tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post3313704415904523157..comments2024-03-19T07:10:27.303-07:00Comments on Quark Soup by David Appell: More of Chris Mooney's Abysmal Understanding of ScienceDavid Appellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03318269033139447591noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-39533687791869476942010-06-13T17:19:36.468-07:002010-06-13T17:19:36.468-07:001. You can't solve the actual physics equatio...1. You can't solve the actual physics equations (Navier Stokes at bottom).<br /><br />2. You don't get to pull an equation from your ass that you can solve instead (modelling).<br /><br />So much for the physics.<br /><br />Bayesean statistics: After aeons of huge changes and cycles, the earth has suddenly developed an instability, as indicated by a temperature rise. The odds of this are zero.<br /><br />The evidence for it is bogus as evidence because, mathematical fact, you cannot tell a cycle from a trend with an amount of data that is short compared to that cycle. The hockey stick was a way around that, but the hockey stick turns out to have met its demise, and so we're back with no evidence that we're not in a simple cycle.<br /><br />Bayes comes in because the earth has had only cycles before, and there's no evidence that this isn't a cycle. The odds aren't 50-50, they're zero.<br /><br />Evolution: models that predict disaster get funding. Models that don't, don't, and wind up in the punch card recycle bin, their authors taking up some other problem entirely. Thus evolution (we do believe in evolution, don't we?) produces a population of model disasters as long as funding holds out.<br /><br />Bayes strongly favors that evolutionary explanation over a runaway temperature trend.<br /><br />Bayes is strongly aligned with common sense, which is why this esoteric statistics result winds up on the same side as the common man.<br /><br />(I see AI is full of Bayesean statistics these days, trying to tap that connection. I have other put-downs for AI.)rhhardinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06901742898653890646noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-83270143155741726932010-06-13T10:31:45.634-07:002010-06-13T10:31:45.634-07:00If Ron had any evidence to back the denialist posi...If Ron had any evidence to back the denialist position, say, physics or climatology, he'd trot it out. Instead, he must make vague implications about activism. <br /><br />This is why David is afraid of scientists explaining their work and the implications of it in public. The low-wattage ideologues will be mad that findings negate their self-identity, so will lie about scientist's intentions. <br /><br />Best,<br /><br />DDanohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03709762632849004871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-29517428701047845862010-06-13T08:52:12.549-07:002010-06-13T08:52:12.549-07:00Deniers are in the pay of big oil, is the common a...Deniers are in the pay of big oil, is the common accusation. It seems like activism is thought to be unscientific sometimes.<br /><br />That's because science gets its validity from curiosity.<br /><br />Somebody will always say, "Hmm, that's a strange result. I wonder if ..." and either figure out why it's not strange at all, or fix it, when curiosity runs things.<br /><br />Activism doesn't have that correction. Instead it shouts it down.<br /><br />I like conflict of interest myself, by the way. Coleridge wrote that conflict of interest is the pulley on which good character is hoist into public view.<br /><br />That was back when there was good character, of course.rhhardinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06901742898653890646noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-69007398183673512712010-06-13T07:35:00.075-07:002010-06-13T07:35:00.075-07:00Good thing Ron can't actually produce evidence...Good thing Ron can't actually produce evidence that activism has colored results! <br /><br />So we just point out that scurrilous partisans will falsely accuse scientists whose findings negate their ideology of activism. <br /><br />The scurrilous accusations of base partisans is the thing that David doesn't want to have happen. And Ron's scurrilous implication is what happens. <br /><br />That is the issue, and thank you Ron for pointing out the tactics of scurrilous ideologues and their transparent mendacity!<br /><br />Best,<br /><br />DDanohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03709762632849004871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-29532608254445384162010-06-12T13:03:24.434-07:002010-06-12T13:03:24.434-07:00Science runs on curiosity, not activism.Science runs on curiosity, not activism.rhhardinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06901742898653890646noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-43161930844843745382010-06-12T10:42:14.726-07:002010-06-12T10:42:14.726-07:00I've been a David fan for years and appreciate...I've been a David fan for years and appreciate this rant. I wonder what good is work if it doesn't <i>do</i> anything, and Naomi Oreskes does too:<br /><br />"Scientists and academic institutions need to expand definition of what their “real work” is: “The work is not done, in my opinion, until it’s communicated in a way that citizens <a href="http://hot-topic.co.nz/gluckman-climate-denial-undermines-all-science/" rel="nofollow">understand.</a>”<br /><br />The band System of a Down went much further than this in their song <i>Science</i>, which in a way is Chris Mooney's point of his exercise in communicating knowledge and who does it and who communicates it to the publics. <br /><br />Best,<br /><br />DDanohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03709762632849004871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-44179618949209340222010-06-12T10:35:27.873-07:002010-06-12T10:35:27.873-07:00Newtons to foot-pounds (?)
Another Mars mission w...Newtons to foot-pounds (?)<br /><br />Another Mars mission wiped out.rhhardinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06901742898653890646noreply@blogger.com