trillion over the next few decades to try to stop it” thing. It’s unfortunate that climate science and politics are inseparable at this time. QuoteClimate change isn't settled science in the way that gravity is (gravitation is still a theory). Yeah. A few years ago a physicist at UC Santa Barbara resigned from the American Physical Society because of its position that manmade global warming was “incontrovertible.” He took issue, saying that few things in physics itself are incontrovertible. (He also described the APS as not following its bylaws, called global warming a fraud, etc.). But – through the rant I did see the point – it’s irresponsible for scientists to close debate. What do we do with climate science? We don’t know the implications. So do we act strongly to prevent something that may be beneficial? Or may be bad? Or may be marginal? Or do we simply do what people have been doing for the last few thousand years and adapt our environment? It’s not people moving from Florida to New York for better climate. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites brenthutch 444 #81 February 15, 2013 This is the gist of the conversation I had with Dr. M. Mann (Mr. Global warming) several years ago. I conceded that the planet was warming, (it wasn't), that man-made co2 was the reason, (its not). That said, he was completely flummoxed when I pointed out that that a warming planet was not all droughts, and floods, punctuated by tornadoes and hurricanes, with a side order of epidemics (and dead polar bears). I reminded him that the loss of land from sea level rise would be more than offset by the increase of inhabitable land from Greenland, Siberia, northern Canada and Antarctica. Not to mention the veritable gold mine of natural resources (pun intended) of the newly ice free lands. He had no reply and quickly ended our conversation, but still drank the shot I bought him. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites brenthutch 444 #82 February 15, 2013 QuoteThat is, in fact, what a lot of folks are trying to tell them. And look how well it's working in China -- they're having the same air quality issues we had 40-60 years ago. Brazil has used gasohol for nearly 40 years to increase their gasoline; they're also heavily reliant on hydropower (of course, they have the geography for it). They're also burning the rainforest at a very fast clip, to loud protests from much of the world -- that's where the conversation is with Brazil, not in burning coal (they don't have much anyway). It's not fair. The US is extraordinarily lucky, but we've come to expect that, and to think we deserve it. We've exploited that luck, which is good. But it doesn't make us better or more deserving. Wendy P. It is not only not fair, it is deadly. http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites davjohns 1 #83 February 15, 2013 I would really like to see someone do some research that didn't have fuzzy words in it. I'm not looking to remove ALL doubt, but just something more solid. In the abstract Kallend provides, they summary of conclusions clearly says that the sample group is those who are writing the most on the subject....rotten sample group. OF COURSE the people who think there is a problem are publishing on it most prolifically. Sheesh! The second conclusion is that the nay-sayers are less credible than the agreement crowd. Wait a minute. If your sample group is those who agree, how did you evaluate those who disagree? All of the research I have seen so far focuses on what is being published and then saying what is being thought. Not necessary concurrent things, there. I'm sorry. That evidence is persuasive to a point. But then Kallend goes all condescending about someone else's evidence rather than argue on the merits and I have to question Kallend's choice of evidence as well. I'll just sit here on my fence a while longer.I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jakee 1,596 #84 February 15, 2013 Quote I reminded him that the loss of land from sea level rise would be more than offset by the increase of inhabitable land from Greenland, Siberia, northern Canada and Antarctica. I'm sure that people living in the south sea islands will be overjoyed to hear it.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,150 #85 February 15, 2013 QuoteI would really like to see someone do some research that didn't have fuzzy words in it. I'm not looking to remove ALL doubt, but just something more solid. In the abstract Kallend provides, they summary of conclusions clearly says that the sample group is those who are writing the most on the subject....rotten sample group. OF COURSE the people who think there is a problem are publishing on it most prolifically. Sheesh! The second conclusion is that the nay-sayers are less credible than the agreement crowd. Wait a minute. If your sample group is those who agree, how did you evaluate those who disagree? All of the research I have seen so far focuses on what is being published and then saying what is being thought. Not necessary concurrent things, there. I'm sorry. That evidence is persuasive to a point. But then Kallend goes all condescending about someone else's evidence rather than argue on the merits and I have to question Kallend's choice of evidence as well. I'll just sit here on my fence a while longer. Right, what do members of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States know anyway? Clearly they should have consulted you or brenthutch on statistical analysis.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites brenthutch 444 #86 February 15, 2013 So if your theory does not comport with observation, but you have enough letters after your name, then title trumps testing? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites lawrocket 3 #87 February 15, 2013 Dave’s point has merit. I’ve mentioned Thomas Kuhn before but I’ll reiterate Kuhn’s explanation of scientific paradigm shifts. He explained that there are steps. (1) A paradigm becomes generally accepted; (2) anomalies occur that cannot be explained by the paradigm; (3) the anomalies are ignored or proponents that the anomalies are not explained are mocked (the elite set the paradigm in which they are the elite, after all. See Hoyle mocking LeMaitre’s primeval atom as a silly “Big Bang.”); (4) enough contrary evidence is put forth to throw the paradigm into a crisis; (5) a new paradigm is formed, with the proponents of the new paradigm (typically younger and not as established) duking it out with the old school holdouts. Finally, the proponents of the old paradigm simply die out – they are not convinced of the new paradigm but (see Hoyle, who went to his death just not wanting to believe in the Big Bang he so mocked) just die out as a younger generation more familiar with the paradigm takes over. I’m seeing what appears to be stage 3 of a paradigm shift, perhaps edging into stage 4. It’s only at Stage 4 that new ideas (or even ideas that were previously scrapped) are considered (see Einstein’s “cosmological constant” being reexamined as “dark energy” is studied). Yes, kallend, you are fitting right in with a model put out 50 years ago. I can easily argue that the National Academy of Sciences - staffed by the "elites" who by represent the old paradigm and by their nature resistant to new paradigms that may show their understanding of things for their entire lives was wrong. (Note: 25 years ago today, the GREAT Richard Feynman died.) My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites winsor 236 #88 February 15, 2013 QuoteDave’s point has merit. I’ve mentioned Thomas Kuhn before but I’ll reiterate Kuhn’s explanation of scientific paradigm shifts. He explained that there are steps. (1) A paradigm becomes generally accepted; (2) anomalies occur that cannot be explained by the paradigm; (3) the anomalies are ignored or proponents that the anomalies are not explained are mocked (the elite set the paradigm in which they are the elite, after all. See Hoyle mocking LeMaitre’s primeval atom as a silly “Big Bang.”); (4) enough contrary evidence is put forth to throw the paradigm into a crisis; (5) a new paradigm is formed, with the proponents of the new paradigm (typically younger and not as established) duking it out with the old school holdouts. Finally, the proponents of the old paradigm simply die out – they are not convinced of the new paradigm but (see Hoyle, who went to his death just not wanting to believe in the Big Bang he so mocked) just die out as a younger generation more familiar with the paradigm takes over. I’m seeing what appears to be stage 3 of a paradigm shift, perhaps edging into stage 4. It’s only at Stage 4 that new ideas (or even ideas that were previously scrapped) are considered (see Einstein’s “cosmological constant” being reexamined as “dark energy” is studied). Yes, kallend, you are fitting right in with a model put out 50 years ago. I can easily argue that the National Academy of Sciences - staffed by the "elites" who by represent the old paradigm and by their nature resistant to new paradigms that may show their understanding of things for their entire lives was wrong. (Note: 25 years ago today, the GREAT Richard Feynman died.) I am trying to find the source of an anecdote regarding scientific orthodoxy. It seems that the Royal Academy of Science in Paris was having a discussion some time in the 18th century. One learned member pointed out that Aristotle claimed a horse had one number of teeth, while another member noted that Socrates said a horse had an altogether different number of teeth. A young upstart said "there's a horse outside - we could go out and count its teeth," at which point he was beaten severely and ejected. Though the scientific world is not given to superstition in general it does have its orthodoxy, and heresy is not well tolerated. Mind you, the issue is not the number of teeth per se, it is the unwillingness to double-check one's givens that I find troubling. Then again, I a an experimentalist at heart BSBD, Winsor Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites GeorgiaDon 380 #89 February 15, 2013 QuoteI am trying to find the source of an anecdote regarding scientific orthodoxy...There is an interesting discussion of the origin of this parable here. The story has been attributed to Francis Bacon, in which case it would date to the 1400s, but no-one has identified any of Bacon's writings that include the story. Alternatively it might come from Roger Bacon, who was a strong proponent of empiricism, but the same problem with confirming the source is to be found there as well. At any rate, even taking your anecdote at face value, a reference to some scholarly debate that took place in the 1700s is hardly an indictment of modern science. Nevertheless, it has always been difficult to overturn paradigms, and generally for good reason. The expression "strong statements require strong proof" comes to mind. The new paradigm has to account for all the observations that the old one did, explain all the observations that didn't quite fit with the old paradigm, and suggest new experiments or observations where the outcome would differ between the old and the new paradigms. Relativity did this with regard to Newtonian physics, plate tectonics did this with regard to the fixed continents model, and evolution did this in relation to creationism. On the other hand, it hardly seems necessary to repeat every experiment or observation ad nauseum before moving on to new territory. Modern biologists do not feel compelled to prove over and over that genetic information is conveyed by DNA. If someone wishes to advocate a different paradigm, the onus is entirely on them to provide experimental evidence that some other mechanism determines heritable traits. That new mechanism would have to be consistent with all the experimental evidence showing DNA is the molecule that governs heredity, and it would have to show how the new paradigm explains that evidence better than the DNA model does. This is not to say that scientists don't ever form "cliques" or warring camps, especially when there are conflicting ways to interpret experiments or observations. Scientists are only human, after all. However, the point is that upsetting paradigms is, and should be, difficult for legitimate reasons, not just because scientists don't like change. Don_____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,150 #90 February 15, 2013 QuoteSo if your theory does not comport with observation, but you have enough letters after your name, then title trumps testing? Observation in this case is that atmospheric CO2 is increasing at almost exactly the rate that humans are pumping it into the atmosphere, CO2 is a known greenhouse gas whose absorption spectrum is well known, there is a long-term trend of warming, and extreme climate events are increasing in frequency. No need to overthrow the National Academy of Sciences.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites wmw999 2,589 #91 February 15, 2013 QuoteHowever, the point is that upsetting paradigms is, and should be, difficult for legitimate reasons, not just because scientists don't like changeSame thing probably applies to the legal system and overturning precedent. Wendy P.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites brenthutch 444 #92 February 15, 2013 "We do not believe any group of men adequate enough or wise enough to operate without scrutiny or without criticism. We know that the only way to avoid error is to detect it, that the only way to detect it is to be free to inquire. We know that in secrecy error undetected will flourish and subvert”. – J Robert Oppenheimer. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,150 #93 February 15, 2013 Quote"We do not believe any group of men adequate enough or wise enough to operate without scrutiny or without criticism. We know that the only way to avoid error is to detect it, that the only way to detect it is to be free to inquire. We know that in secrecy error undetected will flourish and subvert”. – J Robert Oppenheimer. So you, like Dave, think that the statistical methods used in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sceinces of the United States has been overturned by some new and novel methods which have yet to be revealed to the public. Quaint. Asinine, but quaint.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,150 #94 February 15, 2013 QuoteDave’s point has merit. I’ve mentioned Thomas Kuhn before but I’ll reiterate Kuhn’s explanation of scientific paradigm shifts. Dave's point has no merit whatsoever. He criticized the statistics of a survey. No paradigm shift in statistical sampling or analysis has occurred. None. Nada. Zilch.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites brenthutch 444 #95 February 16, 2013 This is going to be a lot of fun in the three days. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites lawrocket 3 #96 February 16, 2013 QuoteQuoteDave’s point has merit. I’ve mentioned Thomas Kuhn before but I’ll reiterate Kuhn’s explanation of scientific paradigm shifts. Dave's point has no merit whatsoever. He criticized the statistics of a survey. No paradigm shift in statistical sampling or analysis has occurred. None. Nada. Zilch. No. Dave criticized the potential for bias in the underlying selection and characterization. It's like a statistic that shows that "98 percent of the highest ranking and most experienced bureaucrats in federal government believe that government is not too intrusive." Or "98 percent of the most experienced and successful plaintiffs' lawyers think that tort reform is bad policy." The statistical methods used may be flawless. But right away something smells fishy. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,150 #97 February 16, 2013 QuoteQuoteQuoteDave’s point has merit. I’ve mentioned Thomas Kuhn before but I’ll reiterate Kuhn’s explanation of scientific paradigm shifts. Dave's point has no merit whatsoever. He criticized the statistics of a survey. No paradigm shift in statistical sampling or analysis has occurred. None. Nada. Zilch. No. Dave criticized the potential for bias in the underlying selection and characterization. Perhaps if you took a course on statistics you'd know that what you are talking about is PART of statistical analysis. You are wrong.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites 93626392 0 #98 February 17, 2013 QuoteThe statistical methods used may be flawless. But right away something smells fishy. LOL wat? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,150 #99 February 17, 2013 QuoteQuoteThe statistical methods used may be flawless. But right away something smells fishy. LOL wat? Any result he disagrees with is "fishy".... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #100 February 17, 2013 QuoteQuoteQuoteThe statistical methods used may be flawless. But right away something smells fishy. LOL wat? Any result he disagrees with is "fishy"."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next Page 4 of 5 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
brenthutch 444 #81 February 15, 2013 This is the gist of the conversation I had with Dr. M. Mann (Mr. Global warming) several years ago. I conceded that the planet was warming, (it wasn't), that man-made co2 was the reason, (its not). That said, he was completely flummoxed when I pointed out that that a warming planet was not all droughts, and floods, punctuated by tornadoes and hurricanes, with a side order of epidemics (and dead polar bears). I reminded him that the loss of land from sea level rise would be more than offset by the increase of inhabitable land from Greenland, Siberia, northern Canada and Antarctica. Not to mention the veritable gold mine of natural resources (pun intended) of the newly ice free lands. He had no reply and quickly ended our conversation, but still drank the shot I bought him. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 444 #82 February 15, 2013 QuoteThat is, in fact, what a lot of folks are trying to tell them. And look how well it's working in China -- they're having the same air quality issues we had 40-60 years ago. Brazil has used gasohol for nearly 40 years to increase their gasoline; they're also heavily reliant on hydropower (of course, they have the geography for it). They're also burning the rainforest at a very fast clip, to loud protests from much of the world -- that's where the conversation is with Brazil, not in burning coal (they don't have much anyway). It's not fair. The US is extraordinarily lucky, but we've come to expect that, and to think we deserve it. We've exploited that luck, which is good. But it doesn't make us better or more deserving. Wendy P. It is not only not fair, it is deadly. http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davjohns 1 #83 February 15, 2013 I would really like to see someone do some research that didn't have fuzzy words in it. I'm not looking to remove ALL doubt, but just something more solid. In the abstract Kallend provides, they summary of conclusions clearly says that the sample group is those who are writing the most on the subject....rotten sample group. OF COURSE the people who think there is a problem are publishing on it most prolifically. Sheesh! The second conclusion is that the nay-sayers are less credible than the agreement crowd. Wait a minute. If your sample group is those who agree, how did you evaluate those who disagree? All of the research I have seen so far focuses on what is being published and then saying what is being thought. Not necessary concurrent things, there. I'm sorry. That evidence is persuasive to a point. But then Kallend goes all condescending about someone else's evidence rather than argue on the merits and I have to question Kallend's choice of evidence as well. I'll just sit here on my fence a while longer.I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,596 #84 February 15, 2013 Quote I reminded him that the loss of land from sea level rise would be more than offset by the increase of inhabitable land from Greenland, Siberia, northern Canada and Antarctica. I'm sure that people living in the south sea islands will be overjoyed to hear it.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #85 February 15, 2013 QuoteI would really like to see someone do some research that didn't have fuzzy words in it. I'm not looking to remove ALL doubt, but just something more solid. In the abstract Kallend provides, they summary of conclusions clearly says that the sample group is those who are writing the most on the subject....rotten sample group. OF COURSE the people who think there is a problem are publishing on it most prolifically. Sheesh! The second conclusion is that the nay-sayers are less credible than the agreement crowd. Wait a minute. If your sample group is those who agree, how did you evaluate those who disagree? All of the research I have seen so far focuses on what is being published and then saying what is being thought. Not necessary concurrent things, there. I'm sorry. That evidence is persuasive to a point. But then Kallend goes all condescending about someone else's evidence rather than argue on the merits and I have to question Kallend's choice of evidence as well. I'll just sit here on my fence a while longer. Right, what do members of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States know anyway? Clearly they should have consulted you or brenthutch on statistical analysis.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 444 #86 February 15, 2013 So if your theory does not comport with observation, but you have enough letters after your name, then title trumps testing? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #87 February 15, 2013 Dave’s point has merit. I’ve mentioned Thomas Kuhn before but I’ll reiterate Kuhn’s explanation of scientific paradigm shifts. He explained that there are steps. (1) A paradigm becomes generally accepted; (2) anomalies occur that cannot be explained by the paradigm; (3) the anomalies are ignored or proponents that the anomalies are not explained are mocked (the elite set the paradigm in which they are the elite, after all. See Hoyle mocking LeMaitre’s primeval atom as a silly “Big Bang.”); (4) enough contrary evidence is put forth to throw the paradigm into a crisis; (5) a new paradigm is formed, with the proponents of the new paradigm (typically younger and not as established) duking it out with the old school holdouts. Finally, the proponents of the old paradigm simply die out – they are not convinced of the new paradigm but (see Hoyle, who went to his death just not wanting to believe in the Big Bang he so mocked) just die out as a younger generation more familiar with the paradigm takes over. I’m seeing what appears to be stage 3 of a paradigm shift, perhaps edging into stage 4. It’s only at Stage 4 that new ideas (or even ideas that were previously scrapped) are considered (see Einstein’s “cosmological constant” being reexamined as “dark energy” is studied). Yes, kallend, you are fitting right in with a model put out 50 years ago. I can easily argue that the National Academy of Sciences - staffed by the "elites" who by represent the old paradigm and by their nature resistant to new paradigms that may show their understanding of things for their entire lives was wrong. (Note: 25 years ago today, the GREAT Richard Feynman died.) My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
winsor 236 #88 February 15, 2013 QuoteDave’s point has merit. I’ve mentioned Thomas Kuhn before but I’ll reiterate Kuhn’s explanation of scientific paradigm shifts. He explained that there are steps. (1) A paradigm becomes generally accepted; (2) anomalies occur that cannot be explained by the paradigm; (3) the anomalies are ignored or proponents that the anomalies are not explained are mocked (the elite set the paradigm in which they are the elite, after all. See Hoyle mocking LeMaitre’s primeval atom as a silly “Big Bang.”); (4) enough contrary evidence is put forth to throw the paradigm into a crisis; (5) a new paradigm is formed, with the proponents of the new paradigm (typically younger and not as established) duking it out with the old school holdouts. Finally, the proponents of the old paradigm simply die out – they are not convinced of the new paradigm but (see Hoyle, who went to his death just not wanting to believe in the Big Bang he so mocked) just die out as a younger generation more familiar with the paradigm takes over. I’m seeing what appears to be stage 3 of a paradigm shift, perhaps edging into stage 4. It’s only at Stage 4 that new ideas (or even ideas that were previously scrapped) are considered (see Einstein’s “cosmological constant” being reexamined as “dark energy” is studied). Yes, kallend, you are fitting right in with a model put out 50 years ago. I can easily argue that the National Academy of Sciences - staffed by the "elites" who by represent the old paradigm and by their nature resistant to new paradigms that may show their understanding of things for their entire lives was wrong. (Note: 25 years ago today, the GREAT Richard Feynman died.) I am trying to find the source of an anecdote regarding scientific orthodoxy. It seems that the Royal Academy of Science in Paris was having a discussion some time in the 18th century. One learned member pointed out that Aristotle claimed a horse had one number of teeth, while another member noted that Socrates said a horse had an altogether different number of teeth. A young upstart said "there's a horse outside - we could go out and count its teeth," at which point he was beaten severely and ejected. Though the scientific world is not given to superstition in general it does have its orthodoxy, and heresy is not well tolerated. Mind you, the issue is not the number of teeth per se, it is the unwillingness to double-check one's givens that I find troubling. Then again, I a an experimentalist at heart BSBD, Winsor Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GeorgiaDon 380 #89 February 15, 2013 QuoteI am trying to find the source of an anecdote regarding scientific orthodoxy...There is an interesting discussion of the origin of this parable here. The story has been attributed to Francis Bacon, in which case it would date to the 1400s, but no-one has identified any of Bacon's writings that include the story. Alternatively it might come from Roger Bacon, who was a strong proponent of empiricism, but the same problem with confirming the source is to be found there as well. At any rate, even taking your anecdote at face value, a reference to some scholarly debate that took place in the 1700s is hardly an indictment of modern science. Nevertheless, it has always been difficult to overturn paradigms, and generally for good reason. The expression "strong statements require strong proof" comes to mind. The new paradigm has to account for all the observations that the old one did, explain all the observations that didn't quite fit with the old paradigm, and suggest new experiments or observations where the outcome would differ between the old and the new paradigms. Relativity did this with regard to Newtonian physics, plate tectonics did this with regard to the fixed continents model, and evolution did this in relation to creationism. On the other hand, it hardly seems necessary to repeat every experiment or observation ad nauseum before moving on to new territory. Modern biologists do not feel compelled to prove over and over that genetic information is conveyed by DNA. If someone wishes to advocate a different paradigm, the onus is entirely on them to provide experimental evidence that some other mechanism determines heritable traits. That new mechanism would have to be consistent with all the experimental evidence showing DNA is the molecule that governs heredity, and it would have to show how the new paradigm explains that evidence better than the DNA model does. This is not to say that scientists don't ever form "cliques" or warring camps, especially when there are conflicting ways to interpret experiments or observations. Scientists are only human, after all. However, the point is that upsetting paradigms is, and should be, difficult for legitimate reasons, not just because scientists don't like change. Don_____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #90 February 15, 2013 QuoteSo if your theory does not comport with observation, but you have enough letters after your name, then title trumps testing? Observation in this case is that atmospheric CO2 is increasing at almost exactly the rate that humans are pumping it into the atmosphere, CO2 is a known greenhouse gas whose absorption spectrum is well known, there is a long-term trend of warming, and extreme climate events are increasing in frequency. No need to overthrow the National Academy of Sciences.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,589 #91 February 15, 2013 QuoteHowever, the point is that upsetting paradigms is, and should be, difficult for legitimate reasons, not just because scientists don't like changeSame thing probably applies to the legal system and overturning precedent. Wendy P.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 444 #92 February 15, 2013 "We do not believe any group of men adequate enough or wise enough to operate without scrutiny or without criticism. We know that the only way to avoid error is to detect it, that the only way to detect it is to be free to inquire. We know that in secrecy error undetected will flourish and subvert”. – J Robert Oppenheimer. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #93 February 15, 2013 Quote"We do not believe any group of men adequate enough or wise enough to operate without scrutiny or without criticism. We know that the only way to avoid error is to detect it, that the only way to detect it is to be free to inquire. We know that in secrecy error undetected will flourish and subvert”. – J Robert Oppenheimer. So you, like Dave, think that the statistical methods used in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sceinces of the United States has been overturned by some new and novel methods which have yet to be revealed to the public. Quaint. Asinine, but quaint.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #94 February 15, 2013 QuoteDave’s point has merit. I’ve mentioned Thomas Kuhn before but I’ll reiterate Kuhn’s explanation of scientific paradigm shifts. Dave's point has no merit whatsoever. He criticized the statistics of a survey. No paradigm shift in statistical sampling or analysis has occurred. None. Nada. Zilch.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 444 #95 February 16, 2013 This is going to be a lot of fun in the three days. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #96 February 16, 2013 QuoteQuoteDave’s point has merit. I’ve mentioned Thomas Kuhn before but I’ll reiterate Kuhn’s explanation of scientific paradigm shifts. Dave's point has no merit whatsoever. He criticized the statistics of a survey. No paradigm shift in statistical sampling or analysis has occurred. None. Nada. Zilch. No. Dave criticized the potential for bias in the underlying selection and characterization. It's like a statistic that shows that "98 percent of the highest ranking and most experienced bureaucrats in federal government believe that government is not too intrusive." Or "98 percent of the most experienced and successful plaintiffs' lawyers think that tort reform is bad policy." The statistical methods used may be flawless. But right away something smells fishy. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #97 February 16, 2013 QuoteQuoteQuoteDave’s point has merit. I’ve mentioned Thomas Kuhn before but I’ll reiterate Kuhn’s explanation of scientific paradigm shifts. Dave's point has no merit whatsoever. He criticized the statistics of a survey. No paradigm shift in statistical sampling or analysis has occurred. None. Nada. Zilch. No. Dave criticized the potential for bias in the underlying selection and characterization. Perhaps if you took a course on statistics you'd know that what you are talking about is PART of statistical analysis. You are wrong.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
93626392 0 #98 February 17, 2013 QuoteThe statistical methods used may be flawless. But right away something smells fishy. LOL wat? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #99 February 17, 2013 QuoteQuoteThe statistical methods used may be flawless. But right away something smells fishy. LOL wat? Any result he disagrees with is "fishy".... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #100 February 17, 2013 QuoteQuoteQuoteThe statistical methods used may be flawless. But right away something smells fishy. LOL wat? Any result he disagrees with is "fishy"."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
