The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > How to fix the broken scientific system > Comments

How to fix the broken scientific system : Comments

By Peter Ridd, published 10/1/2011

Because of problems with the scientific system, we cannot have faith that some of the big scientific theories have been properly tested.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 16
  7. 17
  8. 18
  9. All
This piece reads like it was written by a biblical creationist upset that the main stream science doesn't give them the time of day.

Lets ignore the fact that the author is part of a lobby group for the moment and focus on what he is actually saying hear. It sounds to me like he is making a equal time argument, and guess what he thinks his views should get equal billing as others. Now to the layman it sounds like a reasonable request, after all why wouldn't you want to hear both sides of the argument? Then he adds a dash of conspiracy into mix to make is sound like he one of the few (Cater and Plimer) who know the truth but he is been silenced.

The problem with all this is it's so in accurate that it's not even wrong. Science has moved forward for the exactly the reason the author opposes. The best theories always win out, the theory that best models reality will win out eventually. The history of science is littered with examples of this happening time and time again.
Is the peer review process prefect, no it isn't but it works. To believe that making it more like a court trial will somehow make it better is to ignore the fact that many people have gone the gallons for a crime they didn't commit.
Science is the search for the best model of reality not the search for the best lawyer.
Posted by Kenny, Monday, 10 January 2011 9:06:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
In some ways it is possile to liken the scientific process to arguments in court but this article does not emphasise the self-correcting nature of the scientific process whereby theories are constantly tested against new evidence and, when evidence is not consistent with a theory, the theory is revised or abandoned. There are two main problems with the global warming debate 1) It is very difficult to actually perform an experiment in this area when the experimental system itself is planet Earth - so testing of theories can only involve looking at correlations between theory and observations rather than actually altering a parameter to see if the system responds as predicted. 2) The awarding of a Nobel peace prize to the IPCC set them up in the eyes of the world's non-scientifically educated people (the great majority) including most politicians and the media as the final arbiter of truth in this area and it is evident that they have made some assumptions in their reasoning for which we now know there is little evidence ( e.g. see http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=5933 )
Posted by michael_in_adelaide, Monday, 10 January 2011 9:11:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Science can of course be used to "prove" almost anything. It all depends on where the money comes from, and the ideological bias of both the researchers and the candy-man who provides the gold.

Yes, the Australian "Environment" Foundation is directly associated with the IPA.

They are both very much a part of the corporate global public relations spin/lies machine as described by Sharon Beder in her book Global Spin.

They also have direct links with the "Heart"land Institute which is well known as a purveyor of lies, and which along with other right-wing USA groups was/is part of the USA Republican War on Science as described here: http://www.waronscience.com/home.php

The recent book The Merchants of Doubt by Naomi Oreskes also describes how the corporate spin/lies machine does it work.

Regarding the "science" behind Ian Plimer's book why not try Googling DEBUNKING Heaven & Earth IAN PLIMER
Posted by Ho Hum, Monday, 10 January 2011 9:23:51 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This article is almost complete bunkum. Oh no, it's not the evidence that's wrong, it's the system! The science in question in this article is clearly really only 'climate science', not science in general. Science generally is progressing at a great pace.

As for the comparison between the court system and the scientific review system, they are nothing alike, and the court system would not suit your purposes anyway as the court system has 'double jeopardy' rules. Once a decision has been made on the evidence, that's pretty much that. Science is about truth and the truth can defend itself quite nicely, thank you. If you don't like the truth of what the evidence keeps telling us, do some real effing research. Or keep whinging about how the scientific 'system' is 'broken'.
Posted by Bugsy, Monday, 10 January 2011 9:28:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bugsy,

I wish I could dismiss Ridd’s article as bunkum. Unfortunately it isn’t.

As you know from my previous posts I am far from a climate change denier. But I have been aware for some time that the scientific process is broken. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the field of medicine where claims about the efficacy of various medications often seem to expire around the time the patent runs out.

What shocks about the climategate affair is not that some scientists displayed a willingness to fudge their data. That sort of thing has happened throughout the history of science and will continue to happen.

What shocked me is the reaction of the rest of the scientific community. In the past “scientists” like the despicable Phil Jones would have been sacked. Instead many who should have known better rallied to his defence!

Peter Ridd wrote:

>>Once the paper is published, another scientist who thinks there is a problem with the paper may decide not to try to publish an argumentative comment for a number of reasons including the following.

They don’t want to cause a fuss and antagonise a potentially powerful group of scientists who could affect their funding and future job prospects. It’s also not much fun deliberately knocking, and the scientist will get no thanks or extra pay for doing it. For an easy life, it is best to say nothing.>>

This attitude is not confined to climate research. It has become endemic. As I’ve written previously:

>>We have reached the point where the scientific consensus is what scientists are prepared to say in public without risking their research grants, salaries and pensions.>>
Posted by stevenlmeyer, Monday, 10 January 2011 10:00:34 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Perhaps Peter Ridd, the Australian Environment Foundation and the Institute of Public Affairs ("Australia's leading free market think-tank") should exchange notes with Katy Barnett -

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=11431&page=0

The first piece to be published under OLO's "Best Blogs of 2010" feature.

I think my thoughts there:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11431#194677

are equally valid here (best blog of 2011?)

Disclaimer:
Peter and Kate are probably very nice people, it's just their free-wheeling and free-market assertions that are disturbing, but that's just my opinion.
Posted by bonmot, Monday, 10 January 2011 10:08:58 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The clearest sign that the AGW side of climate science is broken is the persistent refusal by its practitioners to divulge what they would accept as evidence AGAINST global warming. This puts AGW theory in the same basket as homeopathy, Freudian psychology, religion, astrology and Marxism, as a pseudoscience whose faithful will go on defending it regardless of the clear and growing indications of what complete nonsense it is. When two years of (unpredicted) winter blizzard conditions across the Northern Hemisphere are taken to be evidence in favour 'global warming', then clearly the 'science' is not merely broken but kaput, SNAFU, defunct and pushing up daisies.

It has gone to meet its maker. It is ex-science.
Posted by Jon J, Monday, 10 January 2011 10:43:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
One thing which all the 'posters ' have ignored is that the judiciary long ago developed BOTH a set of "standards of evidence' (Google 'Daubert'if interested)) AND an impressive infra-structure for deciding whether or not testimony by defence or prosecution so-called 'expert witnesses' met these standards. The judiciary did this because it realised that jurors could not be expected to have the background or expertise to make such decisions, and could be easily swayed by plausible and glib so-called 'experts'. Under this infra-structure, if the judge cannot decide if these standards have been met, then the decision can be passed all the way up to the high court. Forensic science as we know it today was PARTLY a consequence of the judiciary's decision to develop this system.
I think science needs to think about developing a similar infra-structure.
Cambo
Posted by Cambo, Monday, 10 January 2011 11:08:31 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
THE DENIERS HAVE WON
As a former climate change believer, may I personally apologize for condemning billions of children to death by CO2 for 25 years, “just” to get them to turn the lights out more often? I had become the fear mongering neocon of CO2 environMENTALism as I issued CO2 death warrants to YOUR family and mine. I apologize for calling cold -warm, warm -hot and for calling all bad weather -Humanity’s fault. I apologize for splitting responsible environmentalism and dragging progressivism down with it. I apologize for not endorsing population control instead of insane climate control.
I apologize for our constant demonizing, fear mongering and our whacko exaggerations of climate change. I apologize for scaring children with: “unstoppable warming” and “out of control warming and “runaway warming“ and not having the honesty to call it THE END OF THE WORLD.
I’m sorry I forgot this MOST important fact:
-that it was the trusted scientists and their evil chemicals that made environmentalism necessary in the first place.
We admit to being pretend rebels as we were spoon-fed by corporations and politicians promising to lower the seas. The neocons have never admitted their Iraq War WMD’s and the scientists have never admitted responsibility for their chemicals that are causing cancer. I admit my ideology’s WMD’s that led us to another Bush-like false war against a false enemy. Please forgive me?
Posted by mememine69, Monday, 10 January 2011 11:22:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Actual stevenlmeyer, the assumption here is that there is an overarching 'scientific process' that is somehow 'broken'. Like many claims against the 'democratic process' etc.

What appears to be in issue here is that both you and Peter appear to be complaining specifically about
1) The scientific reporting 'process', in that one can't publish against the establishment as some reviewers will reject to protect their pet theories. Well this is why we have more than one journal for just about everything. You will always find a journal to publish in and this is becoming far easier now we have open access and internet journals. If you get rejected by the journal you want to publish in, have a bit of a pout.
2) The scientific funding process, which is of course completely different and difficult. There is only so much in the research budget, having a bit of sulk because

3) The pharmaceutical industry practices do not reflect all science, but is a reflection of what corporations do with science to protect steady income streams. This also is not a 'science is broken' situation.

The scientific community is a chaotic jumble of separate processes, funding streams, reporting requirements etc. There is no overarching 'process' that you can point to and say 'that's broken'.

Both you an Peter Ridd have dome quite well out of various 'scientific processes' over the years, I think it's just churlish to say that the whole 'scientific process' is broken when you see something you don't like happening.
Posted by Bugsy, Monday, 10 January 2011 12:26:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
[Deleted for abuse.]
Posted by Ken Fabos, Monday, 10 January 2011 1:22:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
[Deleted for abuse.]
Posted by Shintaro, Monday, 10 January 2011 1:45:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As a fellow physicist, I am embarrassed by Ridd's article. It is writing like this that will ensure that science "breaks".

Ridd doesn't seem to understand that the key distinction between science and law is that science relies on a the processes of empirical evidence, as compared with adversarial advocacy in the legal system (see J. Ziman "Public Knowledge: The social dimension of science". Cambridge University Press 1968). A "smart" lawyer can get a felon acquitted by "swaying" the jury in the limited period of the trial. There is no concept of "double jeopardy" in science and if errors are made- as they often are- then they tend to be rectified over time if they are important errors.

Paradoxically, Ridd's CV lists an impressive number of apparently peer-reviewed research papers, presumably funded by the aforesaid "broken" system. Are the findings in these papers reliable, given the allegedly dodgy system that has supported them? Is he 'fessing up?

The paradox is even deeper, as he is an "advisor" to the Australian Environment Foundation. AEF's website is essentially a catalog of denialist literature. As an "advisor" does Ridd apply the same peer-review discipline to AEF literature that is applied to ARC-funded literature?

If OLO readers want to read something sensible about this vexing issue, try "Reflection on Funding panels" published at RealClimate.org last week, together with about 50 thoughtful responses (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/01/reflections-on-funding-panels/)
Posted by Jedimaster, Monday, 10 January 2011 2:34:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dr Ridd's essay seems to me to have two parts. The first is about peer review which, I would agree, can be deficient. It's the best system we have, but that is not saying much. Incidentally, I don't think that it establishes a piece of research as 'gold standard'. What it does do is to get the research out into the public domain. Whether or not a given piece of research is any good will be determined over time thereafter. The great majority of peer-reviewed research disappears almost without trace.

The second part is about the deficiency of the IPCC system, where a single institution has the job of assessing the current state of research in a given area, and reporting on that to the rest of us. If that was all it did, I could live with it. As with peer review, I think the IPCC can be seen to be deficient in some areas. In particular, it does not explain how it has come to value some research over others. There is very little argument in the AR4 and earlier reports.

I'm not sure, however, that I am persuaded that the proposed Scientific Challengers Office has a future. I have argued for a Royal Commission to assess the AGW claims, but accept that this too could be dodgy.

The problem is that AGW proponents tell us that unless we do costly and difficult things now we will be responsible for the end of human civilisation as we know it. This is a big claim indeed, and no other scientific hypothesis that I can think of has come with such apocalyptic overtones. Would else would the SCO do other than deal with AGW? And isn't the democratic political system (yes, that has deficiencies, too) finally the real arbiter in all this?
Posted by Don Aitkin, Monday, 10 January 2011 2:58:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A most polite and reasonable approach, by Peter Ridd, to the very real problem that we are no longer able to rely on science in our community, to be even handed and honest.

He is right that we need a community funded body to challenge scientific findings which affect the community.

The reason for this is that science has been politicised, so that instead of being conducted in an objective and principled manner, it is conducted to produce “science” to validate government proposals, which in reality have no valid scientific base.

This does not matter in a unique country like the Czech Republic, where the government acknowledges that AGW is a fraud, but certainly matters in the rest of the Western countries where previously reputable scientific bodies like the CSIRO, the BOM, numerous University Departments, The Roal Society, and others have been subverted to produce material which skirts around the fact that there is no scientific basis for asserting that human emissions of CO2 have any measurable effect on climate.

This is pointed up by the lack of argument in the comments here on this article, which resort to criticism and abuse of Peter and of other scientists who have put forward valid dismissals of the AGW fraud.

The encouraging aspect is that despite the relentless push of the fraud backers, public opinion continues to build against them. A majority now realise that the AGW assertion is baseless. It is only a matter of time before the poll driven politicians must acknowledge this.

Every one of these negative commenters have been challenged to produce scientific evidence, and they routinely ignore the question,or refer us to fraudulent sites like RealClimate, or Skeptical Science. Generally they contribute only the abuse which one must expect from desperate people, with no valid basis for their assertions.
Posted by Leo Lane, Monday, 10 January 2011 3:05:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It is a sad fact that anything associated, in whole or even in part, with AGW can be relied on to produce a level of nastiness in the responses that is unique. Professor Ridd's article was only in part about AGW. He clearly sees issues such as the science of the Great Barrier Reef as another massive issue. He is a Physical Oceanographer so it can be presumed he has reasons for his scientific comncerns. The comments on this article see nothing but AGW. Pity.
If we make the assumptions (a) that Professor Ridd is intelligent and (b)that he is old enough to know the way people react in any given set of circumstances; then we have to assume that he will have expected to have to endure the gross vitriol in comments such as those of Ken Fabos and Shintaro.
The very nastiness of many of the comments demonstrates that at least in part Ridd's article was right on the button. He commented that it is not nice, pofitable or enjoyable to question fashionable thinking. He emphasised the point that it is much easier to do nothing, to go with the tide, to not rock the boat.
Doubtless Professor Ridd will survive the venom, but the splenetic commenters will, I am sure, know that they have in part proved Ridd's case and more importantly for them made sure that anyone else who 'comes out' with scientific thinking which is contrary to any fashion can expect the same belting - so best keep quiet.
Posted by eyejaw, Monday, 10 January 2011 3:17:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I want to endorse Jedimaster's suggestion that posters read the piece on funding panels on the Real Climate Change website. And while you're at it browse the site.

As for science not being an adversarial process – well of course it isn’t in the same sense that the law is. Dodgy “scientists” like Phil Jones notwithstanding, most scientists really do want to get at the truth. Lawyers, on the other hand, are mostly interested in obfuscation.

But scientific arguments can get pretty intense and emotional. And, unfortunately, with reputations, tenure, research grants and livelihoods at stake, many scientists succumb to the temptation to cheat.

What shocks me is not that a second rate scientist expressed an intention to cheat but the fact that he was not sacked. And please don’t tell me that a Parliamentary enquiry cleared Jones. There is NO legitimate use of the word “trick” juxtaposed with the word “hide” in connection with the presentation of data in a scientific publication.

Every day that Jones continues in his job advertises the fact that the scientific process – or processes to satisfy Bugsy – is /are indeed in need of overhaul.

I am truly sorry to find myself on the same side as a climate change denier on this issue. It grates. I wish I could tell Ridd his article is bunk.

But in the end it is what it is.

That does not mean that I buy Ridd’s remedy or have any illusions about Ridd himself. I have my own ideas on how to repair the process or processes.
Posted by stevenlmeyer, Monday, 10 January 2011 3:18:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Steven,

Could you try not to use the word 'denier'? It is not necessary. If you mean that Dr Ridd does not accept the full force of the IPCC's findings in AR4, that is another matter. What is it that you think Dr Ridd denies?

And on websites, I ought to have mentioned the excellent 'Climate etc.' of Judith Curry. It is very good indeed, and you will find all shades of opinion there, including people who do in fact deny everything that the IPCC says — or at least they appear to. And yo wil learn a lot there too, which should help people feel that the time they have spent is worthwhile — if they are there to learn...
Posted by Don Aitkin, Monday, 10 January 2011 3:28:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The subjective political bunfight for acceptance and funding that Peter Ridd describes as a 'broken scientific system' may well represent what he (and others who claim to be scientists) believe matters and leads us to 'conventional wisdom' but it is a long way from the 'hard facts and cold logic' which make up the basic scientific process which every scientist must negotiate when interpreting their evidence and deriving a conclusion. The adversarial stage in science is there from the very beginning of the process - and the argument must take place in the mind of the scientist long before questions of publication and the appointment of peer review panels - and if hard facts and cold logic are abrogated by socio-political influences as the research paper is written and reviewed then the very integrity of science has been breached. If Peter Ridd genuinely sees science and the scientific process as the superficial political creature he describes his credentials as a scientist must be questioned - but then as he points out, scientists are only human and no doubt there are some who do place ideology before intellectual integrity. But at the end of the day, the numbers tell the story and if there are times when the story is unpalatable to such as Peter Ridd I suggest rather than try to manipulate the jury, he goes back to first principles and applies objective scientific methodology and considers the evidence and the logic with an open and unbiased mindset.
Anthropogenic Global Warming, the fate of the Murray-Darling and the Great Barrier reef deserve nothing less.
Posted by trevor harden, Monday, 10 January 2011 4:09:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Leo Lane: "...we need a community funded body to challenge scientific findings which affect the community."

Does 'community funded'= 'government funded'? Or something else?

I would propose that (non-government)'community funded bodies' that do just this already exist, eg. the groups that the likes of Peter Ridd and Jenifer Marohasy inhabit.

I wouldn't agree with eyejaw that it is not nice, profitable or enjoyable to question fashionable thinking. Lots of people do it because it is just that.

And it does raise your profile.
Posted by Bugsy, Monday, 10 January 2011 4:46:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Kenny, should try to make a positive contribution to this discussion. Your main thrust appears to me to be pouring insults on the author.

An author taking one side in a debate, does not justify insults, either towards the author or his arguments. Comments such as “a biblical creationist upset ..” or accusations of a “lobby group” are unbecoming for anyone who wishes to part of a serious discussion. Many authors make much of “peer reviewed” work, but something greater than 50% of IPCC references are only opinion from persons with no scientific backing. Revelations in emails between “scientists” at CRU, and others, involving an Australian author whose significant paper was subject to incorrect assertions in a critical response paper from those same scientists whose influence extended to the replacement of a less than cooperative editor. The validity of the first paper is now unquestionable and the case demonstrates that the process of peer review had sunk in that instance, to – dare I say it –the level of “conspiracy”. (I don’t like the word conspiracy, but from the known/ unchallenged manipulations in this case, it is difficult to find an alternative. A group didn’t like a substantial paper which contradicted some of their work; they “conspire” in those emails to have further discussion stopped by forcing a change of editor which prevents any response to their own first reply. Not a “conspiracy” – what then?

Look up Ridd’s publication list - environmental science, particularly amongst the corals of the GBR. You will soon see that from his own point of view, publication is not an issue. However, he is capable of taking a broader view and is expressing here frustration at seeing what happened over the past 20 years to a previously open scientific exchange of ideas through publications and conferences. This openness has been replaced in important areas of research by a closed shop mentality, where groups control the funding, through colleagues acting as application referees/sitting on panels, as well as controlling publication through colleagues acting as “independent” referees. John Nicol
Posted by John Nicol, Tuesday, 11 January 2011 8:05:29 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jedimaster, you speak as a “fellow physicist” but don’t give us a clue as to your background. Your comments miss the point of Ridd’s article which he certainly has no need apply to himself, as an outstanding, self directed, scientist. It is his position in the scientific world of applied physics that gives him the confidence to raise matters so easily recognised as being more apparent in recent years. Lesser people shy away from such discussion being unable to withstand the inevitable criticism. Others may benefit from Ridd’s courage, but he just takes the flak.

Trevor Harden. I’m not sure of your implication of “adversarial”, but there was a time, not long ago, when scientists were far less adversarial and more cooperative in solving problems. Scientists from Australia travelled to the prestigious laboratories around the world, CalTech, MIT, Cavendish, Clarendon, Max...., confident that they would be helped to develop similar research in their own labs which, would “compete”with their generous teachers. Ideas and data were freely exchanged, and problems solved with mutual respect and debate. What your comments appear to be saying is that this is not to be expected – true it is no longer expected in some areas. Effectively public data was withheld by privileged workers at CRU who used it to provide colleagues only, with opportunities. This was not good science. The adversary for all scientists is the problem at hand, not colleagues or others in distant laboratories. Ridd is simply pointing out the facts – that in the minds of many today, there is a political and social dimension developing in science which should not be welcome if scientists are doing their job properly, and progress is to be made towards a better world. Debate in some areas of important research is stifled by the very issues that Ridd is highlighting. Certainly, I agree with you that the discussions on the effects of CO2 on Global Warming, the Murray-Darling and Barrier Reef deserve nothing less than competitive, but cooperative, research as advocated by Ridd – not adversarial!
John Nicol
Posted by John Nicol, Tuesday, 11 January 2011 8:17:51 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
John Nichol, you appear to have missed my point about the 'adversarial' or 'competitive' nature of the scientific process. The competition between possible alternative interpretations of the evidence and the logical inferences to be drawn from the evidence is something which takes place in the minds of scientists as they address their task with illectual integrity (and competence?). It has nothing to do with the socio-political processes whereby scientists seek fame (publication) and fortune(funding)in competition with each other in the ever more commercial academic world. Good science stands tall on the basis of the hard facts and cold logic which gave rise to its conclusions - the critical analysis which Peter Ridd is claiming to be lacking has taken place before the science has seen the light of day - that the real world has 'scientists' who are prepared to put ideology ahead of integrity and see commercial competition as the measure of their success is unfortunate - but science is science is science.
Posted by trevor harden, Tuesday, 11 January 2011 9:13:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
John Nicol- I thought that part of the reason for code-names in OLO was to keep the focus on the issues, the facts and the opinions that might be deduced therefrom, rather than on the authority that someone might assume from their social or institutional position.

I do have a PhD in physics, but as a retiree, maybe my status has been revoked. I have served as an expert witness in many court cases and seen at first hand Ziman's distinction between "evidence" and "advocacy", where smart lawyers conflate possibilities with probabilities to sow doubt in the judge's mind. Once acquitted or convicted, the accused essentially maintains that status forever, as retrial is more likely to be based on financial considerations than justice. I use this experience to point to the energy that is being put into advocacy these days by proponents of particular interests, who know that they only have to win in the short term as the victor takes the spoils and rewrites history to suit themselves.

Oh- and I also developed and managed a $10M/yr State-based research funding body that complemented and supplemented the Commonwealth's Cooperative Research Centres program and an innovation funding program as well. Along with other positions I have held, I would count the proposals that I have reviewed in the thousands. The challenge was always to encourage researchers to take that extra step, without stepping away from the evidence.

I maintain that the system will surely break if scientists try to live double lives, where in one they pursue evidence and in the other they zealously advocate.
Posted by Jedimaster, Tuesday, 11 January 2011 9:57:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
John Nicol, you roll with loaded dice:

Australian Climate Science Coalition
American Climate Science Coalition
New Zealand Climate Science Coalition
International Climate Science Coalition
Australian Environment Foundation
Lavoisier Group
Icecap
JoNova
etc

While their mission seems admirable, they are only merchants of doubt.
Posted by bonmot, Tuesday, 11 January 2011 11:22:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jedimaster:

I went to the Realclimate website and read Gavin Schmidt's piece. It seemed well judged to me, though there were some things I thought could be added, so I provided a post myself. Maybe it will survive moderation.

But the last remark in your second post puzzled me: 'the system will surely break if scientists try to live double lives, where in one they pursue evidence and in the other they zealously advocate'. I am sure that Peter Ridd would agree, as I do. What you say is exactly why some agnostics and sceptics criticise AGW proponents, like Hansen in the USA and Karoly and Lambeck here. It seems to me that they do just that. Have I missed something?

You also remark that 'part of the reason for code-names in OLO was to keep the focus on the issues, the facts and the opinions that might be deduced therefrom, rather than on the authority that someone might assume from their social or institutional position'. I wasn't aware that it was a requirement, and I wasn't sure, either, whether you were criticising John Nicol or Peter Ridd, or why. For what it's worth I use my own name because I am happy to stand by what I have written, and because I think that anonymity allows people to say things they would not say at all, if their real names were used. I do not suggest that you have done so in this case. I'm just puzzled.
Posted by Don Aitkin, Tuesday, 11 January 2011 11:46:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
John Nichol, Your right I do pour scorn on this, but I do for very valid reasons. It born from knowing that there is a difference between scientific debate and political debate. Mainstream climate science has moved on from the debates that climate deniers want to have, how many times does the same ground have to be trod?
I gave creationism as an example because it smells the same to me. It is not hard to find working scientist that believe the world was created by the Christian God about 6 thousand years ago. you can go to the website and find that their well written and cited blogs and articles all sound quite reasonable to the general public. The fact you will also get quite a few politicians who are convinced by the creationists that mainstream science has got it all wrong further demonstrates my point.
So tell me should we take creationist POV’s into account, should mainstream scientist always be at the ready to go over the same ground over and over again.
Next question then can you explain to me how the Anti-global warmers operate any different to the creationist? I’ll add here that many of the young earth creationist are nice respectable people, they are just wrong and will never get it no matter what their shown.
I’ll make a bet with you thrown up any argument against the science of global warming that has been made by anybody who thinks global warming is not happening and I will show you a exact example that has been used by creationist. Or how about show me a single fact brought up by AGW that has not been addressed by climates scientist. I’ll give you a hint if you take up the challenge don’t make a fool of yourself put some effort into it.
Posted by Kenny, Tuesday, 11 January 2011 1:35:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Don Aitkin: Personally, I would prefer a consistent policy on code-names- either all-on or all-off and an ethos on OLO that kept the focus on how facts can inform opinion. As it is, some people use code-names because they thought that was the rule when they joined; some need to, as their professional positions might be compromised without anonymity; some simply hide behind anonymity to escape accountability as they hurl epithets indiscriminately; some use their real names, with presumption; some use their real names because they are indifferent.

In the present situation, it looked to me that John Nicol "wanted to know who I was", beyond the strength of my ideas. That's why I try to either give examples or references to support my assertions, like a good little physicist should.

I've never said that AGW-deniers had a monopoly on zealous advocacy. I suspect I'm one of the very few people who paid money to see both Monckton and Hanson last year. Both audiences seemed (code for "I didn't do empirical testing") to be mainly zealots -either pro or anti-AGW.

The point that I'm trying to get to here is that very few people are in a situation to be anything like zealous about the AGW issue- pro or con- they simply do not have the expertise to assess the data, even if they had access to it. I include myself in that category, despite my training as a physicist and 40 years involvement in research and solar energy. However, my experience (again, code for "I didn't do empirical testing") suggests to me that "science" is far from broken and, ideas don't last more than a couple of years (ie funding cycles) if they don't have substance. Given that, if I were a betting man, I would put my money on AGW.

Of course, it could all be proved to be erroneous tomorrow- that is the strength of modern science- it must be amenable to disproof.

Which is unlike the denialist position, which seems (same code) based wholly on faith, rather than reason and appeals to personal authority (including peerage).
Posted by Jedimaster, Tuesday, 11 January 2011 2:10:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Further to Peter Ridd's doubt about climate-skeptic Professors Carter and Plimer being given employment at the AGO (now the Department of Climate Change), the AGO would be unlikely to re-employ Dr David Evans who worked there from 1999 to 2005. Evans, a specialist in feedback processes and complex systems analysis, concluded that the evidence supporting the idea that CO2 emissions were the main cause of global warming reversed itself from 1998 to 2006, causing him to move from being a warmist to a skeptic.

Evans concluded (see reference below) : "The western climate establishment supports the concept that global warming is man-made, and disparages all other theories. They issue reports that overwhelm their readers with detail, written in dense language that is difficult for a layperson to decode. Basically their message is authoritarian: “we are the experts, it is very complicated, you can’t understand it, so just accept what we say.”

But their message is nonsense. Everyone is familiar with temperature, and everyone (except the “politically sophisticated”) knows that siting official thermometers near air conditioners is cheating. The reality is that the temperature and other data has become unfavorable to their climate theory, so they hide behind complexity and authority instead of simply telling you what is going on.

While their theory seemed plausible 15 years ago, new evidence has proven the influence of CO2 to be greatly exaggerated. There is a germ of truth to their theory, but our emissions are not nearly as serious as they make out. The western climate establishment does not want you to know this, presumably for fear of losing the considerable income, perks, status, and influence that has come their way since they started promoting their theory. So they have taken to bamboozling us with “science” ... ".

For the reasoning leading to Evans' conclusion, see his 8 November 2010 paper "Is the Western Climate Establishment Corrupt?" at
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/western_climate_establishment_corrupt.html
Posted by Raycom, Tuesday, 11 January 2011 2:53:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Kenny, who thinks global warming is not happening? Try the Climategate miscreant, Phil Jones. He says there has been no global warming for 15 years.

If you mean that anthropogenic based global warming is not happening, then there are more than 30,000 scientists have signed a petition that no action be taken on AGW until there is a scientific case made out for it, rather than the pathetic and unscientific “very likely” asserted by the IPCC.

The boring, well trodden path of the realists is to request a scientific basis from those asserting AGW. It only has to be repeated endlessly because this vital request is ignored. All you need do is cease to assert AGW, as you do, in the same manner as a creationist asserts the existence of God, and you will not be endlessly confronted with your own inadequacy.

I hope I have sorted out your confusion, Kenny. You are asserting the unproven unsustainable belief in AGW, and you somehow think that the people pointing this out to you are similar to creationists. You are the creationist, but with less scientific backing.

I see that the other Ken (Fabos) has been deleted for abuse. I rather enjoyed reading the fulminations of an AGW backer who was bereft of anything effective to say . We no longer have his post as an object lesson.

Thanks for the rundown on David Evans, Raycom, he has certainly been a tower of strength in uncovering the truth of this area, in the murk created by the IPCC and its backers.
Posted by Leo Lane, Tuesday, 11 January 2011 4:07:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks, Jedimaster. Pleasant and accessible post, with which I generally agree.

I describe myself as 'agnostic' about AGW, because after four years of reading and study, and thirty years of reading and assessing projects in all fields other than medical science (actually, a few of them, too in Canada), I'm simply not sure that AGW is dangerous (I think it is probably real, if earth resembles closely a black body and most other things are equal). I continue to ask questions, and continue to be reasonably unhappy with what purport to be answers.

Cheers.
Posted by Don Aitkin, Tuesday, 11 January 2011 4:43:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jedimaster and Don Aitkin

Hear, hear!

Alas, I'm not optimistic.
Posted by bonmot, Tuesday, 11 January 2011 5:15:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
We all theoretically agree that science ought to be based on evidence, and that a scientific theory ought to be tested on the basis of the factual correctness of its predictions.

So here are a couple of pieces of evidence from my reading this morning that the catastophic global warmers have to answer. I owe both bits of information to Roger Pielke Sr's blog.

First is some work on ocean temperatures. http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2011/01/10/research-issues-on-the-missing-heat/ No-one is having much luck finding the missing heat that is supposed to have gone into the oceans, and if they can't then the models don't work too well.

Second is a proposed way of testing Spencer's contention that global warming is mostly driven by ocean circulation and is relatively insensitive to CO2 forcing. http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2011/01/06/two-hypotheses-with-respect-to-lower-tropospheric-temperature-anomalies-current-status/ Pielke observes that the facts at the moment appear to favour Spencer.

If the atmosphere is less sensitive to CO2 than the models assume, we don't have much to worry about. It's the sort of work that people like Pielke are doing that Ridd claims ought to be better-funded. I think he's right that we need more of it, but I'm not quite sure who would be the funder.
Posted by GrahamY, Tuesday, 11 January 2011 5:37:58 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Less bluntly than before, the author and the Australian Environment Foundation are engaged in attempts to break the scientific system in order to have it produce the results it wants. Or more correctly, trying to undermine public confidence in the world's leading scientists and institutions; they are incapable of publishing genuine peer-reviewed science. Attempts to achieve a true understanding of climate is something beyond price - in all it's fundamentals already achieved - and the cynical and misguided efforts of Peter Ridd and the AEF to devalue it deserve only condemnation.
Posted by Ken Fabos, Tuesday, 11 January 2011 7:32:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
GrahamY and others interested: As I said, I'm not an expert in this area, but reasonably well schooled in science to understand a lot of the complex explanations. It didn't take me long googling in RealClimate.org (May 2010) to find a robust debate on this issue:
(http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/05/ocean-heat-content-increases-update/).

Essentially, it seems to be the same climate vs weather issue that gets thrown endlessly into the debate, ie trying to make definitive statements about long term changes from short term data. It is the same sort of issue for which Phil Jones was maligned. Quote:

What Jones actually said is that, while the globe has nominally warmed since 1995, it is difficult to establish the statistical significance of that warming given the short nature of the time interval (1995-present) involved. The warming trend consequently doesn’t quite achieve statistical significance. But it is extremely difficult to establish a statistically significant trend over a time interval as short as 15 years–a point we have made countless times at RealClimate. (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/02/daily-mangle/)

Paradoxically, it is quite likely that pro-AGW-ers will point to the present Queensland floods as evidence of climate change and the denialists will use the short-term-fluctuation rebuttal. Similarly, the Tea Party claims that the Arizona Assassin is a "statistical outlier" and not, as "Liberals" assert, an inevitable outcome of extremist rhetoric.

I guess that the point of all this is that most people are uncomfortable with the mathematics of probability and statistics and are constantly looking for swallows to make their particular summer, while denying others their inferences from solitary swallows.

For those with an open mind and time to spare, try reading "Fooled by Randomness: The Hidden Role of Chance in Life and in the Markets by Nassim Nicholas Taleb, 2008.
Posted by Jedimaster, Tuesday, 11 January 2011 8:49:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The dishonesty of the pro AGW proponents is not subtle.

Ken Fabos, without any basis whatsoever, makes blatant accusations against honest scientists who merely wish to bring out that hated nemesis of AGW, the truth.

They are “engaged in attempts to break the scientific system in order to have it produce the results it wants”. There is no basis to assert this against honest scientists, but another example of the activities of the AGW proponents has arisen with further proof of subversion of the Met Office to produce the results the AGW confidence men want.

It gave a correct prediction, to Cabinet, of the severe winter in UK 3 months before it happened, while publicly predicting a mild winter, to back up the alarmist nonsense of 2010 being the hottest year yet..

“In October 2008, the Met predicted "a milder than average" winter, only for Britain to experience its coldest in 10 years. The following year, the Met predicted that "the trend to milder and wetter winters is expected to continue" – only for Britain to experience the coldest winter in 30 years. This winter has proved the coldest since records begin”

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/01/07/met_office_forecast_not_forecast/

The peer review corruption of the AGW pushers, and the pressure by them on previously reputable journals to publish the “peer reviewed “ nonsense of the Climategate miscreants, while stalling and blocking publication of the honest science is disclosed for all to see in the Climategate emails.

Ken backs these miscreants and makes a scurrilous unjustifiable attack on the honest scientists. If he is capable of shame he should feel it when he reads the article on the sorry state of the Met, on the above site.

Since I request Ken each time I reply to a post of his to produce any scientific basis for the assertion of AGW, I will make the request again. If you cannot produce it, Ken, could you at least spare us the nonsense you post, based on asserted science which does not exist.
Posted by Leo Lane, Tuesday, 11 January 2011 8:51:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jedimaster, Sorry to be slow responding to several polite posts, though critical of your initial approach to Ridd’s discussion, - an "advisor" to the AEF”.. whose..”website is..a catalog of denialist literature”.

Not looking for a CV but physicists are rare and wished to know more. May I say your credentials are impressive. So yeah, I wanted to know because I look for informed people wishing to debate the issues. Two such, one ex-prof. physics sought me for that purpose - we have incisive, constructive and interesting exchangs. Another a computer scientist. More stimulating than discussions with people of similar view. My interest is in spectroscopy and energy exchange(CO2) warming air and high level radiation contributing to cooling.

On pen name, like Don Aitkin, I use my name to identify myself with what I say. No objection if others keep their identity private - many reasons for this.

Skeptical, I maintain respect changing/warming climate emerging from LIA. It warmed in step with CO2 increases 1979-95 (17 yrs - positive correlation) - not debated nor surprising. 15 yrs stasis 1995-2010 Does not prove causality any more than do models. Same rise 1860-80.

Agree with “.. maintain system will break if scientists live double lives, ...pursue evidence, zealously advocate.” It seems CSIRO, Uof M, UNSW , ANU.. do that. An hour ago one on TV, sheeted home Queensland floods, directly to global warming, as you predicted “..likely.. pro-AGW-ers will point to the present Queensland floods as evidence ..”.

If that were true, models should have provided warning months ago rather than projecting drought. BOM, responsible for flood modelling, could have had models of river flows to show where the water would go. An hour ago - unable obtain projection for suburbs near here - have to keep feeding models new data! “Sorry” it says, “no data for area”. Why - they had plenty of time to tell us about a drought that wasn’t and that 2050 will be a scorcher?. Farmers on the Darling Downs could have done with reliable information. John Nicol
Posted by John Nicol, Wednesday, 12 January 2011 3:41:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Michael Rowan,
I agree with you, that CO2 should form the bases for arguments on Global Warming. However, Ridd addresses the real world of “climate” where it is hard to find direct reference to carbon dioxide, just “climate change”, “melting ice” and “events” - bushfires, floods and snowfalls - claimed to demonstrate Warming. Ridd’s statements thus necessarily represent comments on the narrow arguments by climate authors. CO2 is infrequently mentioned, because no evidence from measurements or theory shows carbon dioxide can do what Arrhenius postulated in 1895. Based on the understanding of gases at the time, (quantum theory developed post 1913), Arrhenius’ ideas are pure speculation and do not stand up to modern spectroscopic measurement or theory. Yet recent, demonstrably correct, analysis is conveniently ignored by climate modellers, along with solar effects, referring only to Arrhenius.

Carbon dioxide contributes a very small fraction to warming the atmosphere, most heat coming from water vapour over sea and contact with land. If this were not so, seas would be much hotter. Over land at midday, tropical temperature would rise to about 100 C. It does not! Because of similar air cooling to the cooling of a Harley Davidson! Over 25 years of measurements in upper tropical atmosphere, has not found the model’s “signature” of the greenhouse effect ,in the form of greatly enhanced warming. Its absence is now very well established from measurements using radio sondes, high flying aircraft and satellites. No signature - No enhanced greenhouse effect!

The warming “demonstrated” by the models only appears because there is an input of “assumed” heating by carbon dioxide and the GCMs are run to determine how the atmosphere and oceans will deal with that heat. Radiation used by models from CO2 cannot occur physically, spectroscopically. It is wrong. There is no clear connection between this assumed heating and reality. A glance at the output from models, after forty years, demonstrates that they do not match what are now known to be actual temperatures over the past many years. This is no surprise.
John Nicol
Posted by John Nicol, Wednesday, 12 January 2011 3:53:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes, Trevor, I accept that I may have misinterpreted your use of “adversarial” and in general agree with the comments you have just made. However, I believe that even before publication, there was much more open discussion between scientists in different institutions than is allowed today, but would concede that your experiences would at least parallel mine and probably you have an even wider appreciation of what changes there have been. Not so long ago, and well into my retirement, I offered some advice to a past research student of mine who had asked me some questions by letter regarding a matter within a project she was working on as a post doc. I was quite amazed to receive a letter from her supervisor warning me off as if I had been about to poach their data – a quite bazarre experience which was revisited in my mind when I read of the “hiding” and FOI refusals in the CRU emails. As I said in replying, this was something I had never experienced in the whole of my former working life. I may have lived in a sheltered world, but critical analysis was generally done very openly with colleagues and competitors alike. It is this current lack of openness and sharing of the analysis process which I interpret Ridd’s essay as questioning, rather than considering the critical analysis done by a single person or group, “in the minds of scientists”, in a secretive way. OK. These may not have been general attributes throughout the scientific community of the past, but they are consistent with my reading of historical accounts of breakthroughs in Physics in the distant past and with my own very limited experience in the areas of my own research fields. John Nicol
Posted by John Nicol, Wednesday, 12 January 2011 4:00:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The blame game has started.

Despicable, reprehensible ... steeping to 'sophisticated' gutter tactics for a conceived agenda ... yep, blame BOM.

No one can pin this event on GW, but extreme weather events are expected.
Posted by bonmot, Wednesday, 12 January 2011 7:46:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
bonmot, extreme weather events are not new, there have always been extreme weather events, volcanic eruptions, earthquakes and other world events which translate as disasters.

The attempt by the AGW believer community to try to claim all current extreme events as the result of additional global warming is disingenuous and adds to the credibility gap that the hysterical types are currently enjoying.

No one really believes that all of a sudden you can point to extreme events and blame AGW .. I was in Brisbane in 1974 for the floods .. not one was hysterically casting around for a scapegoat .. that's new and recent, and seems to be a bandwagon of the AGW tribe.

This is akin to astrology and people see it, that now the AGW believers attempt to claim wet, dry drought, storm everything "fits" into the AGW predictions. So there are now, no events that do not fit .. AGW cannot be disporved .. ha, that's no longer science.

Like astrology, it's all done after the event .. ahha the recent cold spell in Europe was "predicted", evidently secretly by the MET .. what utter rubbish, their original forcast is still up on their site.

AGW is suffering more and more a credibility problem, once people stop believing, as they did after climategate, they don't "start believing" again when more BS is added.

Oh and if the MET gets faster computers like they insist they need, they'll just get the wrong answer faster .. their bias is obvious.
Posted by Amicus, Wednesday, 12 January 2011 8:12:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Leo, lets look at the depths the opponents of climate science stoop to -
Phil Jones was asked about 'Statistically-significant' warming for a short, cherry picked period; statistical significance is a technical term requiring a technically correct answer (with 95% confidence that the warming the data shows - yes it shows warming - is a trend rather than noise) the specified period was too short. Those who make use of this particular question and answer either know that the general public will equate ‘no statistically significant global warming’ with no real warming and are dishonest - or are so misguided that they don't care. Phil Jones answered it honestly. Turning that honesty against him and deliberately misinterpreting what was said as 'no warming' - as well as deliberately ignoring the rest of his answer is a clear example of the depth of intellectual dishonesty climate science opponents will stoop to. The willingness of you and others to repeat the edited bite but not the full answer just proves my point; it's not mainstream science being dishonest here. BTW, because of the time that's passed since, it now is a long enough period to say, with 95% confidence that there's a statistically-significant warming trend since 1995.

Like the 'no cooling since 1998' argument that uses an exceptionally hot year as cherry picked start point and baseline for all future temperature changes as well as deliberately failing to give consideration to a strong known natural variation – ENSO, (which if corrected for shows lots of warming since 1998) – as basis for arguing that climate change is all natural variation, it just demonstrates a lack of scientific integrity of those using it. Take known natural variation into account and an already false argument falls apart completely. Peter Ridd maintains that low standard by suggesting but failing to show any genuine evidence that mainstream climate science is broken.
Posted by Ken Fabos, Wednesday, 12 January 2011 8:23:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
No doubt some will blame climatologists for not predicting earthquakes and volcano eruptions.

For the deft, extreme weather events are becoming more common, as expected ... others will say nothing out of the ordinary.
Posted by bonmot, Wednesday, 12 January 2011 9:23:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The analogy is a bit stretched, but essentially the adversarial system proposed by the author is the scientific methodology proposed by the eminent philosopher of science Imre Lakatos as a development of Poppper's methodology - a three-cornered fight between rival theories and evidence, rather than Popper's two-cornered fight between a theory and evidence. Personally, I regard Lakatosian methodolgy as the most rational scientific methodology.

The broken system the author refers to is what Paul Feyerabend was talking about - that science may not always proceed rationally, but nevertheless, it still proceeds (hooray!). As I said, I think science would be a more rational system of knowledge if it followed Lakatosian methodology - but it doesn't, and it probably never will, and the system we've got at the moment ain't so broke it needs fixing.
Posted by Aleister Crowley, Thursday, 13 January 2011 12:25:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
bonmot .. ah yes, "deft" as in, can quickly make things up to suit 20:20 hindsight. E.g. "of course, we do expect more extreme events of all kinds".

So as I said, it's climate astrology at its best .. everything fits!

What happens when there are no extreme events? Is that also expected .. it's not like there are extreme events events every day.

What happened before "current extreme events", since now the extreme events are becoming more "frequent"? Is there any, (I hesitate to ask a believer since I know I'll get some squirrily half non-answer in return), proof that there are increasing extreme events?

Or is this just AGW believer throw away frivolous lines, "of course there are more extreme events now".(no substance required .. it's science, AGW astrology style)

We used to get lots of cyclones in SE Queensland, why aren't there more now? OMG, is a lack of cyclones an extreme event?

I remember Al Gore forecast more extreme weather events, in the way of land falling hurricanes, but there have been none for 4 years .. so what's up with that?

Are less extreme events also forecast by the ever prescient AGW believer?

I'm sure somehow, that less, more, none at all will all somehow fit AGW science.. eh bonmot?

Hey I can do this too .. I forecast, earthquakes may happen in our future, as will volcanic eruptions! There you go, easy isn't it.

That's done with no backup science at all, the same way AGW believers predict .. every kind of weather fits their "science".

What a farce .. AGW belief no longer requires science at all, does it, you can go off predicting everything .. and if you do, sometimes of course it will fit .. brilliant!

And you wonder why AGW belief is falling apart.
Posted by Amicus, Thursday, 13 January 2011 2:08:18 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Our ideas about the history of the universe are dominated by big bang theory. But its dominance rests more on funding decisions than on the scientific method.

The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed-- inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory.

In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, RAISE SERIOUS QUESTIONS ABOUT THE VALIDITY OF THE UNDERLYING THEORY.

What is more, the big bang theory can boast of no quantitative predictions that have subsequently been validated by observation. The successes claimed by the theory's supporters consist of its ability to retrospectively fit observations with a steadily increasing array of adjustable parameters, just as the old Earth-centred cosmology of Ptolemy needed layer upon layer of epicycles.

Yet the big bang is not the only framework available for understanding the history of the universe. [However] ... in cosmology today doubt and dissent are not tolerated, and young scientists learn to remain silent if they have something negative to say about the standard big bang model. Those who doubt the big bang fear that saying so will cost them their funding.

Today, virtually all financial and experimental resources in cosmology are devoted to big bang studies. Funding comes from only a few sources, and all the peer-review committees that control them are dominated by supporters of the big bang. As a result, the dominance of the big bang within the field has become self-sustaining, irrespective of the scientific validity of the theory.

An open letter to the scientific community, 2004 
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Thursday, 13 January 2011 10:47:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Kenny accuses Peter Ridd of sounding like a creationist. Leo in return accuses Kenny of being creationist like, but with even less scientific support than the creationists themselves. 

How insulting! Is there anything lower than a creationist?

The delicious irony here is that the country's leading authority on laying slander upon and insulting creationists, the highly esteemable Prof Ian Plimer, is now in the unenviable position of defending a despised minority view, that of the GW skeptic. With some type of mystic karma, he now sees the insults coming back his way.

Why the insults? Whatever happened to the pristine integrity of the scientific pursuit? Has the priestly purity of the white lab coat evaporated? 

We all know that scientists can be divided into two types: male and female. They are both essentially human, and have inbuilt pride, preferences, presuppositions, personalities, prejudices, and priorities, the first being to find funding which puts food on the table.

Scientific pursuit is a noble endeavour, but as Ridd points out, like other human pursuits, it has established its institutions and defense mechanisms that can sometimes work against itself. 

While I don't necessarily agree with his solution, his basic thrust is that we need more open and honest discussion and debate rather than less. Less insults wouldn't hurt either.
 
Thanks, Peter, for articulating your view, a view that has relevence to many areas including cosmology and origin of life issues, and has been aired by creationists for quite a while now. 
 
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Thursday, 13 January 2011 10:55:31 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If there is one thing I regret about my original article it is the work broken. I wish I had said slightly broken. Obviously the scientific system has done wonders for human beings and I believe that in the end Science will get there in the end, but sometimes it takes time as the history of science reveals. However on occasions we need to get to the right answer fast, and the big environmental issues of our time are examples of this.
Coming from Queensland I grew up under the Bjelke Peterson era when we had a far from perfect police force. There was corruption, but the vast majority of police were straight. For the most part, their only sin was that they knew bad things were happening and never spoke out. But who would blame them, they would have lost their jobs and nothing would have changed. One of the basic problems we had was that Police investigated Police. One of the reforms of the QLD system in the late 80’s, echoed around the world, was the Crime and Misconduct Commission. Now, the CMC investigate police. It was a small and inexpensive change in the system which now works much better than it did in the past.
Do we really think systems in science are perfect ? Is there no room for improvement?
I am proposing a minor and inexpensive change to the system in science. I am a little bewildered by some of the posts that seem to claim I want to pervert the scientific system. I cannot see how what I propose can do any harm unless the organisation I propose becomes itself political.
Posted by Ridd, Thursday, 13 January 2011 11:14:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ken Fabos, if you are looking for a meaningful trend, I do not think taking a trend with a commencing date as we come out of a mini ice age to show warming is of any use.

If we take the Medieval Warm period as a starting point, then we have a significant cooling trend which is still with us.

This explains why the AGW pushers have desperately fought to conceal the MWP and pretend it did not exist. The Climategate miscreants had a hand in this, but have now succumbed to honest science.

The warming we have experienced amounts to .7 of a degree C. Seven tenths of one degree.

The allegation of a warming trend, which has definitely paused since 2002, relies on choosing a dishonest starting point.

Again, Ken, you make no comment on the dishonesty of the politically compromised MET, in seeking to back the annual nonsense claims of the warmists of “hottest year yet”.

Nor do you give a reference to any science which shows that human emissions have any measurable effect on climate. I routinely request this of you, and you routinely ignore it, because there is no science which backs your ridiculous assertions of AGW. I request that you provide any scientific backing you think you have for your unsubstantiated AGW myth.

You always dodge the issue and come back with more nonsense, Ken. You have now stooped to complaining about “dishonest questions”? What a joke you are.
Posted by Leo Lane, Thursday, 13 January 2011 12:11:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Peter Ridd: I can't find a definition of "broken" with which the word "slightly" can be used as a meaningful adjective. It's like being "slightly pregnant". Broken means busted. "Broken" is an "extreme" word. As a scientist, you would appreciate that conveying the degree of certainty about an observation is important. Science might be bent, fractured, chipped, worn, etc- words conveying the notion that useful repair or correction is possible. Broken things might be glued back together to have the form, but rarely the function of the pre-broken thing.

Your choice of the 1980s Queensland police as an example of systemic corruption does, I think, also convey "extreme" connotations. The Fitzgerald Inquiry may well have framed your perspective on life, but I don't think it's helpful to juxtapose it with the problems that scientific inquiry might have.

Please leave that kind of language for the Sara Palins.

But with regards to the substantive issue of problems with the scientific process, overstating the case for a particular position is clearly in evidence in many institutions. It would be niaive to assume that it has a single cause, but many of the causes can be put under the heading of "corporatisation". An environment in which "contract research officers" report to "contract research managers" who report to "research executives" who are rewarded by "boards" according to "key performance indicators" is often not conducive of reflection and expressions of uncertainty. Long-term issues like climate change need to be addressed by researchers whose positions are not threatened by short term fashions in politics and business.
Posted by Jedimaster, Thursday, 13 January 2011 3:47:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The YouTube video below is a timely portrayal of the warmist-skeptic debate

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdxaxJNs15s&feature=player_embedded
Posted by Raycom, Thursday, 13 January 2011 3:55:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jedimaster
I agree that the word broken was not really suitable and that in fact it does not truly indicate the article itself.

That said, do I take it that you would agree that science needs 'useful repair or correction'?

If yes, you are so near Prof Ridd as makes no difference, because that is exactly what I took his article to mean when I first read it. You presumably would differ on repair methodology.

If no, do you assume that science needs no readjusting at all?

However, although 'broken' may be the wrong word in the title of the Ridd article; there is no doubt at all that your reference to Sarah Palin is unarguably grossly inappropriate.
You have demeaned yourself, presumably in the heat of the moment. Disappointing. You should apologise.
Posted by eyejaw, Thursday, 13 January 2011 4:51:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Eyejaw

An ongoing discourse on improving the scientific system is appropriate.

No apologies for Sara(h) Palin, though. Anyone who uses the words "blood libel" in the context of the Arizona Assassinations must be condemned- along with those who wrote the words for her, as it seems improbable that she has the talent to know about such arcane without being coached.

I would go further- the core of her presentations is about extremes, hyperbole and factual misrepresentations- sold with a facade of sexuality- the very antithesis of what science is about.
Posted by Jedimaster, Thursday, 13 January 2011 5:18:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jedimaster,
We, and obviously (I think) Ridd agree that 'ongoing discourse on improving the scientific systyem is appropriate'. That is good. So you and I and Ridd would have differing views on how to achieve that aim, but aim would be common.

I'm lost over your comments re Palin. I am not arguing. Why should I, the cross hairs stuff is terrible?
But would on earth has that got to do with the Ridd article or comment? I presumed that you were implying that Ridd's thinking is like Palin's. If that is not what you meant what did you mean? If that is what you meant to imply then you are, in my opinion acting in a manner unbecoming. I repeat that you should apologise to Professor Ridd for that startlingly bad slur.
Posted by eyejaw, Thursday, 13 January 2011 6:10:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I concur with the author and the contributors to the debate who feel that a scientific methodology closer to that described by Lakatos could only be regarded as a good thing. So could world peace. But like world peace, it seems unlikely.
Posted by Aleister Crowley, Thursday, 13 January 2011 6:14:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Eyejaw, I think Jedimaster was trying to get at the point that Prof. Ridd was being somewhat hyperbolic in his article, as Sarah Palin does every time she opens her vile conservative mouth to spew forth abject nonsense.

Jedimaster, the comparison was unfair - all of us can be hyperbolic at times. Prof. Ridd couldn't possibly hope to hold a candle to Sarah's hyperbole, even if he trained for the rest of his life under an wizened old Tibetan Master skilled in the ways of hyperbole.
Posted by Aleister Crowley, Thursday, 13 January 2011 6:24:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There is a bit of a thin line that we're treading here. I was referring to Ridd's alluding to police corruption and scientific woes in the same para. Although I can see the analogy, I still think that we need to take a bit of care with our words. I was a bit worried by the "denialist" tag, because of its (possible)connotations, but GrahamY seems to think that we've gone beyond that, and I agree.

I take the view that "-ists" and "-isms" denote people whse "mind is made up" and are not amenable to the processes of reason, empiricism and dialectic, be it Lakatosian, Popperian or Kuhnian. The nearest to an "-ist" that I can tolerate is an optimist. I think that we are hard wired for that. The others are optional.
Posted by Jedimaster, Thursday, 13 January 2011 6:45:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Who is GrahamY when he's at home?

I take the view that -ists, -isms and -ians simply make for a convenient way to put the things in the shell of a nut - using a little to say a lot, but inevitably losing much of the fine detail in the process. Less is usually more, and when you're limited to a mere 350 words conciseness and brevity matter a great deal.
Posted by Aleister Crowley, Thursday, 13 January 2011 11:42:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Is not empiricism to be found among the "-isms"? 
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Friday, 14 January 2011 6:58:18 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Peter Ridd's assertion that something needs to be done about the malpractice of science in the AGW area seems too obvious to be queried. The method needs to be discussed, but he should not be expected to come up with the answer.

One avenue which may be open at the moment, to those wishing for honest science, is an approach to the Independent Commission Against Corruption.

False reports by, for instance, the CSIRO, in relation to climate, which can be shown to be contrary to the data which they have, could warrant investigation to ascertain how the organization was corruptly subverted to produce the material.

If a situation parallel to the obviously corrupt Met Office in UK, where the winter was publicly predicted to be mild, and surreptitiously, to the government, predicted to be severe, then a referral to ICAC would be appropriate.

Whatever may be said about the Law, the system of taking evidence has the effect of exposing untruths. ICAC has powers similar to those of a Royal Commission.

When the Australian Conservation Foundation, or whatever they call themselves, took action to block XStrata in a coal mining project because of an alleged effect on global warming, their main witness was the Director, Dr. Ian Lowe. It was amusing to read his evidence when he had to admit, in the witness box, that his sworn evidence was exaggerated by a factor of fifteen times.

In the same case the Judge pointed out that the Fourth Summary of the IPCC falsely represented the science, in regard to alleged warming. A swatch of colour added to the graph, to misrepresent its import, did not prevent the judge from reading the graph, and demonstrated the misrepresentation from the document itself. Of course we have seen many subsequent examples of the mendacity of the IPCC.
Posted by Leo Lane, Friday, 14 January 2011 9:03:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dan: Good point. I'll try to wriggle out of that one by saying that empiricism is more of a technique than a belief.

Leo: Show 'em the instruments! We weren't expecting the Spanish Inquisition. Then who does?

Sorry folks,I have to bow out of this fascinating discourse as I'm away from the internet for 2 weeks.
Posted by Jedimaster, Friday, 14 January 2011 9:18:46 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I thought some of you might be interested to read this story from The Times Higher Ed http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=26&storycode=414822&c=1.

Nature is starting a new online journal that is open access with a streamlined review process where readers can judge the importance of papers on the basis of comments, downloads, blog entries, forwards, likes etc. and where papers with negative results will also be published.

Sounds like even those in the publishing establishment understand the force of a lot of what Peter is saying. Remains to be seen how far this sort of publishing venture goes to fixing the issues.
Posted by GrahamY, Friday, 14 January 2011 11:44:46 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If one assumes, as I do, that the group owning Nature is doing this to make a profit and that smaller peer reviewed journals will be eliminated but supposedly higher quality journals such as Nature will remain untouched then the proposal is reasonable for Nature. It will reduce competition. Sounds good business for Nature but I am unconvinced that it will do much good as I would think that it will put more power into the hands of the few - those who are currently in fashion on the issues. It is crucial to note that Professor Ridd was not talking about AGW but generally and clearly mentioned 2 other important issues for today - Murray and GB Reef.
I hope that I am wrong and that it does some good, but when the powerful set out to destroy competition I lack the blind faith to think that much good will come from that self serving action.
Any more optimistic views? Please!
Posted by eyejaw, Friday, 14 January 2011 2:59:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The "scientific system" is not broken.

It may be subject to corruption here and there, if what the article's author claims is true:

"The journal editor may not be neutral on the issue..."

"Reviewers are also not necessarily neutral and may not be truly critical..."

"Reviewers can block the publication of work antagonistic to their own views..."

"...another scientist who thinks there is a problem with the paper may decide not to try to publish an argumentative comment...They don’t want to cause a fuss and antagonise a potentially powerful group of scientists who could affect their funding and future job prospects."

"The scientist may personally know the original author and would feel that it could destroy a friendship..."

"The scientist may also decide not to try to publish a critical comment because past experience has shown that getting comments published is very difficult..."

"If a scientist is... opposing the conventional wisdom, they will likely find that their reviewers will rate their application poorly and not be funded."

...and so on.

That is not evidence that the system is broken, only that the system may be abused by unscrupulous, timid, money-hungry or incompetent people.

It's like criticizing the laws of cricket for Australia's performance with the bat and ball in the recent Ashes series.
Posted by Pericles, Friday, 14 January 2011 6:20:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Damn good point, Pericles. I wish I'd made it.
Posted by Aleister Crowley, Saturday, 15 January 2011 12:08:12 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles.
An interesting approach that, in my opinion, should be pushed further. I have said earlier that the word 'broken' was unfortunate in that did not really represent the article as a whole. Be that as it may, we can reasonably assume that even if the system is not 'broken', it is open to and probably is being to some extent corrupted by the methods you quote. It is perhaps not completely irrelevant that Ridd emphasises the fact that the people are human, with of course all the frailty that comes with that condition.
So, what to do?
Possibility one is that we do nothing and 'put up with it'. There are dangers with that; the problems might become worse because there is no penalty and everything is hidden. Confidence in Science itself would be eroded with dreadful long term consequences.
Possibility two is that we try to come up with an approach to try to deal with the problem (assuming it exists as I certainly do).
It it possible to think of Ridd's article as a suggested approach? Whether it is a good approach is open to discussion!
Pericles, we are perhaps in the position where we either suggest a method that might alleviate the problem or give up altogether.
One thing is certain I think. Adopting an attitude that everything is fine and dandy is no good.
I would be most interested to hear any suggestions that you may have that might have to improve the running of Science and as a result raise confidence in it.
Oh, by the way, your cricket analogy has a problem in that we know that performances were poor, the evidence is public. Not true for Science unfortunately.
Posted by eyejaw, Saturday, 15 January 2011 7:57:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Leo, you are too willing to do just what I said - repeat the soundbite and leave out the rest to misrepresent Phil Jones' answer. Now you shift to wanting to talk about the regional - not global - changes centuries ago as if that proves recent global warming is inconsequential or that CO2 can't cause warming. You also expect me to provide you with a basic education in climate science and if I don't it proves that every scientific institution that studies climate is wrong. Please address your concerns to them.

Seriously, would you change your mind if I did? I think it's clear that you wouldn't - you won't even accept the validity of weather station data from the Bureau of Meteorology. You dish out accusations of bias but can't prove any such thing. Like I said, lets look at the depths that opponents of climate science stoop to. Climate science doesn't stand or fall on the strength of the MWP - that's just a distraction from the real issues around emissions. Even your "no warming since 2002" is using the same deliberate tricks to hide the incline used to misrepresent Phil Jones and are the basis of the 'cooling since 1998' nonsense. Why 2002 except to misrepresent the data? Do you take into account a known, strong natural variation (ENSO - el Nino Southern Oscillation) or choose to ignore it to show something false? Correct for the biases that ENSO imposes on the data and even your cherrry picked, too short interval fails to show what you claim. That's the level of intellectual honesty you use Leo.

We should stake the future prosperity and security of our Nation and Planet on arguments that flawed?
Posted by Ken Fabos, Sunday, 16 January 2011 8:59:19 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Some people would appear not to have paid attention to basic documentaries.

Dan, you should provide physical evidence that the universe is *not* expanding*.

The best interpretation of physical evidence available is that it is, from a central point.

I recognise that as a creationist, you may not be able to connect the dots, as in so many areas where you make false assertions. Is that *just* to adverstise the ignorance of creationists?

Making stuff up, that would be the province of religion, wouldn't it?

Rusty
Posted by Rusty Catheter, Monday, 17 January 2011 8:52:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rusty,
I have seen a few documentaries in my time, and read a few books, but perhaps not all taken from the same shelf as yourself.

The issue, as with many of these controversies, is not so much the empirical evidence but rather the interpretation thereof.  The same evidence is available to all  but, as others above have suggested, what is telling is the fight between the rival theories and the evidence at hand.

You yourself talk about the 'best interpretation of physical evidence available'. The implication is that other interpretations are possible.

This is getting to the heart of the Ridd article. He is arguing that for a variety of reasons dissenting views, those off the well worn path, however reasonable are not given sufficient hearing.   
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Tuesday, 18 January 2011 5:51:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
That almost sounded thoughtful Dan, but not really.

With so many "other interpretations" that might be "reasonable" why do you support the ones most clearly rubbish.

Given your previous nonsense objections to molecular evolution, false assertions about mathematics and stated fondness for biblical creationism, it is very clear that you have no capacity to assess what might be "reasonable".

Just being able to frame some "other interpretation" grammatically does does not make it "reasonable".

"is there anything lower than a creationist?"

No, it is contemptible.

Rusty
Posted by Rusty Catheter, Tuesday, 18 January 2011 7:32:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'm not sure I follow you, eyejaw.

>>...we can reasonably assume that even if the system is not 'broken', it is open to and probably is being to some extent corrupted by the methods you quote<<

If the system is not broken, merely corrupted, would not a proper solution be to address the corruption?

If you are unhappy with the laws-of-cricket analogy, how about, say, our electoral system? If you suspected ballot-box fraud, would you advocate changing our democratic process, or rooting out the miscreants?

>>Confidence in Science itself would be eroded with dreadful long term consequences<<

Whose "confidence" is referred to here? The general public does not possess the ability to assess the validity of either the process or its results, as a result of which most simply choose to believe that which most neatly fits their prejudices.

So it must be the scientists' confidence that is at issue.

But if the problem is already known within scientific circles, then surely it is in the scientists' interests to mend their leaky boat.

After all, if it sinks, they all sink with it.

Research will not grind to a halt because management of the system is slack, or because vested interests intrude too far. But it will be a matter of physician, heal thyself. Interference from outside, however well-meaning, cannot but exacerbate the problem.

The process of honest peer review has much going for it, I would have thought. The existence of dodgy editors, biased reviewers, grant-hungry researchers and lazy scientists are impediments to a clear outcome, for sure. But I fail to see how the introduction of a contrarian publication such as that proposed - the "Scientific Challengers Office" - will solve that.

Especially as it is suggested that it should be taxpayer-funded. Which would automatically turn it into an arm of government policy.

We all know where that would take us. And it certainly would not improve the quality of the science.
Posted by Pericles, Tuesday, 18 January 2011 9:44:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks Rusty,
I've grown accustomed to your derogatory remarks after nearly every thought raised on creationism (at least you're consistent). Should I expect anything substantial from your end or only more personal slurs?

Ridd's article describes how it is that sometimes pet theories can self perpetuate, inhibiting thought and progress. I see that when I question one of your pet theories, it touches a nerve.

In the post above I've given a summary and reduced version of an open letter to the scientific community (found in its entirety at cosmologystatement.org ) signed by a large number of senior scientists and cutting edge astronomers. They are challenging the commonly accepted theory of the big bang, and suggest alternative frameworks for understanding our history. Much of what Ridd objects to regarding funding and peer review issues appears in this open letter.

"Giving support only to projects within the big bang framework undermines a fundamental element of the scientific method -- the constant testing of theory against observation. Such a restriction makes unbiased discussion and research impossible."

Part of the solution, especially in such controversial areas, would be for scientists to remember their committment to scepticism and to holding their views tentitively. It seems everyone champions scepticism except when it's their pet view which is at stake.
 
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Tuesday, 18 January 2011 10:06:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You may be treading on somewhat thin ice here, Dan S de Merengue.

>>It seems everyone champions scepticism except when it's their pet view which is at stake.<<

From someone who hasn't even considered questioning his own "pet view", or applying even the tiniest vestige of scepticism to his championing of young earth creationism, this is just the teensiest bit precious, wouldn't you agree?

No, of course you wouldn't.

>>The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed-- inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples<<

Would it be too simplistic to observe that your own theories rely upon one, entirely hypothetical, entity?

You seem to have no problem coming to terms with that single, all-encompassing leap of faith, so it's a little rich to be so patronizing to scientists who have vast numbers of competing theories to keep them busy.

>>What is more, the big bang theory can boast of no quantitative predictions that have subsequently been validated by observation<<

To a scientist, this simply represents the next challenge. In the same way that much progress has been made since "the old Earth-centred cosmology of Ptolemy" that you mention, similar progress towards understanding how the universe evolved will continue into the future.

Given the size of the problem, it is highly unlikely that our puny minds will reach any complete conclusions before the heat-death of the sun. But that is no reason to stop the search.

Unless of course you have already made up your mind. In which case you are beyond any form of reasoning whatsoever, and can only contribute here in the guise of court jester.

http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/640914.html

"A man with the right qualifications might be found anywhere: in Russia 'they were generally selected from among the older and uglier of the serf-servants, and the older the fool or she-fool was, the droller they were supposed and expected to be. The fool had the right to sit at table with his master, and say whatever came into his head.'"
Posted by Pericles, Wednesday, 19 January 2011 7:22:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dan, do come up with something to say, anytime you like, which when looked at does not constitute a personal slur against yourself. Pericles documents it well.

You might notice that my "pet theories" are some of the greatest scientific achievements ever. They are supported by their use in everyday work and their powerful informing of new work.

Why should your preference for a very selective type of "scepticism" that permits rubbish, be regarded as somehow worthy of commenting?

I post to keep up public awareness that creationism is promoted by people of very poor character, as Plimer wrote and demonstrated, and accepted by people willing to suspend normal critical faculties.

If you spent as much time investigating the substantial validity of modern science as you do pretending that your scepticism is genuinely based, you would discover, as the vast majority of scientist know, that the *particular* scepticisms you perpetuate are completely bogus.

That you have not done so, in the same manner in which you tried to bluff on words that don't exist, indicates that you have no genuine interest in knowledge, but only in it's cachet, probably as a promotional tool.

As far as greenhouse warming goes, it can be demonstrated in test systems. If the atmosphere is more complex, that makes it more difficult to prove that (for instance) carbon dioxide does *not* have far reaching effects.

Why would corrective mechanisms be pre-emptive, normative, or desirable anyway? They *might* be. What time lag? what altered chemistry? Why should we *in principle* expect a goldilocks outcome from pollution as usual, such that greenhouse/climate change scepticism is even remotely likely to be valid?

Rusty
Posted by Rusty Catheter, Wednesday, 19 January 2011 10:03:15 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Just to emphasise the shallowness of creationist input, let's look at Dan again....

Dan sez:
"The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed-- inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples"

Umm, those docos you claim to have watched should have emphasised that doppler-shifted galaxies are in fact the manner in which the expension is observed. The expansion and the effect of it on observed light is the principal basis of why the Big Bang is known to have happened.

Dark matter is, yes, a convenient label. I hope there is some, as an open universe gets cold.

Dan sez:
"What is more, the big bang theory can boast of no quantitative predictions that have subsequently been validated by observation"

You mean, like, the cosmic background radiation? Predicted by Alpher and Herman in the 40's and confirmed by Penzias and Wilson in the 60's. Where does Dan *get* these assertions? Couldn't he *check*? As I would require of a school assignment, let alone of someone pretending to the qualifications Dan claims?

Or perhaps what Dan *means* is, "long ago and far away, so what does it matter if it is true, surely my not liking it is more meaningful"

It is hard to tell with creationists. I suspect they have little idea of what goes into science, and merely see what comes out as a word game, much like the one pastor plays on them.

Rusty
Posted by Rusty Catheter, Wednesday, 19 January 2011 4:03:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rusty,
You say you want to run a campaign to defame or discredit. Good on ya! How very Plimeresque. I prefer to debate the issues.

With regards to big bang theory, you ask where I found those assertions. They were found in a statement signed by a large number of scientists relevant to that domain, who are challenging big bang cosmology. Exactly who, you can see at cosmologystatement.org

Redshift is an observable phenomenon, but is explainable by approaches outside of big bang cosmology.  
 
Also, the other part of the statement you objected to included the phrase 'quantitative predictions'. You seem to have misread those key words there.   

Pericles,
I'll make an attempt at answering your questions (to the extent they were comprehensible.)

Am I being precious (whatever that means)? 
I don't think so. I just believe one should apply the same standards, the same measuring stick, to all theories whether mine, yours, or anyone else's.

Do I rely on one (singular) hypothetical entity?
Probably no more than you. I'll explain by putting to you two ideas or assertions as a proposed sufficient first cause (both described here in simplified terms):
1) In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. (Genesis)
2) In the beginning, nothing exploded and became everything. (Big Bang)
Which one of these is the singularity, and which is the singular hypothetical? I take it that you prefer option 2, but I think the two ideas share common elements. 
   
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Wednesday, 19 January 2011 9:47:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dan, Just the facts will do, and they continue to not favour you.

The *issues* include the one that crank scepticism is largely promoted by charlatans and believed by idiots. It is still not clear which you are.

Dan wants to *appear* as if he *did* read the letter as published in New Scientist, like anybody with a real lifetime interest in science and it's findings.

I wonder, as a genuinely interested reader, whether he also read the follow-ups on the same letters page, in which astronomers, astophysicists, cosmologists and physicists, both amateur and very professional pointed out the observational evidence that led not only to the "big bang" theory but carefully dissected the objections in the letter and showed them and to be not as significant as presented.

Of course, the site Dan gives where the letter is reproduced declined to give that level of detail. Perhaps they preferred only half the story, to suit themselves. Perhaps Dan declined to look that far also. He would just prefer you to believe him, unexamined.

Redshift is most elegantly explained by universal expansion. The others require further elaboration. The greatest physicists of our age never quibbled over this.

If you look up the cosmic background predictions, they are quantified and correct within the limits of estimation at the time. I assumed that since Dan claims some sort of academic qualification that he at least checks such things, if only in a common textbook. Perhaps keywords like "quantitative" are something Dan sees but does not understand in the manner grownups do.

If facts defame or discredit you Dan, take the rebuke. Have you found that imaginary archaic reference for expodential yet?

By the way, as a scientist, I don't think that science is broken. Much belaboured by bureaucrats, but not broken.

Rusty
Posted by Rusty Catheter, Wednesday, 19 January 2011 10:10:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Always happy to help, Dan S de Merengue.

>>Am I being precious (whatever that means)?<<

"precious: obviously contrived to charm; 'an insufferably precious performance'; 'a child with intolerably cute mannerisms'"

http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=precious&sub=Search+WordNet&o2=&o0=1&o7=&o5=&o1=1&o6=&o4=&o3=&h=

If there are any other words I use that might be unfamiliar to you, please don't hesitate to seek clarification. Asking questions is how we learn, after all.

>>I just believe one should apply the same standards, the same measuring stick, to all theories whether mine, yours, or anyone else's<<

So you keep saying.

But your example doesn't actually achieve this, does it.

>>1) In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. (Genesis)
2) In the beginning, nothing exploded and became everything. (Big Bang)<<

The obvious "measuring stick" to apply, surely, would be to test each theory with the knowledge we have so far accumulated about the physical universe. Study the accumulated work of Ptolemy, Copernicus, Einstein and all the other thousands of cosmic theorists, and test.

This clearly is not feasible with the Genesis version, since you need an a priori God.

The second theory, incidentally, actually allows for the existence of God, but does not require it as a prerequisite, as does the first.

So I'm afraid your measuring stick cannot be applied to the example you provide.

If you have a theory where "the same standards, the same measuring stick" may be consistently applied, by all means let's hear it. Otherwise, you must simply accept that by requiring God to be present at the creation of the universe, you have substantially limited your ability to apply any scientific standards whatsoever,
Posted by Pericles, Thursday, 20 January 2011 7:27:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Elegance? There's a certain elegance to it but I think Einstein had the appropriate remark. He preferred to leave elegance to his taylor."
DB  
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Thursday, 20 January 2011 11:07:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rusty,
I don't believe that science is 'broken' any more than does Peter Ridd. Ridd has clarified his use of that word. What I gain from Ridd's article is the need for more and continual debate, especially in regards to controversial areas.

If the letter published in New Scientist stirred discussion on the subject of the big bang, then those signatories who were challenging the concept would have achieved an aim and we are all the winners for seeing the discussion progress. I hardly think the matter forever settled.  

That the majority of the readership of that journal still support the popular view is not surprising (as per the reasons given in Ridd's article). Remember that we're not looking for the solution that's particularly elegant, we're looking for that which is correct.  In Copernicus day, the majority of scientists were quite satisfied that the old Ptolomaic system was wondrously elegant.

Pericles,
I think the two examples I gave, big bang and creation ex nihilo, are more similar than what you might suggest.

Both are one-off events and therefore unrepeatable. Neither was directly observed. This provides problems for investigatation within a methodology which depends so heavily on observation and repeatability (two key planks of science [measuring sticks]) And so I tend to agree with your earlier comment, that it's unlikely that we will ever reach complete conclusions satifactory to all. But that is no reason to stop the search.

Also, we could make informed guesses about what those three you mention (Ptolomy, Copernicus, Einstein) might have thought of these options, but I don't think any of them would have been nearly as dismissive of either option as I witness amongst the attitudes of some presently.  
    
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Thursday, 20 January 2011 11:14:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'm sure you do, Dan S de Merengue.

>>Pericles, I think the two examples I gave, big bang and creation ex nihilo, are more similar than what you might suggest.<<

But you might be kidding yourself.

>>Both are one-off events and therefore unrepeatable.<<

I'm not sure how you could ever justify that position.

Think about it.

If God caused one universe to come into being, what is preventing him from making another? The flood didn't accomplish much, let's face it, he might be inclined to scrap it all and start over. It's only a week's work, after all.

Similarly, if indeed there once occurred a big bang that caused the universe to emerge from a singularity, what - that we are aware of - is preventing it from happening again?

In the first instance, only God knows.

In the second, it is quite plausible to imagine that we can make considerable progress towards working out whether or not this was a once-off event. Or whether there might even be new universes coming into being, even as we natter away here?

That would be awesome, eh?

So, there is the unbridgeable divide between the two theories. One has God as an indispensable prerequisite, the other doesn't. Quite substantial, I would have thought.

As far as your contention that "the two ideas share common elements" goes, I would have thought that the different methods of analysing evidence would also separate them quite significantly. Because once again, your young-earth creationist cannot exclude God from the conclusions, where the scientist can.

>>I just believe one should apply the same standards, the same measuring stick, to all theories whether mine, yours, or anyone else's<<

Yup. Me too.
Posted by Pericles, Friday, 21 January 2011 9:27:22 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dan,

Good to see you acknowledge there is no big fuss. As with so many "issues" in science, no "controversy" at all.

Perhaps what you failed to grasp was the conceptual validity, rather than merely the electoral nature. It is not *just* that there was a majority, the basis was well-understood and soundly covered by evidence. Attenpting to conflate poor old Ptolemy is not a good comparison as the observational basis was far more limited as were the geometrical and computational tools. Don't expect the sort of revolution that obsoleted his model to happen anytime soon, nor to result in a cosmology you prefer.

Various matters may not be "settled", but they are not settling far from where they are. Einstein did not make Newton "wrong", Newtonian physics come out as the simplified case. Better understanding of cosmology will not make Hubble wrong, or eliminate the Big Bang, but will confirm aspects of it's nature. More fossils and genetic evidence from living organisms is *refining* the observable history of evolution, not creating "controversy". and so on.

Your quote on elegance is almost apt, scientific elegance is not quite informed by the same aesthetic as the sartorial. Simplicity counts high in both, personal preference less so for science, and there are *many* undeniable facts with which to establish parsimony.

In comparison, trivial arrangements of words like "god did it", however elaborately expressed, are not worthy of consideration. *that* idea has had it's day and like the flat earth, the geocentric universe and Galen's four humours, is not coming back. We respect Ptolemy, Galen, Lamarck for *trying* diligently. This bears no relation the many manufactured controversies of crank scepticism which pursues self-promotion and is contemptible.

Rusty
Posted by Rusty Catheter, Saturday, 22 January 2011 9:32:29 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rusty - << Don't expect the sort of revolution that obsoleted [Ptolemy's] model to happen anytime soon. >>

No, I don't expect it to happen soon. Matters don't often settle far from where they are, for the sorts of reasons given in Ridd's article, neatly displayed by your tenacity.

As Kuhn pointed out, ideas evolve slowly, but revolution occurs rapidly.

Max Plank put it like this -
"A scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light… but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Monday, 24 January 2011 8:34:06 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I am sure Herr Professor Planck would forgive your misspelling of his family name, Dan S de Merengue. I'm not quite so sure he would approve the use of his words in the context in which you place them.

>>Max Plank put it like this - "A scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light… but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."<<

I'm not at all sure that it is the ideas themselves that are slow to evolve - at least, not in Planck's estimation. He was merely pointing out how difficult it is to wean folk off their pet theories, no matter how much evidence you place before them in their lifetime.

You yourself could be used as near-conclusive evidence of this, in fact. (I say "near-conclusive", only because you're not dead yet).

You are exempt from any concerns about speed of new ideas anyway, being able to ignore any and every advance that science may make, with the protection of your mantra, "go away, I already know the answer".
Posted by Pericles, Monday, 24 January 2011 12:37:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles,
What evidence have I ignored with regards to this discussion? (Note: please be specific. And if you want raise points regarding another discussion, then raise it there on the appropriate thread.)  

I agree with your interpretation of the meaning of the paragraph by Prof Planck. As to whom it applies, that is matter of perpective, or perhaps discussion. I'm guessing that the Prof would say, 'Pericles, if the hat fits, wear it.'

You said you welcome me asking you for clarifications. Could you clarify this statement of yours - << As far as your contention that "the two ideas share common elements" goes, I would have thought that the different methods of analysing evidence would also separate them quite significantly. >>

Analyse evidence by different methods, if you want to. That's up to you. What I was suggesting was the importance of comparing different theories using the same measuring stick.    
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Monday, 24 January 2011 4:24:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You seem to delight in perpetuating misunderstanding, Dan S de Merengue, and diverting the stream of the discussion into muddy backwaters. I suspect it may be a defence mechanism.

>>What evidence have I ignored with regards to this discussion?<<

I don't know. You tell me. I certainly haven't accused you of ignoring any.

>>Could you clarify this statement of yours - "As far as your contention that 'the two ideas share common elements' goes, I would have thought that the different methods of analysing evidence would also separate them quite significantly."<<

You choose to analyse one set of evidence (in favour of young earth creationism) with God a prerequisite, and the other ("Big Bang") without it. This pretty well ensures that any common elements are substantially accidental, given that the events are necessarily several billion years apart.

But by all means, fill in the missing pieces - what common elements do they in fact share?

>>Analyse evidence by different methods, if you want to. That's up to you<<

That is pure obfuscation, and you know it. Yours are the "different methods". Another example of your reluctance to engage with the argument directly, but instead try a side exit.

>>What I was suggesting was the importance of comparing different theories using the same measuring stick.<<

Absolutely. So do I.

Sadly, it is something that you appear unwilling to do.
Posted by Pericles, Monday, 24 January 2011 4:48:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
So, Dan, nothing at all to say really.

In actual fact, science usually seizes new ideas readily and you have to scramble for historical quotes that express the same frustration most feel in organisations where seniority has some bearing.

You will no doubt be joining the progressive (hah!) churches that have acknowledged evolution, rather than espousing the claptrap of the clearly ignorant ones that have not.

Did you notice that Plimer actually documented behaviour by creationist shills that shows them to be dishonest?

Chop chop, times wasting. New paradigms and all.

Rusty
Posted by Rusty Catheter, Monday, 24 January 2011 9:28:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles, thanks for your clarification.

What common elements do they, the Big Bang and creation ex nihilo, in fact share?

Both are explanations of what happened at the beginning of time. 
Both theoretically are past historic events, though without being directly observed. 
Both are not repeatable (although you seem to want to contest this above.) At least I would say they have not been repeated in our experience, nor would we expect them to be. I would not expect God to recreate the universe just so I could observe it happen.

In short we might say that they are presuppositions from which we might draw inference. What we could do is create a theoretical model of what may have happened at the beginning, extrapolate forward to make predictions on what we should expect to see and make observations and investigations into what extent theory matches reality.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by 'God as a prerequisite', or where that fits into the argument. In my reckoning, when investigating our origins, God forms part of the presupposition rather than an object of evidence. By anology, when investigating the origins of markings or letters scratched into sand on the beach, to judge whether they were humanly encrypted or not one might presuppose the existance of a human presence, at least for the sake of argument. 
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Monday, 24 January 2011 11:37:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oh, *those* common elements, Dan S de Merengue.

>>Both are explanations of what happened at the beginning of time.
Both theoretically are past historic events, though without being directly observed.
Both are not repeatable<<

I thought you meant observable common elements. Like star formations, geological structures, that sort of thing.

After all, your common elements don't help with the determination of "which one of these is the singularity, and which is the singular hypothetical?", the point from which you took us down this path.

You also illustrate another very significant point of difference.

>>In short we might say that they are presuppositions from which we might draw inference<<

"Presupposition" is only required if you insist that God made the earth in six days, six thousand years ago. Science does not presuppose anything, simply builds upon available evidence to make the picture a little clearer.

The only presupposition in that context is that at some point in the past, an event occurred that led to the existence of humankind on earth. Which is, by its nature, self-evident, otherwise there would be no scientists available to investigate.

There is no significant point from which each hypothesis may be equally weighed. As you once again underline with this observation:

>>In my reckoning, when investigating our origins, God forms part of the presupposition rather than an object of evidence.<<

With that as a precondition, the only possible conclusion would be that God did it.

Which renders any discussion about it with you, once again, pointless.
Posted by Pericles, Tuesday, 25 January 2011 5:59:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles, I don't think our discussion is pointless. We might be getting somewhere, albeit slowly.

For common empirical elements, all are common; the star formations, geological structures and other data are commonly observable to all. What differs is our explanations of the data.  

When I speak of presuppositions, that is to presuppose for the sake of argument. If that leads to a fruitful line of inquiry, then you stay with it. If not, then you change your presuppositions.

Certainly, you are correct in saying that which you presuppose will naturally be found in your conclusion. Being clear about what are the starting premises will help to deliniate assumptions from deductions. 

Yet I think you are mistaken if you believe that scientists never presuppose anything and are always starting with a blank slate. In the real world people are the products of their background, education, tradition, etc. as well as other things even less subtle.       

This does bring us back to the heart of the issue. In the context of the global warming debate Ridd raises concerns that our lines of inquiry are being railroaded down a certain path [with a certain set of assumptions], not necessarily the correct one. He puts some suggestions as to how to help break the shackles in our thinking. His view was not limited to the GW debate but was wider ranging. I've pointed out how senior scientists have raised similar concerns in cosmology. 
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Tuesday, 25 January 2011 12:13:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There is no real destination though, is there Dan S de Merengue?

>>Pericles, I don't think our discussion is pointless. We might be getting somewhere, albeit slowly.<<

The reason is, I'm afraid, that you continue to conflate presupposition with explication.

>>What differs is our explanations of the data<<

Let me see if I can wrap the reasons into a single package for you.

If you begin with the premise that there is a God, and that that God made the universe in six days, there is no alternative line of argument or discussion that could ever agree on an explanation of the data.

So your "measuring stick" already has been marked off with the information that leads to your conclusion.

Your methodology, also, is unidirectional.

>>What we could do is create a theoretical model of what may have happened at the beginning, extrapolate forward to make predictions on what we should expect to see and make observations and investigations into what extent theory matches reality<<

The scientific method, on the other hand - their measuring stick, if you will - is bidirectional. It works backwards from where we are, to a point where they are able to postulate that some form of event may have occurred. Simultaneously it works forward, checking whether any theory about that event disturbs any pre-existing theories. When the two are determined to be in harmony, they may choose to publish the new theory concerning the event itself.

In this way, some level of - at least superficial - equilibrium is maintained.

So once again, your wish that we should be "comparing different theories using the same measuring stick" cannot come to pass, since if "God forms part of the presupposition rather than an object of evidence", no light may be shed on anything that doesn't require God's existence.

Here are those measuring sticks:

On the one hand, thousands of brains the size of planets, deep-space telescopes, millennia of patient observation and a vast array of computers.

On the other, a book.
Posted by Pericles, Tuesday, 25 January 2011 2:01:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The measuring stick has been applied and elaborations of "jehova did it" *have* been considered, have been given extended centuries of priveleged consideration and have been found wanting. Wanting *even* in societies where not agreeing was an offense punishable by means including torture and execution.

Having been found wanting despite such special consideration, what further consideration does the god hypothesis need besides "don't let the door hit you on your way out"?

Rusty
Posted by Rusty Catheter, Tuesday, 25 January 2011 4:33:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles, you seem able to express my point even though you don't appreciate it. 

Take this paragraph,
"If you begin with the premise that [there is a God, and that that God made the universe in six days,] there is no alternative line of argument or discussion that could ever agree on an explanation of the data."

Then replace the phrase in brackets with one of the following:
[There is no God, and the universe made itself.]
[The universe is how it is as the result of the big bang,]
[Mankind shares an ancestor with the apes,]
[Human activity is primary in contributing to global warming,]
[Human activity is negligible in contributing to global warming,]

Any assumption makes your paragraph equally valid. Such is the nature of assumptions. 

We've come up with this idea of the 'measuring stick'. I think what we're getting at is proper methodology and the tools of science. For mine, the first tools of science are observation and logic. Against these we measure the theories. 
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Tuesday, 25 January 2011 11:25:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rusty, yes I did read Plimer's book on creationism when it first came out over twenty years ago, with it's glorious typographic errors (he claimed there were 23 letters in the English alphabet), outlandish and unfounded allegations (for which he received much criticism from fellow skeptic society colleagues such as Jim Lippard, as well as the allegations of impropriety being denounced by a senior Australian church committee chaired by Clarrie Briese), errors of science, as well as errors in recounting events. 

My favourite faux pas from Plimer found in this book was when he recounted the events of a particular creation lecture, for which I was in attendance, given at Melbourne University (my girl friend was studying engineering science there at that time, around the mid 1980s). Plimer was a professor at that university but was unable to attend the meeting that day. In his book he tells of how a 'confused' lady creation supporter (as he describes her) attempted to ask a question during the question time. Plimer was underwhelmed with how the question was dealt with. As it turned out, the lady he was describing was, in fact, Professor Plimer's own wife. Such is the professor's ability to accurately recount the facts.

I heard later that the publishers decided to pulp the book as it contained too many errors and would be too much trouble to revise. 

Another event which is recounted in this book is the debate where Plimer engaged quite dramatically which creationist, Dr Duane Gish. Here's a YouTube video which captures the moment. At least we can admire Plimer for his theatricalilty.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UOh4zkvtqYU&feature=youtube_gdata_player       
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Tuesday, 25 January 2011 11:32:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
For the sake of accuracy, I need to make a correction to the time period about which I was speaking. 

Plimer's book Telling Lies for God - Reason vs Creationism, Ian Plimer, Random House, Sydney, was released in 1994, and the creation seminar held at Melbourne University, to which he makes referece in his book, where he seemed to mistake the identity of his own wife occured in 1992.  
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Wednesday, 26 January 2011 9:57:02 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
We agree, Dan S de Merengue. Some form of milestone.

>>Any assumption makes your paragraph equally valid. Such is the nature of assumptions.<<

But I hope that you are not suggesting that scientific activity bent upon learning more about the universe and its origins has made any such assumptions. Those you list are in fact more in the form of tentative conclusions, that some people at some point have drawn from their observations.

There is no similar line of reasoning that could lead you to the conclusion that "there is a God, and that that God made the universe in six days"

Let me try to explain.

We agree that we learn by using "the first tools of science [which] are observation and logic".

Observation and deduction. They would appear to be valid in most situations.

However, the manner in which you apply your methodology - your "measuring stick" - takes these simple tools and applies them... backwards.

Your approach, as you have already pointed out on this thread, is to first put forward a theory - God made the universe - and then examine "evidence" to see if it fits with your theory.

>>What we could do is create a theoretical model of what may have happened at the beginning, extrapolate forward to make predictions on what we should expect to see and make observations and investigations into what extent theory matches reality<<

Trouble is, you don't use these tools to give shape to any theories in the first place, since you already believe that you have the answer.

So however you deploy those tools, you can only reach the conclusion that you started with. Unlike the search for more information on the origin of our universe by scientists, who, over the millennia, have reached many different interim conclusions.

What they do agree on, of course, is that we don't yet fully understand the data we have, and that a complete answer will take some time to emerge.

In the meantime, by avoiding the temptation to define the conclusion before they start, as you do, we continue to learn.
Posted by Pericles, Wednesday, 26 January 2011 2:01:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Good on you Dan!

You took the time to read it well enough to identify minor errors.

Did you scrape up the honesty to take note of the many more instances in which creationist shills were caught out being dishonest? Such micrometric analysis as you seem to have performed would make the question moot.

Given, therefore, that major creationist figures *are* habitually dishonest, why bother with their quibbles with professional scientists?

Given that your objections to (for instance) current cosmology depend on letters by others, long disposed of and easily so, perpetuated by sites that make no effort whatsoever to emphasise the validity of mainstream views, what does that make your me-tooism except perpetuation of a dodgy chain letter?

And why bother about Plimer's spelling? You think it a bit too hard to correct your own without telling stories that are not true, after all. Found an archaic reference for "expodential", or were you just making it up? like your objections to professional scientists no doubt.

What's next? Velikovsky?

The vast majority of scepticism is crank scepticism, raised in objection to mainstream science by know-nothings. Genuine scepticism, such as I might employ in the workplace has no relation with the publicity seeking kind displayed so often by twits and yourself.

Get over it Dan. Better science will *not* be supporting creationism in any form, nor calling valid historical findings into disrepute sufficient that the ignorance you prefer will prosper.

Rusty.
Posted by Rusty Catheter, Thursday, 27 January 2011 10:48:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rusty, I think by now we all see the strength of your major argument against the creationist viewpoint. 

'Creationists are dishonest'

For intellectual power and persuasiveness it ranks right up there with: Jews are greedy, Muslims are violent, Gypsies are thieves, blacks are lazy, Greens are loopy, JWs are smelly, and AGW sceptics are crackpot denialists.

I hope that one day you might be more comfortable living with the thought that some people just might hold a different viewpoint to yours.     
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Friday, 28 January 2011 10:55:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
That might be overstating the case a little, Dan S de Merengue.

>>Rusty, I think by now we all see the strength of your major argument against the creationist viewpoint. 'Creationists are dishonest'<<

I have no doubt that some creationists are entirely sincere in their beliefs.

However, it has also been known for some of them to argue in a fashion that teeters on the brink of dishonesty and, occasionally, to topple over the edge.

You yourself are not exempt from this accusation, by the way.

Your dogged insistence that you are "comparing different theories using the same measuring stick", when that measuring stick of yours is demonstrably bent, is just one example.
Posted by Pericles, Friday, 28 January 2011 5:40:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
By gum, I think he's got it.

Creationists *are* dishonest. or willfully ignorant beyond belief is the only qualifier I might add.

A day or two in the library will dispel any doubt that any prominent creationist is well enough versed in (say) evolution to be fit to do other than apologise to those who know better.

Dan, you are at *least* willfully ignorant and willing to pass off your sophistry as if it bore in any way upon the honest scholarship of scientists, making you, in my opinion, insufficiently honest to comment on my profession, it's practices, it's findings. Your own comments on molecular evolution exposed your lack of understanding of even the basics, let alone the key fundamentals in the problem.

Your own writings here make me wish that all degrees were revocable, as you clearly got your alleged philosophical degree without gaining any understanding about judging the relative merit of argument.

Do provide immediate historical references for "expodential". If not, I must regard you and expect others to similarly regard you as someone who hopes that statements made by you in error will be accepted as true.

Found any evidence that Hubble was wrong? Since you are so keen on the "issues" and all.

Rusty
Posted by Rusty Catheter, Friday, 28 January 2011 10:08:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Was Hubble wrong about the big bang?

It's not just creationists that believe other lines of inquiry are being undervalued and neglected.

Widely respected (recently deceased) astronomer, Geoffrey Burbidge said, ‘Big bang cosmology is probably as widely believed as has been any theory of the universe in the history of Western civilization. It rests, however, on many untested, and [in] many cases, untestable assumptions. Indeed, big bang cosmology has become a bandwagon of thought that reflects faith as much as objective truth.’

He believed his quasi-steady state theory was probably closer to the truth than the big bang. He was quoted in the NY Times saying (in line with the sentiment in Ridd's article) that 'there is such a heavy bias against any minority view in cosmology that it may take a very long time for this to occur.' [for most to take note of other views] 

Some evidence that may challenge big bang cosmology include finding the occasional 'old' galaxy at a 'young' or distant part of the universe; galaxies clustering in huge sheets alternating with massive voids which go against the expectation of smoother distribution, especially in the 'early universe'; red shift quantization; data showing galaxies that are physically close to high red shifted quasars.    

But I'd prefer to discuss evidence with those capable of reasoned discussion. 

I had continued this discussion for a while, following in the spirit of Ridd's article (and this website in general), for the sake of promoting understanding. Yet you've demonstrated how slurs and slander are your preferred lines of attack. If you are so leery of my opinion, then you're probably best off discussing things amongst yourselves.  
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Tuesday, 1 February 2011 12:43:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
That's a valid question, Dan S Merengue.

>>Was Hubble wrong about the big bang?<<

Quite possibly. No-one yet has come up with a theory that causes all the scientists to throw up their hands and say "well, no use looking any further, eh? It's all crystal clear". So I expect they'll carry on their research, and let us know when they find something.

>>...big bang cosmology has become a bandwagon of thought that reflects faith as much as objective truth.<<

It is quite significant, though, that having that "faith" hasn't stopped cosmologists from continuing their enquiries, examining new data as it arrives, and bringing forward new ideas for review.

>>...'there is such a heavy bias against any minority view in cosmology that it may take a very long time for this to occur.'<<

But, as we have already discussed when you quoted Planck, Burbridge's ideas - assuming they are sound - will gain greater currency once the present crop of cosmologists dies out. And the fact that he put them forward at all pretty much guarantees that someone will follow through with them.

And what's the rush, anyway?

But it does interest me that you introduce Burbridge, whose point of departure from the more conventional cosmologists was "a version of Dr. Hoyle’s Steady State theory of an eternal universe. In the new version, small, local big bangs originating in the nuclei of galaxies every 20 billion years or so kept the universe boiling."

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/07/science/space/07burbidge.html?_r=1

So, instead of one big bang, we have a never-ending string of them. Sounds nicely... tidy, to me. But do tell, how does it mesh with your young-earth creationist views?

>>But I'd prefer to discuss evidence with those capable of reasoned discussion<<

So would we, Dan S De Merengue. Unfortunately, as we discussed, you use a different "measuring stick", which kinda unbalances the dialogue to start with.

>>Yet you've demonstrated how slurs and slander are your preferred lines of attack<<

On the contrary, my "preferred lines of attack" are logic and reason. Sadly, they are only effective when deployed by both sides of the discussion.
Posted by Pericles, Tuesday, 1 February 2011 2:23:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dan,

Not just creationists feel slighted, but mainly. Not only that, but it is mainly creationists who keep trying to re-animate the corpse of "controversy" long put to rest. Presumably in the hope of dishonestly influencing the opinion of the uninformed.

For instance, you seem to think your fifteen minutes of reading crank pamphlets with the odd reference you can toss off, qualifies you to comment on science. It probably even sounds good to the sort of twits who believe in creationism, another yet more questionable bandwagon of yours.

The sort of "scepticism" you want applied is indicative of a childish unwillingness to not accept what you don't like, coupled with the erroneous belief that revision of the theory will alter the general picture so radically that you might find a crack for your own spurious beliefs.

In actual fact, your call for scepticism is orders of magnitude behind the game. The objections you dig up are all old, tired, and not supported by the evidence.

The red-shifts are not uniform, they increase with distance, all the way to the extent of our telescopes to detect. Local variations (in clusters of galaxies) that might imply "smaller bangs" are overridden by the simple fact that the relative velocities are small in relation to the overall expansion. Eddies in a creek don't stop it going downhill. You may have heard of turbulence, but I am certain you haven't given it a moments thought.

The "steady state" requires far more than observable data to be worth another look, and is distinctly not supported by the observable fact of the red shift. "Steady state" has to perform contortions to arrive at the temperature of cosmic radiation, readily predicted by a simple big-bang model.

By the way, given your high regard for evidence, when will you be announcing that creationism is a crock?

Do catch up, but you'll need to get beyond creationist crawling before you can run with the adults. *Then* we can talk about evidence without having to help you understand what that might happen to be.

Rusty
Posted by Rusty Catheter, Tuesday, 1 February 2011 3:42:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 16
  7. 17
  8. 18
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy