Remember me
▼ Content

Clarification



Page 1 of 212>
Clarification21-09-2016 03:05
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4926)
jwoodward48 wrote: Okay, a closer look reveals that you were saying that data is only useful to falsify, not support, theories.

Clarification:

The scientific process is a process. It consists of all the activities that result in a falsifiable model that predicts nature. The resulting model is science but contains nothing from the process that created it, i.e. no observations, no data, no tests ... it's just a falsifiable model that predicts nature.

Science is not a process. Science is a collection of falsifiable models that predict nature. Again, there are no observations or data in the body of science.

The scientific method is a process, and a very methodical one. It is a battery of tests that specifically try to show a falsifiable model is false, with extreme prejudice. The scientific method should be called the model assassin because it strives to kill dead and move on. The scientific method first cherry-picks the most potentially falsifying data, and then uses any other data available in its attempt to kill, kill, kill ... and it cares nothing for any supporting evidence suggesting the model might be true.

The scientific method performs three categories of tests:
1. Internal consistency, i.e. that no part of the model contradicts any other part of the model.
2. External consistency, i.e. that the model doesn't contradict any other models in the body of science.
3. The model itself, i.e. does the model really predict nature as it purports.

Falsifiability is a requirement of a model for the scientific method to accept it and to begin working on it. The scientific method cannot attempt to falsify an unfalsifiable model.


.
.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
21-09-2016 03:56
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9597)
To this I would add a few clarifications of my own:

Data is a form of observation. Whether an observation is direct using our own senses, or indirect using instruments, it is the same.

Data is particularly abused. Anyone can claim a bunch of numbers. They mean nothing unless certain requirements are met:

1) The data must be raw data. It must not be adjusted in any way. The means no weighting, no fudging, no mucking with it at all.

2) The data must be published. Everyone must have access to it.

3) The source of the data must be published. The method of collecting the data, the instrumentation used, the calibration for that instrumentation, who collected, when, the limitations of the instrumentation used, and why the data is relevant must all be considered and published with the data itself. This includes the units of that data.

4) Summaries of the data (statistical analysis) must follow the rules and requirements of statistical input streams. The sampling method must use a random element independent of the data itself in any way. In the case of temperatures, for example, being used as a global average; sampling must be done independent of location (meaning equally space thermometers) and time (since the world rotates, has a mobile atmosphere and sea, and these factors affect the data being read). This means all thermometers must be read simultaneously.

Due to 3), the calibration and accuracy of all thermometers must be known at the time of measurement, and this too becomes part of the meta-data that should be published with the raw data.

Selection must be by randN or a [i]non-repeatable selection[/i (like dealing cards)]. Once a sample is picked, it cannot be picked again. Selection by randU (predictable random numbers) and randR (repeatable random numbers, like dice) are not allowed. randU introduces bias due to predictability, and randR introduces bias by possibly picking a selection twice or more.

These summaries must include not only the average, but the margin of error of that average, the discard fence used for aberrant data, and the variance of the data. Any of this information that is missing renders the remaining information useless.

5) Data used to show trends MUST come from absolute values, due to 3). In addition, such trends must follow the requirements of statistical summary via 4).
Edited on 21-09-2016 04:00
21-09-2016 04:14
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Science is not a set of models. It's an enterprise, an activity.

Here's an alternative explanation of science:

Science is a methodical enterprise that seeks to explain and predict the physical phenomena of the universe.

Within science are three main bodies of information:

1. Data: This includes all scientific observations. Not all data is correct, even if scientifically collected. Thus, when making a statement based on data, the proportion of data that supports that statement is important.

2. Theories: These are testable, falsifiable explanations of physical phenomena. They can be supported or not supported by data; as such, if the body of data does not largely support a theory, something must be done, whether a modification of the theory or an explanation of why the data does not support the theory. (That is, perhaps the data is only looking at X, while it should also include Y. For the latter method of dealing with discrepancy to work, it must suggest more ways of observing data; if this data is collected and still the body of data disagrees with the theory, something must be done again. Theories are not generally accepted until the data supports them, so a theory cannot be extended indefinitely with "oh, if you just looked here the data would agree!")

3. Laws: These do not explain why, but rather state what. They are statements of patterns within data. They can be shown to be false, but only in a new scenario; laws always hold within the scenarios that the data they note patterns within were collected from. A good example is Newtonian gravity - it is a special case of general relativity if c >> the speeds under consideration.

The scientific method is a method of scientifically explaining or obtaining knowledge. It involves making hypotheses or conjectures, following them to their logical and testable conclusions, and testing those conclusions. This either supports or does not support the hypothesis.
21-09-2016 04:40
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4926)
jwoodward48 wrote:Science is not a set of models. It's an enterprise, an activity.

Science is not a church, or worshiping or praying.

Science is the set of falsifiable models that predict nature. They stand on their own. No one's opinion matters.

jwoodward48 wrote: Here's an alternative explanation of science:

Thanks but I offered the clarification for you because you are confused. I'm frankly not interested in becoming confused myself.

So would you mind posting the falsifiable Global Warming model for discussion?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
21-09-2016 04:44
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4926)
jwoodward48 wrote:The scientific method is a method of scientifically explaining or obtaining knowledge.

How does one scientifically explain something as opposed to regularly explain it?

How does one scientifically obtain knowledge as opposed to regularly obtaining it?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
21-09-2016 05:22
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
It's a shame that you have such good ideas for what word should mean, but they already have meanings. Science is not the models. Science is the way we get the models.

I already have, go look for it yourself


Edit: apparently some places define science as the sum of knowledge obtained through the scientific method. Still, even with this meaning, the scientific method is crucial.
Edited on 21-09-2016 05:27
21-09-2016 05:28
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
IBdaMann wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:The scientific method is a method of scientifically explaining or obtaining knowledge.

How does one scientifically explain something as opposed to regularly explain it?

How does one scientifically obtain knowledge as opposed to regularly obtaining it?


.


A scientific theory.

A scientific study.

Anything else you want to ask that my middle schooler sister would be able to answer?


"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist

IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
21-09-2016 05:33
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Alternatively, science is what scientists do. (This is pretty close to my thoughts on the subject: http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/1998-02/887809688.Sh.r.html)
Edited on 21-09-2016 05:34
21-09-2016 15:16
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4926)
jwoodward48 wrote:Anything else you want to ask that my middle schooler sister would be able to answer?

No, I want to ask you. You are illustrating my point very well, thank you.

jwoodward48 wrote:A scientific study.

What distinguishes a "scientific" study from a regular study?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
21-09-2016 15:46
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
A scientific study bases its conclusions on the analysis of data that was observed to test a hypothesis. For it to be accepted, it has to be published. For it to be published, it has to be reviewed by peers. This keeps out junk papers.

What "point" is that? That you understand less about science than I do? That I don't even have to think for more than a few seconds before giving you a valid answer? That you're a bulverist ashshoal?
21-09-2016 20:04
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4926)
jwoodward48 wrote: A scientific study bases its conclusions on the analysis of data that was observed to test a hypothesis.

But a regular study bases its conclusions on the analysis of data/observations as well.

How do you distinguish the "scientific" studies from the regular studies?

jwoodward48 wrote: For it to be accepted, it has to be published.

Regular studies are published.

jwoodward48 wrote: For it to be published, it has to be reviewed by peers. This keeps out junk papers.

False. Studies can be published without any peer review.

I wonder if you understand how things work.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
21-09-2016 20:34
spot
★★★★☆
(1078)
More importantly what did you mean by reamed? what was on your mind when you typed that? Is this the right forum for you?
21-09-2016 21:31
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Asked a professor. It seems that non-peer-reviewed journals do exist, although the research is less conclusive than peer-reviewed research.
21-09-2016 23:46
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9597)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Asked a professor. It seems that non-peer-reviewed journals do exist, although the research is less conclusive than peer-reviewed research.


Peer review is not necessary for science. It is a useful tool for certain aspects of presenting a theory, nothing more.

No magazine or association owns science.


The Parrot Killer
22-09-2016 00:53
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Peer review shows that a paper meets the minimum requirements for reputability. It is by no means necessary, but it helps filter out pseudoscience. It's no more perfect than a water filter, but certainly no less useful.

I was wrong about peer review making a study scientific - it is usually sufficient for showing that a study is scientific, but it is by no means necessary.
22-09-2016 04:46
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4926)
jwoodward48 wrote: Peer review shows that a paper meets the minimum requirements for reputability.

...for publishing, not for science.


jwoodward48 wrote:It is by no means necessary, but it helps filter out pseudoscience.

Nope. The falsifiability and the scientific method do that.

Hence peer review is not required.

jwoodward48 wrote:I was wrong about peer review making a study scientific - it is usually sufficient for showing that a study is scientific, but it is by no means necessary.

Peer review is never sufficient for science.

The only requirements are a falsifiable model that predicts nature.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
22-09-2016 05:21
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
True, but how do you know that the study is not fudged, that the laws are correct, without making it your full-time job and your profession, with several years of learning invested? Not everyone can be a scientist, and science shouldn't only be useful for scientists.
22-09-2016 13:00
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9597)
jwoodward48 wrote:
True, but how do you know that the study is not fudged, that the laws are correct, without making it your full-time job and your profession, with several years of learning invested? Not everyone can be a scientist, and science shouldn't only be useful for scientists.


Everyone can be a scientist. No credentials of any kind are required.

Data collection is not science. It is observation.

The reason you know it's good data is because it has satisfied the requirements of validity of data. You know where it came from, how it was collected and by who, when it was collected, the selection method of the input stream for statistical analysis, the resulting margin of error and the variance, and of course the raw data itself.

How do you know it's been fudged? They either admit it openly, and/or they hide one or more of these previous things about their data to hide what they've done, or raw data from an independent source disagrees with it.


The Parrot Killer
22-09-2016 13:15
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4926)
jwoodward48 wrote:True, but how do you know that the study is not fudged, that the laws are correct, without making it your full-time job and your profession, with several years of learning invested? Not everyone can be a scientist, and science shouldn't only be useful for scientists.

The answer is that you never know. Peer review is the over-abused process that scheisters, e.g. warmizombie activists, leverage to artificially give themselves unwarranted credibility. Just have your buddy attest that "everything looks in order to me" and you just promise to return the favor in the future.

This results in vast quantities of utter crap, albeit "peer reviewed" utter crap, being published.

Peer review has the potential to be value added. When warmizombies give the "peer review" sales pitch, however, they just want an authority tool they can abuse.



.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
22-09-2016 13:42
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:True, but how do you know that the study is not fudged, that the laws are correct, without making it your full-time job and your profession, with several years of learning invested? Not everyone can be a scientist, and science shouldn't only be useful for scientists.

The answer is that you never know. Peer review is the over-abused process that scheisters, e.g. warmizombie activists, leverage to artificially give themselves unwarranted credibility. Just have your buddy attest that "everything looks in order to me" and you just promise to return the favor in the future.

This results in vast quantities of utter crap, albeit "peer reviewed" utter crap, being published.

Peer review has the potential to be value added. When warmizombies give the "peer review" sales pitch, however, they just want an authority tool they can abuse.

Somehow, don't ask me why, I get the feeling you've never had anything published in a peer-reviewed journal
22-09-2016 16:09
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4926)
Surface Detail wrote:Somehow, don't ask me why, I get the feeling you've never had anything published in a peer-reviewed journal

Somehow, don't ask me why, I get the feeling you've never made any positive contribution to society.



.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
22-09-2016 16:17
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:Somehow, don't ask me why, I get the feeling you've never had anything published in a peer-reviewed journal

Somehow, don't ask me why, I get the feeling you've never made any positive contribution to society.

Society? I thought right-wing nut-jobs like you didn't believe in society? You'll be telling me how much you love paying taxes next!
22-09-2016 16:33
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Somehow, don't ask me why, I get the feeling that IB uses ad hominems to distract from his embarrassment.

Also, physicists and computer software-ists (?) contribute to the advancement of society quite a bit. So your ad hominem doesn't even make any sense.
22-09-2016 16:47
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4926)
jwoodward48 wrote: Also, physicists and computer software-ists (?) contribute to the advancement of society quite a bit.

Many do, yes.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
22-09-2016 19:57
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
What evidence do you have for your insult? None. Surface was noting that as someone who has published a paper, he has experience that you don't. You are claiming that peer review is easy to get crap through. It's not.
22-09-2016 21:20
Schoolkid
☆☆☆☆☆
(3)
ok so, climate change is a term used for an abnormality in the earths climate, why is it talked about so much on social media and political debates?
Edited on 22-09-2016 21:26
22-09-2016 21:24
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4926)
Schoolkid wrote:
ok so, climate change is a term used for an abnormality in the earths climate, why is it talked about so much on social media and political debates

Are you a Christian?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
RE: climate change22-09-2016 21:36
Schoolkid
☆☆☆☆☆
(3)
I don't think it really is relevant to this topic, but Yes.
I am doing a research paper for a writing project that is due by the end of this semester.
22-09-2016 22:01
spot
★★★★☆
(1078)
Serous answer; because its a big issue, the implications are big and its always there so if you have a slow news day you can run a climate change story. But really be careful who you get helping with your homework some people on this forum are less then sane.
22-09-2016 22:14
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4926)
Schoolkid wrote:
I don't think it really is relevant to this topic, but Yes.
I am doing a research paper for a writing project that is due by the end of this semester.

Sorry, I was expecting you to say "No" and then I was going to use that for an explanation.

Global Warming is a religion. "Climate Change" is a religion. In fact, both are major denominations of the larger "Climate" family of religions.

There is no Global Warming science. There is no science for any of the denominations.

The reason these religions are discussed so much on social media is identical to why Christianity and Islam are discussed so much on social media.

The reason the "Climate" family of religions all claim to be "settled science" is that this is the modern day way of saying that their religion is "the Truth, the Light and the Way" and that other religions are "false" religions. All religions do it in their own way.

All religions have their slur for non-believers:
Christians: "You heathen!"
Muslim: "You infidel!"
Warmizombie: "You denier!"

All religions have a dogma:
Christians: "The Word of God."
Warmizombies and Climate Lemmings: "The Science"


.

There is no such thing as "climate" defined anywhere in science. It is a word in the dictionary that the "Climate" family of religions have redefined within their WACKY religious dogma.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
22-09-2016 23:01
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Keep spewing your anti-science lies, IB. They're fun to read. At least I get a look into why some people are so convinced that they know everything.
22-09-2016 23:06
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9597)
jwoodward48 wrote:
What evidence do you have for your insult? None.

Insults need evidence now???

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

jwoodward48 wrote:
Surface was noting that as someone who has published a paper, he has experience that you don't. You are claiming that peer review is easy to get crap through. It's not.


It's incredibly easy to get crap through. Even the study by Petra Novakova and others that documented that when dogs defecate and urinate, they prefer to align their body axis with Earth's north-south geomagnetic field lines. Published in a peer-reviewed journal.

Never noticed it in my dog. Maybe's she's stupid.

You can't get better crap through than that!


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 22-09-2016 23:09
22-09-2016 23:30
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
1. So you admit that you are just an "arsehole", instead of stating what you believe to be fact?
2. Anecdotal evidence, supported by anecdotal evidence. Besides, if scientists threw out studies that they believed to be ridiculous, how many unexpectedly correct theories would we have lost? Peer review checks that studies meet certain scientific standards - including these:

.
1. To help select quality articles for publication (filter out studies that have been poorly conceived, designed, and executed) with the selection being based upon:
*The scientific merit and validity of the article and its methodology
**Has the research that is being reported been carried out well with no flaws in the design or methodology?
**Ensure that the work is reported correctly, with acknowledgement of the existing body of work.
**Ensure that the results presented have been interpreted correctly and all possible interpretations considered.
**Ensure that the results are not too preliminary or speculative, but at the same time not block the sharing of innovative new research and theories.
*The relevance of the article to the specific clinical practice – select work that will be the greatest interest to the readership
*The interest of the topic to the clinical reader
*The presentation and understandability of the article itself

2. To improve the manuscript whenever possible.
*Generally improve the quality and readability of a publication.

3. To check against malfeasance within the scientific and clinical community.

4. Provide editors with evidence to make judgments as to whether articles meet the selection criteria for their particular publication.


Note that "are the results ridiculous" is not on that list. Basically, as long as the research was carried out well, the analysis interprets the data well (doesn't misrepresent it) and takes into account the existing body of work on the subject, and the results are suggestive enough, it'll pass (ignoring quality of writing, relevance to journal, etc.).
23-09-2016 00:06
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9597)
jwoodward48 wrote:
1. So you admit that you are just an "arsehole", instead of stating what you believe to be fact?
2. Anecdotal evidence, supported by anecdotal evidence. Besides, if scientists threw out studies that they believed to be ridiculous, how many unexpectedly correct theories would we have lost? Peer review checks that studies meet certain scientific standards - including these:

.
1. To help select quality articles for publication (filter out studies that have been poorly conceived, designed, and executed) with the selection being based upon:
*The scientific merit and validity of the article and its methodology
**Has the research that is being reported been carried out well with no flaws in the design or methodology?
**Ensure that the work is reported correctly, with acknowledgement of the existing body of work.
**Ensure that the results presented have been interpreted correctly and all possible interpretations considered.
**Ensure that the results are not too preliminary or speculative, but at the same time not block the sharing of innovative new research and theories.
*The relevance of the article to the specific clinical practice – select work that will be the greatest interest to the readership
*The interest of the topic to the clinical reader
*The presentation and understandability of the article itself

2. To improve the manuscript whenever possible.
*Generally improve the quality and readability of a publication.

3. To check against malfeasance within the scientific and clinical community.

4. Provide editors with evidence to make judgments as to whether articles meet the selection criteria for their particular publication.


Note that "are the results ridiculous" is not on that list. Basically, as long as the research was carried out well, the analysis interprets the data well (doesn't misrepresent it) and takes into account the existing body of work on the subject, and the results are suggestive enough, it'll pass (ignoring quality of writing, relevance to journal, etc.).


You are denying your own argument.

First you say it is very difficult to get crap through peer review.

When confronted with one case (of many), you actually try to JUSTIFY sending crap through!


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!


The Parrot Killer
23-09-2016 00:44
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
I'm not justifying crap coming through, I'm saying how that is not crap from a scientific perspective. No matter how ridiculous the conclusions, if they follow from the data and the data was collected in a good way, it is not necessarily unscientific. Saying, "oh, it's fine, but it's just too ridiculous for my tastes, so I won't approve it" would be an example of consensus stopping revolutionary ideas from coming through - you are being inconsistent. You want scientists to only accept papers that they agree with, but then you want them to stop allegedly only letting papers through that support global warming? Bias is bias is bias. You can't say that one kind is good and another bad.
23-09-2016 01:13
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4926)
jwoodward48 wrote:I'm not justifying crap coming through, I'm saying how that is not crap from a scientific perspective.

This is a new level of stupid. It's "not crap from a scientific perspective."

From a scientific perspective the only things that are not crap are falsifiable models that accurately predict nature.

All "studies" pertaining to Global Warming and/or "climate change" are crap from a scientific perspective. How many of those made it through peer review?

Too funny.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
23-09-2016 01:21
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
The only reason you're saying that they aren't falsifiable and that they don't accurate predict nature is your claim that sampling bias completely invalidates all data containing it. Better go throw out your computer - some of the science used to make it was based on data with a sampling bias!
23-09-2016 01:39
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9597)
jwoodward48 wrote:
The only reason you're saying that they aren't falsifiable and that they don't accurate predict nature is your claim that sampling bias completely invalidates all data containing it. Better go throw out your computer - some of the science used to make it was based on data with a sampling bias!


No, it wasn't. No science is based on data. Observation is not part of science.

Sampling biased data produces a biased result. Garbage in, garbage out. The result is invalid.


The Parrot Killer
23-09-2016 03:05
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
But all science is partially biased.

And yes science IS based on data. Science is the process. That is a, perhaps the, valid definition.
Edited on 23-09-2016 03:06
23-09-2016 04:01
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9597)
jwoodward48 wrote:
But all science is partially biased.

And yes science IS based on data. Science is the process. That is a, perhaps the, valid definition.


Nope. No data required at all. Science is not a process. It is a noun, not a verb.


The Parrot Killer
Page 1 of 212>





Join the debate Clarification:

Remember me

▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact