Reply to: Global warming and scientific consensus

[sasguru]

That is not science. Science is empirical. To paraphrase Feynman: it doesn't matter what the mathematics says, or what a scientist says, no matter how important he may be <laughter from audience>, if experiment conflicts with theory, that theory is wrong.

Your scientific intuition is almost non-existent.

I was using "science" in the sense of being opposite to "art".
I thought that was obvious from the context. Mea culpa.
One thing that both science and maths share (if done right) is an emphasis on logic as opposed to human subjectivity with all its biases, and this is what I meant.

[TimberWolf]

Not to mention mathematical statistics which is the science of drawing inferences from experimental data correctly (i.e. avoiding bias).

That is not science. Science is empirical. To paraphrase Feynman: it doesn't matter what the mathematics says, or what a scientist says, no matter how important he may be <laughter from audience>, if experiment conflicts with theory, that theory is wrong.

Your scientific intuition is almost non-existent.

[Old Greg]

I think it was last year that the drug tsar resigned and took most of his panel with him because of political intereferance. damned right too. So how much worse is it when the scientists themselves are doing the interfering ?

I do not bring politics to my job in IT.
There are things that should be kept seperate, there is a time and a place.

He as right to desgin, but that was a political act because he was politically active (which I think you object to.). His opposition to the politicians was that he did not agree with their policy. I'm not aware that the dispute was around science, but am happy to be corrected.

So are you saying that evolutionary biologists should remain silent in the political sphere about school boards that seek to teach creationism alongside evolution in science classes?

[sasguru]

Which is why there is peer review, and also literature reviews and systematic reviews.

Not to mention mathematical statistics which is the science of drawing inferences from experimental data correctly (i.e. avoiding bias).

[sasguru]

I think it was last year that the drug tsar resigned and took most of his panel with him because of political intereferance. damned right too. So how much worse is it when the scientists themselves are doing the interfering ?

I do not bring politics to my job in IT.
There are things that should be kept seperate, there is a time and a place.

I completely agree that politics should be kept out of it.
But that is difficult when we have shadowy "foundations" such as these, deliberately lobbying politicians and muddying the waters.

Global Warming Policy Foundation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Heartland Institute - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you have met the average academic, they are usually completely unworldly characters - they would not be able to compete on the lobby stage with such as the above.

[sasguru]

Yes you posted the blog . The blogger made stuff up.

He said the ice core data only goes up to 1855.

This is not true, it goes up to 1987. You can check if you want. Post it when you have proof this isn't the case.

Tell you what, Don Quixote, you just sail blithely along, your favourite 5 scientists in tow, and your selection bias intact.
Its a free country, after all.

[EternalOptimist]

Everything is political (or almost everything). Why should experts be exempt from political activism? You want to leave politics to the PR men and lawyers? And even if you don't like it, it does not invalidate the research.

Shouldn't evolutionary biologists speak up against school boards that want to include creationism alongside evolution in science lessons? And if they shouldn't, but they do, does that make the science wrong?

I think it was last year that the drug tsar resigned and took most of his panel with him because of political intereferance. damned right too. So how much worse is it when the scientists themselves are doing the interfering ?

I do not bring politics to my job in IT.
There are things that should be kept seperate, there is a time and a place.

[BlasterBates]

Easterbrook also makes stuff up.

Yes you posted the blog . The blogger made stuff up.

He said the ice core data only goes up to 1855.

This is not true, it goes up to 1987. You can check if you want. Post it when you have proof this isn't the case.

[Old Greg]

for me, it's because as soon as I detect propoganda, or persuasive language techniques, my antennae go up. As soon as I hear scientists saying things that scientists should not be saying my hackles go up. When scientists begin to get political or activist, I start to get worried

Everything is political (or almost everything). Why should experts be exempt from political activism? You want to leave politics to the PR men and lawyers? And even if you don't like it, it does not invalidate the research.

Shouldn't evolutionary biologists speak up against school boards that want to include creationism alongside evolution in science lessons? And if they shouldn't, but they do, does that make the science wrong?

[EternalOptimist]

But also to address global warming...
Why put so much weight either on the 2 - 3% or to others less qualified (like BB's civil engineer dam-builder - forget his name).

for me, it's because as soon as I detect propoganda, or persuasive language techniques, my antennae go up. As soon as I hear scientists saying things that scientists should not be saying my hackles go up. When scientists begin to get political or activist, I start to get worried

[Old Greg]

Scientists get it too!

Which is why there is peer review, and also literature reviews and systematic reviews.

[TimberWolf]

Mrs OG is a cognitive neuroscientist, and one of her specialist fields is decision-making, so she keeps me up to date with cognitive biases. They're quite amusing.

Scientists get it too!

[TimberWolf]

It's called selective bias - it happens when you've made up your mind independent of the evidence.
Then you have to scrabble around looking for research that supports your position, while ignoring the mass of evidence that goes against it.
Its very common and that is what BB et.al. suffer from.

A posher term is cognitive dissonance.

True.

It is one of the most influential and extensively studied theories in social psychology.

HTH

[Old Greg]

It's called selective bias - it happens when you've made up your mind independent of the evidence.
Then you have to scrabble around looking for research that supports your position, while ignoring the mass of evidence that goes against it.
Its very common and that is what BB et.al. suffer from.

Mrs OG is a cognitive neuroscientist, and one of her specialist fields is decision-making, so she keeps me up to date with cognitive biases. They're quite amusing.

[sasguru]

Why put so much weight either on the 2 - 3% or to others less qualified

It's called selective bias - it happens when you've made up your mind independent of the evidence.
Then you have to scrabble around looking for research that supports your position, while ignoring the mass of evidence that goes against it.
Its very common and that is what BB et.al. suffer from.