Go  |
New |
Find |
Notify |
|
Reply |
|
Admin |
New PM! |
|
quote: Originally posted by What's in your mind:
apart from making false claims of the participants credibility, you are also guilty of making false claims of standards of the scientific community. To claim that the peer review process is a non political process is showing an innoncence that can be fetching unless expressed in a science forum
WIYM, 1000 times sorry for being fallible and having made a MISTAKE. Have you ever been on a peer review panel? Do you think they are full of scheming little Dr. Jekyll's trying to think of getting as much money as possible? LOL! I can tell you from first hand experience that there are much better ways of making money than being a scientist! The pay is not that great. Getting another grant does not mean that you get a pay rise. On the other hand, working as a consultant for the oil industry does earn you a nice extra income! Show some intellectual honesty and look beyond the one little mistake I made. If you want scientists and politicians to show that honesty, you'd better start yourself. |
| |
|
|
It is precisely because scientists are paid relatively less (compared to an accountant, let's say), research grants becomes very attractive. Personally I am all for better pay for scientists but the scientists are fallible just as other practitioners are.
Recently I had the pleasure to hear a 'social scientist' hear how he will cure the problems of global warming by changing mangement practices of MNCs. This 'social scientist' of course has had a tidy research grant from to precisely come up with such dribble (look at at Bath University's research program on carbon emission). As I said your innoncence can be fetching but this is a science forum
|
| |
|
|
So the fact that there is SOME crappy research in the social sciences means that ALL of the research in climatology is worthless? What an inference!
Please try to keep the distinction between a specific scientific theory on the one side, and the policy making coming from that theory on the other side. I agree that there is a gray and murky area of overlap in the middle, but they do really remain separate issues.
I have posted elsewhere that to my experience about 2/3's of scientists in my particular field are fair, and 1/3 engages in protectionism. I do not think that there are any large-scale studies on fairness in science in general, but I have no reason to assume that scientists in other fields are more unfair than in my own.
|
| |
|
|
Besides, I forgot to mention: a research grant does not serve to supplement your own salary. It is most often used to hire additional researchers to do more research.
|
| |
|
|
The peer review process is essentially carried out by scientists that are a tight knit social community. To claim that the blind reviewing is actually blind is again a fetching display of naive innocence. One essentially knows who he or she is reviewing unless the author is not worth knowing. As everyone knows everyone there is a high degree of conformity (that is essential for you to get published). This is what is called normal science or paradigm by Kuhn. I am not knocking the process, it has been effective in many scientific breakthroughs. But it is a different matter altogether to say that process is infallible and that all science are made through the peer review process. Darwin did not have the benefit of peer review process, yet that did not deter him to make one of most important scientific discoveries
|
| |
|
|
Hobbes007 says research grants do not supplement scientist's salary. Hmmm have you ever got a research grant Hobbes007? Research grant means all those conferences in distant locales, so much of social capital, that many extra hours off teaching, shall I go on?
|
| |
|
|
I fully understand the limitations of the peer review process. But I do maintain that, from my own experience with it, about 2 out of 3 reviews I get are fair, even though I am relatively young and work on something that is not within the mainstream of my particular field.
The 1/3 protectionist reviewers do piss me off, but you learn to live with them. In the end they do not mean that we do not get our research published and funded; it just makes it a bit more difficult.
|
| |
|
|
I am on a standard UK 3 year research grant. We have a little bit of money for foreign conferences (about 1000 pounds); some budget for material (computers and books, about 3000 pounds); no extra money for teaching (whatever you mean with that); and I don't have the faintest idea what you mean with 'social capital'.
|
| |
|
|
Come on Hobbes007, we are not here talking of research grants of your kind. We are talking big research grants instituted often by governments and often big research guns being involved. The stern report is a case in point. To say that a particular research stream cannot be manipulated by regulating the flow of research money is plain dishonest. The problem of anthopogenic GW theory is that it conflates social and natural sciences. The politicians wants us to buy in the global warming theory due to their vested interests (be it raising tax in Britain or putting punitive tariffs on developing nations), the scientists on the other hand do put necessary caveats in place while making claims of human made GW, but these caveats are muted in the cacophony of other stakeholder wanting to make hay of this new social reality.
In the program, one of the participants says that if I want to investigate the disappearence of grey squirrel from Britain, I won't get funding but If I say in my research proposal that I will investigate the effects of global warming on its disappearence, I will get the funding. Unfortunately this is the reality and to say otherwise is being like a ostrich putting its head in the sand (although this is a myth, ostrich does not really puts it head in the sand!)
|
| |
|
|
It should be red squirrel, which is disappearing from Britain, but in the program I heard about grey squirrel. Am I right?
|
| |
|
|
It probably should be the red... However, such a statement is pure speculation. Everyone can go on air to claim something like that... no reason to believe it would really be so.
Although your statements in general do contain some level of truth about conflation of scientific and social factors, they are largely exaggerated. I keep on maintaining that scientists are in general honest people, and that the natural sciences are much more Popperian and much less Kuhnian than you think. In fact, your statement about Kuhnian science reflects your background as a social scientist: it was in the social sciences that his particular philosophy of science was most stronly accepted. The natural sciences just didn't bother that much with Kuhn, and kept on doing what they've been doing well for a very long time (go and read Steve Fuller's "Kuhn vs. Popper).
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Have a Word:
Are you saying there was no warm period in the middle ages?
I don't think that is implied by the article. I think it implies that vineyards are just a poor proxy for temperature. |
| |
|
|
Kuhn was of course trying to explain way natural science progress rather than social sciences. Falsification works only when you assume that there is a reality independent of your representation of it so you keep trying for better representations. But as soon you start conflating natural and social sciences, you are creating your reality by your representations and that means popperian science doesn't work anymore You need to brush up on your philosophy of science apart from brushing up on your research skills
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Hobbes007: Philip Stott http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Stotthas never published any peer reviewed paper on climate science (only non-peer reviewed books). On the programme he pulled out the hoary old vines in England chestnut that was demolished many years ago - see: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/07/m...th-and-english-wine/
I can tell you why we don't make wine in England these days, and that's because the wine we do produce is vile stuff. Until a few years a go there used to be a vinyard in Ditchilng village just north of Brighton. Located less than 1/4 mile north of the downs, it was hardly the best location, being shaded by the downs. In an attempt to compensate for this the vines were raised in greenhouses. The greenhouses are still there althogh in a much dilapidated state. The wine produced was pretty poor stuff, and simply could nor compete in price with imported wines. To be frank, foreign wines have always been preferred to English wines, and the middle ages were no exception. It's just the cost of shipping wine overland to the nearest naviagable river, and thence to one of several English ports, made wine imports very expensive. It may have been a little warmer in the middle ages, but not enough to produce fine wines! |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by What's in your mind:
It is plainly wrong to say that a program such as GGWS should only have technical experts in it. It is precisely because that the debate is not confined only to the technical domian but have spilled over to the social domain that the 'swindle' can take place. Research grants are a political process and this was the contribution of Nigel Lawson in the program. His contribution was to show how Margaret Thacther initiated the global warming program in Royal Society. Lawson is not a technical expert but that does not diminish his contribution- he is a insider to the political process.
Stating that all participants in such a program should be technical experts is frankly, funny
NO ONE HAS SAID THAT. The point is that we should take 'scientific' arguments from non-experts with a healthy pinch of salt. Only two or three of the "scientists" interviewed are actually qualified in climate science. Others have academic qualifications in completely different fields, like geology or astrophysics. Several of them haven't published a peer-reviewed paper in years. What allmost all of them have in common is their links with corporate-funded, right wing advocacy groups, PR companies and the like. Lawson didn't restrict his comments to the political history - he talked about the science to... what he said was, frankly, scientifically illiterate. It's all very well to have climate change 'skeptics' air their views -- be they real climate scientists -- or even libertarian economists, corporate PR consultants, retired journalists, or academics with expertise in geography or hydrogeology or whatever... But what we then need, to get a balanced picture, is to hear from the mainstream scientists whose views these people dismiss as "lies".
* Free-thinking does not just mean choosing to believe whatever makes you feel good. There's no thought at all in that. *
|
| |
|
|
Yes, Kuhn used only examples from the natural sciences, and even only prior to 1920. I do know my history and philosophy of science, thank you very much.
But however much you want to disagree, most of the climate debate that has brought us to the current situation where it is deemed 'highly likely' that global warming is caused by humans, has been going on in the physical sciences, and was therefore largely governed by falsification.
The fact that politicians and social scientists have jumped on the bandwagon in the last ten years does not mean that all the falsification that has been going is all of sudden worthless. It still happened, nothing you can do about it!
|
| |
|
|
Hobbes007, I have no doubt that you are a well meaning scientist, but many great ills have come about from well meaning scientists. Richard Feynman meant well, but he contributed to the nuclear bomb. Just being good sort of fellow is not enough - you have to make your case logically and just defaming durkin won't make the cut
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by What's in your mind:
Hobbes007 says research grants do not supplement scientist's salary. Hmmm have you ever got a research grant Hobbes007? Research grant means all those conferences in distant locales, so much of social capital, that many extra hours off teaching, shall I go on?
Have you? I only recall one of my lecturers ever getting to travel to distant locales. Once. To India, to demonstrate to whichever university it was how to grow a particular crystal. I don't know where you get the idea that research scientists spend so much of their time being junketed at international conferences. Or perhaps you are confusing scientists with overpaid 'celebs' and conferences with 'awards ceremonies'. |
| |
|
|
There are relatively few scientists claiming a causal mechanism for GW other than carbon, than scientists claiming carbon is the cause. This fact proves what? That majority consensus becomes the true presentation of reality? It is important to note that this debate is not like the debate between 'evolution' and 'creation'. Here there is a possiblility that the other side may be right and it is important that we learn about the other side
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by What's in your mind:
Hobbes007, I have no doubt that you are a well meaning scientist, but many great ills have come about from well meaning scientists. Richard Feynman meant well, but he contributed to the nuclear bomb. Just being good sort of fellow is not enough - you have to make your case logically and just defaming durkin won't make the cut
Lay off Richard Fenyman. As to the nuclear bomb thing, you could level that accusation at any physicist since Issac Newton. Please bear in mind that despite the enourmous civilian casualties caused by the only two bombs dropped 'in anger' as it were, a careful military calculation was made at the time. And the best estimate of casualties tha would have been caused by continuing the war using conventinal weapons only, was far in excess of that figure. You speak as if Fenyman were the cause of the war, which we all know is nonesense. Blame politics for the bomb, not the physicists who contibuted to the discovery of nuclear fission, or even those who reasoned that it would be better to serve their government in time of war than work for the enemy. |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by What's in your mind:
Hobbes007, I have no doubt that you are a well meaning scientist, but many great ills have come about from well meaning scientists. Richard Feynman meant well, but he contributed to the nuclear bomb. Just being good sort of fellow is not enough - you have to make your case logically and just defaming durkin won't make the cut
Defaming Durkin is not the only thing I have done. I have given you the opportunity to check how much 'expert' these guys in the program actually are. However, you refuse to read even a single one of the links I posted, just because one (and maybe even more) of the comments I pasted in were wrong. If you are really interested in the issue, you check out the science for yourself. You seem to be a clever, though somewhat deluded sort of chap. So I'm sure you will do fine. If you really want to, that is. |
| |
|
|
what's the delusion?
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by What's in your mind:
There are relatively few scientists claiming a causal mechanism for GW other than carbon, than scientists claiming carbon is the cause. This fact proves what? That majority consensus becomes the true presentation of reality? It is important to note that this debate is not like the debate between 'evolution' and 'creation'. Here there is a possiblility that
| |
