|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
How science is not done
On Aug 14, 11:15*am, "Curtis Croulet"
wrote: And who is that? *Names, please, and the verifiable quote where they say they "know everything." It is true that recognized, accredited scientists will admit, over and over again, that there are many, many things about the Universe they don't know. But what you quoted is still not without validity, if you allow for the way in which the ordinary English language is used. Because even though they admit there is lots that they don't know, it IS true... that reputable, recognized scientists generally show not the slightest bit of inclination to go to UFO researchers, astrologers, alchemists, shamans, gurus, and the like to find out the things they don't know! (Surely you will admit that _this_ is a well known fact of which specific proof is not needed?) No - instead, while they do admit there are things they don't know, they still maintain that they're the only ones qualified to find out those things they don't know! So this is all a ploy to get grant money to find the Higgs boson and things like that. So they do indeed manifest a superior attitude that hurts the feelings of UFO researchers, astrologers, and so on, just as the fellow said, even if you can be pedantic about the details! John Savard |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
How science is not done
On Aug 14, 7:47*am, Dave Typinski wrote:
Regardless of which side of the aisle you're on with the Climate Change neé Global Warming political debate, the CRU's attitude about releasing source data makes their findings as factual as the Bible. Reading this thread, though, shows that the situation is not as it seemed. The quote wasn't real, and the data is available to qualified researchers so that their findings can be validated - and falsified. All that he wouldn't do is do a crank's work for him. It is also true that in some cases, researchers to get to work with the raw data that they've amassed first before everyone else rushes to mine it for fame and glory, but apparently that issue doesn't apply here. John Savard |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
[OT] How science is not done
Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 12:22:28 -0400, Dave Typinski wrote: Mr. Jones stated, "Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it." Mr. Jones' statement rather speaks for itself, doesn't it? No, I don't think so. I have loads of raw meteor data, but I release it selectively. I probably wouldn't give it to a UFO researcher, for instance. It is perfectly reasonable for Mr Jones not to provide the raw data to anybody who asks. I don't think an assessment of what's reasonable is clear cut. We're not talking about meteor data or some other arcane investigation with little immediate social and political impact. The UN isn't recommending things based in part on your findings; the US Congress isn't debating legislation based in part on your findings. My point is, no matter how much we wish it didn't, science doesn't operate in a vacuum. It exists among political and social interests. As such, the management of a scientific investigation should take those factors into account. If the CRU and the IPCC want to really convince people that our climate is changing for the warmer, putting the raw data out there for all to see would be MUCH better than, "trust me, it's getting warmer by x °C per decade, but I'm not going to show you my evidence." The real question is whether a reasonable number of bona fide climate researchers have access to the data, and the article doesn't make that clear one way or the other. Does that matter? I ask again, what possible harm would befall Mr. Jones and the CRU if non-bona-fide climate researchers were given access to the source data? -- Dave |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
[OT] How science is not done
Dave,
I agree with you. Science is based on observation and experimentation... in this case observation alone. Those who would hold back or require others to repeat observations do so for reasons having to do with human nature which is a whole 'nother area that deserves observation in and of itself. Anyone secure in the conclusions they have made after observations should be secure enough to have those conclusions questioned. Sad to say that greed, hubris, self love, and other negative aspects of human nature have always interferred with true discovery. Dave "Dave Typinski" wrote in message ... Chris L Peterson wrote: On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 12:22:28 -0400, Dave Typinski wrote: Mr. Jones stated, "Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it." Mr. Jones' statement rather speaks for itself, doesn't it? No, I don't think so. I have loads of raw meteor data, but I release it selectively. I probably wouldn't give it to a UFO researcher, for instance. It is perfectly reasonable for Mr Jones not to provide the raw data to anybody who asks. I don't think an assessment of what's reasonable is clear cut. We're not talking about meteor data or some other arcane investigation with little immediate social and political impact. The UN isn't recommending things based in part on your findings; the US Congress isn't debating legislation based in part on your findings. My point is, no matter how much we wish it didn't, science doesn't operate in a vacuum. It exists among political and social interests. As such, the management of a scientific investigation should take those factors into account. If the CRU and the IPCC want to really convince people that our climate is changing for the warmer, putting the raw data out there for all to see would be MUCH better than, "trust me, it's getting warmer by x °C per decade, but I'm not going to show you my evidence." The real question is whether a reasonable number of bona fide climate researchers have access to the data, and the article doesn't make that clear one way or the other. Does that matter? I ask again, what possible harm would befall Mr. Jones and the CRU if non-bona-fide climate researchers were given access to the source data? -- Dave |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
[OT] How science is not done
On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 14:16:03 -0400, Dave Typinski
wrote: Does that matter? I ask again, what possible harm would befall Mr. Jones and the CRU if non-bona-fide climate researchers were given access to the source data? The harm is that others may publish findings that he is entitled to, by virtue of the fact that he collected the data. That harm is real, and can be career damaging. This is why scientists don't normally hand out their raw data indiscriminately. They do provide their raw data to other researchers, however. I don't know of any reputable journals that accept papers without the requirement that peer reviewers be given access (perhaps with certain non-disclosure rules) to raw data. _________________________________________________ Chris L Peterson Cloudbait Observatory http://www.cloudbait.com |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
How science is not done
On Aug 14, 7:27*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
oriel36 wrote: The next time Wormley posts his 'no center/big bang' thingie,all he is doing is promoting something which horrified astronomers before Copernicus proposed planetary dynamics to resolve it,the fact that this world worships the 'big bang' cretinous view is far more horrifying.You get what you pay for John and that is how 'science works'. * *Gerald, you fail to see the difference in "no center" for cosmic * *expansion and the uniqueness of a polar (or other) position on the * *surface of a rotating earth. * *No Center * * *http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html * * *http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/infpoint.html * *Also see Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial * * *http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm * * *http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html * * *http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CosmoCalc.html * *WMAP: Foundations of the Big Bang theory * * *http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni.html * *WMAP: Tests of Big Bang Cosmology * * *http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bbtest.html In 1904,empiricism or to be more precise,the agenda that tried to link terrestrial ballistics to structural astronomy and planetary dynamics was like a giant inverted pyramid perched on its apex with the error of Flamsteed at the bottom of it.In fact a few guys came close to identifying the problem but in hindsight few would have the astronomical background to untangle the error and th elaborate scheme Newton built on it,a few did though - "This absolute time can be measured by comparison with no motion; it has therefore neither a practical nor a scientific value; and no one is justified in saying that he knows aught about it. It is an idle metaphysical conception." Mach, Analyse der Empfindungen, 6th ed. For the rest of the 20th century and slightly into the 21st century,empircism was like one of those punchbags that cheerfully rights itself - http://www.superdairyboy.com/picture...Bozobopbig.jpg You must have missed the slight urgency in Archbishop's Cusa's statement regardlng the need to discover planetary dynamics for constellation motion about Polaris was intolerable and produced a view where every-point-is-the-valid-center-of-the-universe ,I'll repeat it again in case you didn't see it first time - "And wherever anyone would be, he would believe himself to be at the center.Therefore, merge these different imaginative pictures so that the center is the zenith and vice versa. Thereupon you will see-- through the intellect..that the world and its motion and shape cannot be apprehended. For [the world] will appear as a wheel in a wheel and a sphere in a sphere-- having its center and circumference nowhere. . . " Nicolas of Cusa That is what you get if you link daily rotation directly to the apparent motion of constellations around Polaris - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XTTDWhky9HY "No center/big bang" is the logical end you get when you make a really,really dumb conclusion - "... our clocks kept so good a correspondence with the Heavens that I doubt it not but they would prove the revolutions of the Earth to be isochronical..." Flamsteed A person who is capable of knowing he can be right is one thing,a person who is too dumb to know he is chasing rainbows is something else,the horrifying thing is that the 'big bang' is considered the height of human reasoning and that is what is disconcerting. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
How science is not done
You will just have to take my incredilously edukated word for it. Gaze
at me diplomats on the wall. Oh, and "study harder" of course. *rolls eye sockets* As I suspected, you have nothing. But, I wonder, why are you in a forum that is intended to discuss science? -- Curtis Croulet Temecula, California |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
How science is not done
"Curtis Croulet" wrote in message ... You will just have to take my incredilously edukated word for it. Gaze at me diplomats on the wall. Oh, and "study harder" of course. *rolls eye sockets* As I suspected, you have nothing. But, I wonder, why are you in a forum that is intended to discuss science? -- And I wonder how he manages to trick of rolling his eyes sockets, I mean come on their fixed in the normal human skull aren't they? |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
[OT] How science is not done
"Chris L Peterson" wrote in message news On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 14:16:03 -0400, Dave Typinski wrote: Does that matter? I ask again, what possible harm would befall Mr. Jones and the CRU if non-bona-fide climate researchers were given access to the source data? The harm is that others may publish findings that he is entitled to, by virtue of the fact that he collected the data. That harm is real, and can be career damaging. This is why scientists don't normally hand out their raw data indiscriminately. They do provide their raw data to other researchers, however. I don't know of any reputable journals that accept papers without the requirement that peer reviewers be given access (perhaps with certain non-disclosure rules) to raw data. _________________________________________________ Chris L Peterson Cloudbait Observatory http://www.cloudbait.com The harm is that others may publish findings that he is entitled to, by virtue of the fact that he collected the data. That harm is real, and can be career damaging. One would assume that the original collector of the data would publish his findings before making the data generally available. the only harm then to the original scientist is if a "more correct" finding was published later...in my opinion. They do provide their raw data to other researchers, however. I don't know of any reputable journals that accept papers without the requirement that peer reviewers be given access (perhaps with certain non-disclosure rules) to raw data. Peer reviewers should not be the only arbitirs of theory or conclusions again in my opinion...not that that means much.... :-) David |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
How science is not done
On Aug 14, 9:32*pm, "Curtis Croulet"
wrote: You will just have to take my incredilously edukated word for it. Gaze at me diplomats on the wall. Oh, and "study harder" of course. *rolls eye sockets* As I suspected, you have nothing. There, you eventually provided yourself to be the ultimate example of your own askerings. suspected something argue it is teh truth Attack those who do not agree with you. Jet fuel melts steel again. Heavier than air flying machines are made of steel that is why they can vaporize spontaneously on the grassy knol. Is it a plane is it a bird... no it is a magic bullet! HAHAHAAHAHA Thanks for the laughs pancake theoretician. No offense intended, just learning by example. Have a nice day, |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
National Science Foundation Selects Homestake Gold Mine as DeepUnderground Science Site (Forwarded) | Andrew Yee | Astronomy Misc | 0 | July 11th 07 05:37 PM |
National Science Foundation Selects Homestake Gold Mine as Deep Underground Science Site (Forwarded) | Andrew Yee[_1_] | News | 0 | July 11th 07 04:48 PM |
Mainstream Science Peers Still Trying To Catch Up With Maverick AdvancedTheoretical Science Officers And Researchers | nightbat | Misc | 4 | November 11th 06 02:34 AM |
Top Science Xprize For The Best and Science Team Officers Is In Order | nightbat | Misc | 8 | September 8th 06 09:50 AM |
Science Names Mars Rover Mission Science Program as Breakthrough of the Year | [email protected] | Astronomy Misc | 0 | December 16th 04 09:22 PM |