Prev: Alan Alda is part of an innovative US project to help scientists communicate
Next: splitting water using sunlight
From: isw on 9 Mar 2010 23:24
In article
<aa35a7db-6bb2-44fa-9f06-dbed14ffac25(a)b7g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
Mike Jr <n00spam(a)comcast.net> wrote:

> On Mar 8, 11:52�pm, isw <i...(a)witzend.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <527020fc-2446-4d66-80b7-b8ac2ef0d...(a)y17g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
> > �Mike Jr <n00s...(a)comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Mar 7, 11:30�pm, isw <i...(a)witzend.com> wrote:
> > > > In article
> > > > <8edb4c31-cc32-4447-8503-32907b139...(a)t41g2000yqt.googlegroups.com>,
> > > > �Mike Jr <n00s...(a)comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> > > > > As a scientist, Jones knows the importance of independent
> > > > > replication. �Instead Jones chose to stone wall the FOIA requests
> > > > > "because you are trying to find something wrong". �Well no duh. �That
> > > > > is what the scientific process IS
> >
> > > *> No; it's trying to find out what's *right*.
> >
> > > > Isaac
> >
> > > ... by independently replicating the results. �Until the results can
> > > be independently replicated it is not scientific truth.
> >
> > > That is my point.
> >
> > And to do that *properly*, you don't start with data the other party's
> > had their hands on. For one, if you already don't trust them, why would
> > you ever trust any data they've had an opportunity to "massage"?
> >
> > You start with your own independently gathered data, just as the other
> > party did. Then go from there and see whether your results agree or not.
> > THEN PUBLISH; don't go for it on a blog.
> >
> > Isaac
>
> Rubbish.
>
> Start with your own Swedish temperature records for the last 100
> years?

Absolutely. You've already said you don't trust him; why in the world
would you use data he had (possibly( altered?

> No. Jones has a responsibility to identify the subset that he
> used or he can always claim "wrong rock". "You need to use a rock.
> Which rock? You know, a rock rock. How about this rock? No, wrong
> rock."
>
> "The only way to understand and evaluate an empirical analysis fully
> is to know the exact process by which the data were generated."

Unattributed, so I have no idea who said that. Would you care to tell?

> Jones adjusted the Swedish temperature data. To understand his
> empirical analysis you need to see what he started with (right rock)
> and the adjustments that he made to both show that those adjustments
> indeed produce the results claimed and to ascertain if there is
> physical warrant for those adjustments.

It is totally unnecessary to understand what he did, especially since
(as you claim) he did it wrong. It sounds like you're just looking for a
way to show that wrongness in political fashion, not a scientific one.

> This is science.

Science is not about showing that somebody was wrong; it's about showing
what is right. Do your own work, using your own data, and derive an
analysis of your own. Then publish your result. THAT is science.

>.You remember science. Like the 9th grade biology
> that I am sure you took.

That, and more than a few other subjects on the way to a degree in
physics.

Isaac
From: spudnik on 9 Mar 2010 23:56
science is about refining a hypothesis,
which doesn't have to be one's own. most of "global" warming is,
strictly, computerized simulacra & very selective reporting:
the "hole" in the ozone is really, "the sky is glowing!"

> Science is not about showing that somebody was wrong; it's about showing
> what is right. Do your own work, using your own data, and derive an
> analysis of your own. Then publish your result. THAT is science.

--Light: A History!
http://wlym.com
First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2 3
Prev: Alan Alda is part of an innovative US project to help scientists communicate
Next: splitting water using sunlight