Posted by RayJohnstone (Member # 5605) on November 26, 2006 11:42 PM :

I've just read "Aliens Cause Global Warming". It puts nicely
the idea that science isn't decided by a vote. The section on
passive smoking is a timely reminder of the dodgy, to put it
mildly, behaviour of the EPA. But there is more that should be said.
See the links at my home page:
http://members.iinet.net.au/~ray/
particularly:
http://members.iinet.net.au/~ray/TSSOASb.html

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Bermytal (Member # 5585) on December 18, 2006 10:39 AM :


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by RayJohnstone:
It puts nicely the idea that science isn't decided by a vote.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Outside the lab, science is really a matter of publishing : manuscript refused, manuscript accepted with minor revisions or manuscript accepted with major revisions (read refused).

Science, I would think, is decided by old boys clubs who, by making a decision on a given manuscript, will create a consensus on what intellecutally affordable knowledge should come out in public.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by jem495 (Member # 5643) on December 18, 2006 01:06 PM :


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Bermytal:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by RayJohnstone:
It puts nicely the idea that science isn't decided by a vote.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Outside the lab, science is really a matter of publishing : manuscript refused, manuscript accepted with minor revisions or manuscript accepted with major revisions (read refused).

Science, I would think, is decided by old boys clubs who, by making a decision on a given manuscript, will create a consensus on what intellecutally affordable knowledge should come out in public.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I would have to agree. If you want proof, think about Pluto. It was voted a dwarf planet because 150 experts thought that would be a good title for it.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Bermytal (Member # 5585) on December 18, 2006 02:57 PM :


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by jem495:
If you want proof, think about Pluto. It was voted a dwarf planet because 150 experts thought that would be a good title for it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I guess the same bunch of scientists should study Crowley's case.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Lucidity (Member # 4665) on December 19, 2006 12:12 PM :

Michael Crichton will forever occupy a high pedestal in my heart for bringing to my attention the concept of "Consensus Science." Honest scientists, who actually do original work, and who are willing to be lone voices in the din of the grinning and snarling masses and movies that trumpet the consensus -- those brave scientists -- including Michael Crichton, M.D. -- are like rocks in the surf who remain standing after giant waves and sand wash back out to sea.

I am so proud of Michael for being one of those rocks, for writing NEXT!, while the storms of SOF continue to rage. I am proud of my brother who is also one of those rocks. And I'm proud of my sister-in-law who dug in and became a rock, herself.

[ December 19, 2006, 02:15 PM: Message edited by: Lucidity ]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Bermytal (Member # 5585) on December 20, 2006 04:11 PM :

To come back to the topic of consensus science, I would think that one way of breaking consensus science is double-blind peer-review.

The system works in most science journals I believe in such a way that the referees (reviewers) know the identity of the scientist who has submitted a manuscript, while the scientist ignores the identity of the reviewers. If the submitting scientist name was undisclosed, as well as the reviewers names, in a double-blind fashion, it would allow for a more objective review of manuscripts, thereby leaving a chance for "newbies" and not automatically admitting a famous scientist's paper upon review.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Lucidity (Member # 4665) on December 21, 2006 12:35 AM :

Bermytal, It's hard to believe that college-educated "scientists" don't know the rules for doing science. Those that break the rules, are too weak to insist upon doing their work that way and to verify that work they read about was, too. Pheh on them all.

[ December 22, 2006, 07:10 PM: Message edited by: Lucidity ]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Space Monkey (Member # 5112) on December 21, 2006 04:39 AM :

There is a new trend -" online" publishing of scientific papers which includes an area such as this message board for anybody in the scientific community to comment on a paper. Example would be a site called "Climate of the Past". All are in the experimental stage-but publish means public, so data and methods should be (in a perfect scientific world) open for all to see (it is in the private sector!). And it is interesting to read the comments.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Bermytal (Member # 5585) on December 22, 2006 04:38 AM :


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Space Monkey:
There is a new trend -" online" publishing of scientific papers which includes an area such as this message board for anybody in the scientific community to comment on a paper.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That's cool. I suppose that involvment of the public at large in the scientific endeavour can and will enlighten its wanderings -- most scientific papers being masterpiece of obscurantism.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Lucidity (Member # 4665) on December 22, 2006 05:15 PM :

I wonder if that trend is really so "cool." It seems to lend itself all too much to CONSENSUS SCIENCE. In fact, I wonder if that is its purpose.

"Do you like this?" "Do you agree?" "Is this correct?" <----this would not be a bad question, but then who gets credit for the work? "Ahhh, the majority approve. Let's run with it." "Lots of articles on TV, so it must be true."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Space Monkey (Member # 5112) on December 22, 2006 06:18 PM :

Luce, the comments are the same as peer review, and they have to pertain to the content of the paper. It's not a "I don't like this" type of comment board. Comments have to be written in a formal manner and have citations/examples included if you disagree with something or make a suggestion, or think some part of the paper should be changed or is wrong. It's a good thing actually.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Lucidity (Member # 4665) on December 23, 2006 01:38 AM :

SpaceMonkey,

I don't disagree that new work should be transparent and open completely to peer review. I'm just distressed by the concept of Consensus Science and hoping for an awakening of integrity and courage. All of my "quotations" were my version of how a fantasy concensus might play out.

Michael has mentioned a so-called "scientist" who refused to make his research available, saying, "Why should I give that information to you when I know that you just want to tear it apart?" Emotionally, that's understandable, but academically, it's totally unacceptable.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Space Monkey (Member # 5112) on December 23, 2006 04:36 AM :

"Michael has mentioned a so-called "scientist" who refused to make his research available, saying, "Why should I give that information to you when I know that you just want to tear it apart?" Emotionally, that's understandable, but academically, it's totally unacceptable.
"
Yep, Luce. It is unacceptable. Like I said, it's not like that in the private sector of science at all. I know of whom MC speaks and I have been following the story which is still going on. Its the actual data that was hidden (the numbers and computer code that make the models run) no so much the "research". Cheers!

[ December 23, 2006, 06:38 AM: Message edited by: Space Monkey ]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Bermytal (Member # 5585) on December 23, 2006 05:36 AM :


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Lucidity:
I wonder if that trend is really so "cool." It seems to lend itself all too much to CONSENSUS SCIENCE. In fact, I wonder if that is its purpose. [...] "Ahhh, the majority approve. Let's run with it." "Lots of articles on TV, so it must be true."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think one can only gain from transparency, and not loose, in most cases and especially in science. (exception with the science of tobacco companies ). Communities and civil society will most likely help rather than impede science. That connects with one aspect of Nobel's idea that his prize should be given for useful endeavours. Let's imagine that non-scientists from a disease X society are speeched about the study of disease gene X. They will ask direct, un-informed questions derived from common sense ; to which the scientist will be forced to respond with common sense ; hence obscurantism exits. It's reminiscent of "Lorenzo's oil", type of story.

[ December 23, 2006, 07:44 AM: Message edited by: Bermytal ]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Oleg L Gubarev (Member # 5695) on December 23, 2006 07:54 AM :

Now I finish to read the speech of MC "Aliens Cause Global Warming". Great impression! I often ask myself: "If scientist start to study unpopular problem and as sequence he receive results which are not agreed with widespread beliefs (please, note - not with facts, not with theories, but beliefs). What then he must do? Change the direction of his studying? Why I am speaking about beliefs? In one book I see the definition of term "Belief" - it is such status of object when changes in inputs don't influence on object status. Example: Tertullian - "Believe, even if it is absurd!"
In my country it is very real problem because some theories and studies were forbidden by government. You could not believ me but learning of logic at school was forbidden at 1948. And what must do scientist in this situation? Go to underground or agree and study some problems which are allowed to study?
And as I understand in this speech MC ask the same question. How you can logically explain to crowd, which ruled by emotions, results of the scientific study?
Thanks to MC, to admin, to all at this site for possibility to read such interesting speech.

[ March 09, 2007, 12:38 PM: Message edited by: Oleg L Gubarev ]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear friends,
the story of dr.Crichton in USA more and more remember to me analogical stories about Russian dissidents.
The man, who do career on global warming win Nobel Prize:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21262661

And our Russian experience show that best weapons against logical reasons and objections of dissidents are silence. Establishment does not note any scientific and reasonable objections to new religion of climate warming.
I am glad that reasonable voice of Dr.Crichton can not be silenced easy
As I understand the situation with global warming now far from science and close to religion.
If so, then it is a question of new Inquisition appearance on world level and new Heretics "auto-da-fe" if in not direct then in figurative sense.

Well,

the 'consensus' scientists got a shot to the testicles this week in 2 forms:

An open letter to the Bali Conference by 100 prominent scientists including the likes of Dr. Freeman J. Dyson, Meteorologist William M. Gray and Dr. Ross McKittrick (whose work exposed the fraud called 'The Hockey Stick').

Senator James Inhofe's report that listed at least 400 scientists who are skeptics of Anthropogenic Global Warming, including the very articulate Dr. Paul Reiter who pointed out he had to sue the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to get his name removed a report it issued from those who support the phony 'consensus'.

I don't know about y'all, but it seems the tide is turning ever so slowly. This is good as we're about to deplete the world's grain supplies to chase 'BioFuels'. If Mother Nature decides to boot us off the evolutionary ladder by cooling the planet relatively soon (as some are now beginning to predict), ALOT of people in 3rd World countries will starve, including that large one just to the south of the US's border. For those that didn't pay attention in history class, the people we call the Goths crossed the Danube in 376 AD partly because of crop failures. They were starving, and when people are starving, they will do whatever is necessary to survive. The Roman Empire learned that lesson the hard way.

Dear BrooklynRedLeg!
You are so right. In my previous messages I wrote that unfortunately only in extreme conditions man turn to mind and logic instead his irrational whims and "consensus' science. It is very sad. Our modern world is such a mess!

Again, I hope the Moderator indulges me as I'm trying not to stray too terribly far into SoF territory, but this really needs to be discussed.

For those that may not have been following the latest news on the Sun, it seems that giant ball of burning hydrogen is not cooperating. Solar Cycle 24 appears to be overdue as there have only been 3 reported Cycle 24 spots while numerous Cycle 23 spots continue to be produced. From what I've gathered scanning some Solar Cycle blogs is that Cycle 24, which was prediced to start last year, is still in the process of transition (they say its somewhere between 6 to 20 months of overlap between Cycles if I read correctly). As it stands, we're still in 23 because we wont be in 24 until there are more than the others.

Some are already pointing to NASA articles stating we could be in for a Dalton-type Minimum (mid-1800s, Potato Famine time), if not something infinitely worse like a Maunder-type Minimum (which was the coldest years of the Little Ice Age from what I gather). Some in the Solar Blogosphere are already calling this the Gore Minima, which would be deliciously ironic if it came true.

Of course, even I recognize that a Minima is a BAD thing, even if many of us get to stand back and rub certain people's noses in the resulting steaming pile. The only real hope is that this may prove to be the catalyst that brings science back out of the almost Medieval Superstition/Religion morass it has descended to in the last few decades with the whole Anthropogenic Global Warming hoax.

Brooklyn, I'm glad you posted this. Without going into detail here, please take a look at this guy, Robert Felix: Not By Fire But By Ice.
http://www.iceagenow.com/

Aside from your ice age issues, please scroll down and take a look at the honey bee collapse called CCD; colony collapse disorder, a global disaster in the making.

Best wishes,
Kickup