| Science/Technology
|
[
Science/Technology ] [ Main Menu ] |
|
|
|
4533 |
|
|
Date: December 04, 2013 at 23:00:20
From: JTRIV, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Science Is About Evidence, Not Consensus |
URL: Science Is About Evidence, Not Consensus |
|
Science Is About Evidence, Not Consensus
Last week a friend chided me for not agreeing with the scientific consensus that climate change is likely to be dangerous. I responded that, according to polls, the "consensus" about climate change only extends to the propositions that it has been happening and is partly man-made, both of which I readily agree with. Forecasts show huge uncertainty.
Besides, science does not respect consensus. There was once widespread agreement about phlogiston (a nonexistent element said to be a crucial part of combustion), eugenics, the impossibility of continental drift, the idea that genes were made of protein (not DNA) and stomach ulcers were caused by stress, and so forth—all of which proved false. Science, Richard Feynman once said, is "the belief in the ignorance of experts."
My friend objected that I seemed to follow the herd on matters like the reality of evolution and the safety of genetically modified crops, so why not on climate change? Ah, said I, but I don't. I agree with the majority view on evolution, not because it is a majority view but because I have looked at evidence. It's the data that convince me, not the existence of a consensus.
My friend said that I could not possibly have had time to check all the evidence for and against evolution, so I must be taking others' words for it. No, I said, I take on trust others' word that their facts are correct, but I judge their interpretations myself, with no thought as to how popular they are. (Much as I admire Charles Darwin, I get fidgety when his fans start implying he is infallible. If I want infallibility, I will join the Catholic Church.)
And that is where the problem lies with climate change. A decade ago, I was persuaded by two pieces of data to drop my skepticism and accept that dangerous climate change was likely. The first, based on the Vostok ice core, was a graph showing carbon dioxide and temperature varying in lock step over the last half million years. The second, the famous "hockey stick" graph, showed recent temperatures shooting up faster and higher than at any time in the past millennium.
Within a few years, however, I discovered that the first of these graphs told the opposite story from what I had inferred. In the ice cores, it is now clear that temperature drives changes in the level of carbon dioxide, not vice versa.
As for the "hockey stick" graph, it was effectively critiqued by Steven McIntyre, a Canadian businessman with a mathematical interest in climatology. He showed that the graph depended heavily on unreliable data, especially samples of tree rings from bristlecone pine trees, the growth patterns of which were often not responding to temperature at all. It also depended on a type of statistical filter that overweighted any samples showing sharp rises in the 20th century.
I followed the story after that and was not persuaded by those defending the various hockey-stick graphs. They brought in a lake-sediment sample from Finland, which had to be turned upside down to show a temperature spike in the 20th century; they added a sample of larch trees from Siberia that turned out to be affected by one tree that had grown faster in recent decades, perhaps because its neighbor had died. Just last week, the Siberian larch data were finally corrected by the University of East Anglia to remove all signs of hockey-stick upticks, quietly conceding that Mr. McIntyre was right about that, too.
So, yes, it is the evidence that persuades me whether a theory is right or wrong, and no, I could not care less what the "consensus" says.
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[4534] [4535] [4541] [4545] [4543] [4544] [4548] [4552] [4557] [4558] [4561] [4555] [4550] [4553] [4554] |
|
4534 |
|
|
Date: December 04, 2013 at 23:06:11
From: JTRIV, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Consensus Science and the Peer Review |
URL: Consensus Science and the Peer Review |
|
Consensus Science and the Peer Review
Jorge R. Barriocorresponding author
I recently reviewed a lecture on science, politics, and consensus that Michael Crichton—a physician, producer, and writer—gave at the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena, CA, USA on January 17, 2003. I was struck by the timeliness of its content. I am quite certain that most of us have been—in one way or another—exposed to the concept (and consequences) of “consensus science.” In fact, scientific reviewers of journal articles or grant applications—typically in biomedical research—may use the term (e.g., “....it is the consensus in the field...”) often as a justification for shutting down ideas not associated with their beliefs.
I have always had a negative gut reaction to the concept of “consensus science.” But Michael Crichton explains it best when he said:
I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.
And he continues:
Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What are relevant are reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.
It is indeed hard to disagree with Mr. Crichton. The historical track record of scientific consensus is nothing but dismal. Many examples can be cited, but there are some classical ones. Nicholas Copernicus and his follower, Galileo Galilei, experienced the effects of consensus when they advanced theories that planet Earth was not the center of the Universe. The sixteenth and seventeenth centuries were not the right time to go against established dogmas.
Today, the methods for exacting consensus have changed but the result could be the same: The death of the spirit. The use and abuse of “consensus science” is at least partially responsible for the current crisis in the scientific and medical peer review system. Although peer review may be considered one of the sacred pillars of the scientific edifice, it has been under fire for some time now because peer review controls access to publications and funding, thus bringing the problem into sharp focus.
On one extreme, some believe that the current peer review system “is a non-validated charade whose processes generate results little better than does chance” [1]. Responding to generalized concerns, the NIH has recently produced new rules for grant writing and reviews, mainly with the intent to stimulate formulation of new ideas, but in the end it is us who must forcefully strive for the honest debate of truthful facts for the benefit of all. It is our responsibility as scientists, physicians, reviewers, and/or editors to be alert and always remember that “...consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E = mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way” (M. Crichton).
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[4535] [4541] [4545] [4543] [4544] [4548] [4552] [4557] [4558] [4561] [4555] [4550] [4553] [4554] |
|
4535 |
|
|
Date: December 04, 2013 at 23:14:25
From: JTRIV, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: and since you joined originally on Velikovsky |
|
|
Hi dib,
Since you originally joined the discussion of Velikovsky let me say Velikovsky wasn't wrong because the consensus of the scientific community said he was wrong. Velikovsky was wrong because the scientific evidence said he was wrong.
Our friend horst graben like many Velikovsky supporters harp on how the scientific community was against Velikovsky... which is true. But horst graben can't speak to the scientific evidence which even when Worlds in Collision was published in 1950 showed Velikovsky's whole story false. And this is why the scientific community was against Velikovsky.
Science is about evidence dib.
Cheers
Jim
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[4541] [4545] [4543] [4544] [4548] [4552] [4557] [4558] [4561] [4555] [4550] [4553] [4554] |
|
4541 |
|
|
Date: December 05, 2013 at 07:13:27
From: Roger Hunter, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: and since you joined originally on Velikovsky |
|
|
JTRIV, DiB;
This has been entertaining but not especially
informative.
> Since you originally joined the discussion of
Velikovsky let me say Velikovsky wasn't wrong because
the consensus of the scientific community said he was
wrong. Velikovsky was wrong because the scientific
evidence said he was wrong.
Correct.
> Our friend horst graben like many Velikovsky
supporters harp on how the scientific community was
against Velikovsky... which is true. But horst graben
can't speak to the scientific evidence which even when
Worlds in Collision was published in 1950 showed
Velikovsky's whole story false. And this is why the
scientific community was against Velikovsky.
Also correct.
> Science is about evidence dib.
Absolutely. But doesn't it necessarily follow that the
consensus among scientists should be the truth?
Granted, there have been exceptions in the past but
more evidence brings them around. Today a lack of
consensus may also indicate monetary motives at work.
Roger
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[4545] [4543] [4544] [4548] [4552] [4557] [4558] [4561] [4555] [4550] [4553] [4554] |
|
4545 |
|
|
Date: December 05, 2013 at 10:27:33
From: JTRIV, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: and since you joined originally on Velikovsky |
|
|
Hi Roger,
> Absolutely. But doesn't it necessarily follow that the
consensus among scientists should be the truth?
It should, but it's not always the case. The evidence is the final judge of this. In the case of climate change the future is predicted by climate models that don't perform well.
It's also important to note that the scientific consensus on climate change is that the Earth has been warming and humans are a part of this. Beyond that there is not a consensus. dib has thrown around the 97% of climate scientists number many times in our discussions, but as I've pointed out it came down to just 79 climate scientists who responded to a poll and they only agreed that the Earth has warmed and human activity is a significant contributing factor. There is no such consensus on the future, climate catastrophe or such.
Cheers
Jim
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
None |
|
4543 |
|
|
Date: December 05, 2013 at 09:08:13
From: dib, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: and since you joined originally on Velikovsky |
|
|
> Velikovsky wasn't wrong because
the consensus of the scientific community said he was
wrong. Velikovsky was wrong because the scientific
evidence said he was wrong.
>>Correct.
Roger, why don't you try to justify your responses with actual facts, rather than pontificate as if you're the supreme authority here? The point as I see it, is Lord Jim trying to muddle the issue. The consensus of scientists is predicated on a consensus of evidence. Attempting to separate them is ludicrous, and exposes The Lord as being out of ammunition.
> Science is about evidence dib.
>>Absolutely. But doesn't it necessarily follow that the
consensus among scientists should be the truth?
>>Granted, there have been exceptions in the past but
more evidence brings them around. Today a lack of
consensus may also indicate monetary motives at work.
I am sooo surprised that science is about evidence. The Lord has told me that several times. I am so glad that you both seem to recognize that fact, considering that there isn't much evidence to show that The Lord knows how to use it.
>>Roger
Chief Scientist
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[4544] [4548] [4552] [4557] [4558] [4561] [4555] [4550] [4553] [4554] |
|
4544 |
|
|
Date: December 05, 2013 at 10:20:38
From: Roger Hunter, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: and since you joined originally on Velikovsky |
|
|
DiB
> Roger, why don't you try to justify your responses
with actual facts, rather than pontificate as if you're
the supreme authority here? The point as I see it, is
Lord Jim trying to muddle the issue. The consensus of
scientists is predicated on a consensus of evidence.
Attempting to separate them is ludicrous, and exposes
The Lord as being out of ammunition.
How would you suggest I do that Don? And why are you
attacking me for agreeing with you?
> I am sooo surprised that science is about evidence.
The Lord has told me that several times. I am so glad
that you both seem to recognize that fact, considering
that there isn't much evidence to show that The Lord
knows how to use it.
Two different questions there.
Roger
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[4548] [4552] [4557] [4558] [4561] [4555] [4550] [4553] [4554] |
|
4548 |
|
|
Date: December 05, 2013 at 19:29:04
From: dib, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: and since you joined originally on Velikovsky |
|
|
> Roger, why don't you try to justify your responses
with actual facts, rather than pontificate as if you're
the supreme authority here? The point as I see it, is
Lord Jim trying to muddle the issue. The consensus of
scientists is predicated on a consensus of evidence.
Attempting to separate them is ludicrous, and exposes
The Lord as being out of ammunition.
>>How would you suggest I do that Don? And why are you
attacking me for agreeing with you?
You agreed with Jim in his silly attempt to separate a consensus of scientists from a consensus of evidence. That's Lord Jim's way of misdirecting the argument, and it appeared to me that he had suckered you into his game.
He also made the outrageous claim that he has analyzed the facts and knows more about climate change than the scientists who work on the problem. I call that delusion. You failed to comment on that ridiculous claim. That is where, it seems to me, you missed the boat.
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[4552] [4557] [4558] [4561] [4555] [4550] [4553] [4554] |
|
4552 |
|
|
Date: December 05, 2013 at 20:17:02
From: JTRIV, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: and since you joined originally on Velikovsky |
|
|
Hi dib,
> He also made the outrageous claim that he has
> analyzed the facts and knows more about climate change
> than the scientists who work on the problem.
If you feel the need to misrepresent me like isn't that a sign you have
nothing more to say?
I've never made any such a claim.
Cheers
Jim
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[4557] [4558] [4561] [4555] |
|
4557 |
|
|
Date: December 05, 2013 at 22:49:48
From: dib, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: and since you joined originally on Velikovsky |
|
|
Direct quote from Lord Jim: "So, yes, it is the evidence that persuades me whether a theory is right or wrong, and no, I could not care less what the "consensus" says."
That is one of your fatuous pronouncements, and it's good enough to substantiate my statement, so you can gth for all I care, you'll never get a retraction from me. You are too full of yourself, JTRIV, perhaps you need a good dose of humility?
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[4558] [4561] |
|
4558 |
|
|
Date: December 05, 2013 at 23:43:17
From: JTRIV, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: and since you joined originally on Velikovsky |
|
|
Hi dib,
> Direct quote from Lord Jim: "So, yes, it is the evidence that persuades me whether a theory is right or
> wrong, and no, I could not care less what the "consensus" says."
> That is one of your fatuous pronouncements, and it's good enough to substantiate my statement, so you can
> gth for all I care, you'll never get a retraction from me.
Well I'm glad you read the essay I posted. But dib those are the words of author Matt Ridley from his essay titled "Science Is About Evidence, Not Consensus". I provided a link to the original source material.
You seek to find a shortcut to discredit me. You tried to find personal motivation, financial motivation. And now you have misstated my position.
The problem is the consensus on climate change says that the Earth has warmed and that humans are contributing to that change. And I don't disagree with that. As far as the future there are a wide variety of opinions, a wide range of results from different climate models and currently models are not doing well simulating climate.
Hope you feel better.
Cheers
Jim
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[4561] |
|
4561 |
|
|
Date: December 06, 2013 at 05:26:24
From: dib, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: and since you joined originally on Velikovsky |
|
|
|
Well, I guess I should be more careful in my reading, and should have spent more time searching for your statements. I'll do that and get back to you later, but meantime, you can quit trying to label me as a liar. I'm not.
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
None |
|
4555 |
|
|
Date: December 05, 2013 at 22:06:24
From: dib, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: and since you joined originally on Velikovsky |
|
|
|
I didn't and don't misrepresent to make a point or win an argument. Of course you didn't say those exact words, but the statement is correct in meaning. Perhaps you should reread your own statements? Check the two messages where I labeled you as an egotist. I called you an egotist precisely because you stated that you have studied the evidence and the consensus of scientists is wrong. Then make sure you get back to me on what you actually said. If it's significantly different in meaning, then I will retract. Not before.
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
None |
|
4550 |
|
|
Date: December 05, 2013 at 19:55:00
From: Roger Hunter, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: and since you joined originally on Velikovsky |
|
|
DiB;
> You agreed with Jim in his silly attempt to separate
a consensus of scientists from a consensus of evidence.
That's Lord Jim's way of misdirecting the argument, and
it appeared to me that he had suckered you into his
game.
Logically, he's correct. If scientists follow the
evidence then a consensus of scientists would follow
the truth.
> He also made the outrageous claim that he has
analyzed the facts and knows more about climate change
than the scientists who work on the problem. I call
that delusion. You failed to comment on that ridiculous
claim. That is where, it seems to me, you missed the
boat.
No, it was too obviously wrong to bother with.
Roger
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[4553] [4554] |
|
4553 |
|
|
Date: December 05, 2013 at 20:35:14
From: dib, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: and since you joined originally on Velikovsky |
|
|
|
Well, Roger, you argued with me five or so messages that 94% success in predictions was a failure, only to admit after the debate was over that the actual success was less than chance, ie far lower than 94%. Here you make a statement that supports my position, but you claim that Jim is correct. I give up.
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[4554] |
|
4554 |
|
|
Date: December 05, 2013 at 21:36:13
From: dib, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: and since you joined originally on Velikovsky |
|
|
|
Sorry, Roger. Not feeling well today.
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
None |
|
[
Science/Technology ] [ Main Menu ] |