"Why we shoun't rely on one single study" Topic
15 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
Please don't make fun of others' membernames.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the Science Plus Board
Areas of InterestGeneral
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Featured Showcase ArticleWhen you only need to carry 72 28mm figures (or less)...
Featured Workbench ArticlePlaying with rivers on a 3Dprinter.
Featured Profile ArticleThanks to the generosity of TMP readers, there has been much progress in building a new home for our staff editor and her family, evicted from their home.
Current Poll
Featured Book Review
|
Martin From Canada | 27 Jun 2018 8:58 a.m. PST |
link Our experience with crowdsourced analysis began in 2013, shortly after we published research1 suggesting that noble-sounding German surnames, such as König (king) and Fürst (prince), could boost careers. Another psychologist, Uri Simonsohn at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, asked for our data set. He was sceptical that the meaning of a person's name could affect life outcomes. While our results were featured in newspapers around the world, we awaited Simonsohn's response.Re-running our analysis yielded the same outcome. But Simonsohn's different (and better) analytical approach showed no connection between a surname such as Kaiser (emperor) and a job in management. Despite our public statements in the media weeks earlier, we had to acknowledge that Simonsohn's technique showing no effect was more accurate. To make this finding public, we wrote a commentary with Simonsohn, in which we contrasted our analytical approaches and presented our joint conclusion2. In analyses run by a single team, researchers take on multiple roles: as inventors who create ideas and hypotheses; as optimistic analysts who scrutinize the data in search of confirmation; and as devil's advocates who try different approaches to reveal flaws in the findings. The very team that invested time and effort in confirmation should subsequently try to make their hard-sought discovery disappear.[…] This is also why consilience is such an important term when looking at a body of research – especially for phenomena that can't be explicitly replicated in labs. Cheers, Martin from Canada |
Bowman | 27 Jun 2018 9:46 a.m. PST |
This is also why consilience is such an important term when looking at a body of research Something that is routinely glossed over or ignored by most on this board. |
StoneMtnMinis | 27 Jun 2018 10:02 a.m. PST |
"Something that is routinely glossed over or ignored by most on this board." Along with the documented falsification and fabrication of date to support a desired preconcieved outcome in favor of global warming. This is why this "scare" is being debunked. Of course, the kool-aid drinkers are stilll all-in. |
Martin From Canada | 27 Jun 2018 10:57 a.m. PST |
Along with the documented falsification and fabrication of date to support a desired preconcieved outcome in favor of global warming. This is why this "scare" is being debunked. Of course, the kool-aid drinkers are stilll all-in. Care to pony up some evidence? I'm asking because going off of memory, I remember a fair bit of mischaracterization of original research by ideological crusaders and professional disinformation spinners. |
Winston Smith | 27 Jun 2018 11:52 a.m. PST |
I often wonder why you REALLY CARE, on a wargaming site, that people believe The Truth, as you perceive it. What possible difference does it make if an old guy believes in anthro-whatever Climate Change? If I don't believe, will it speed up? If I do believe in it, will it slow down? Is this like a reverse Tinkerbelle effect? I have no effect on policy. The most I can do is make a grumpy call to a radio talk show. Speaking of radio talk shows…. I always grit my teeth when the woman on my local show says ""They" put out a study…" And then the guy has a "study" that says the opposite. What is a "study", exactly? |
StoneMtnMinis | 27 Jun 2018 1:07 p.m. PST |
Too many to list, NOAA falsifing data, East Anglia cherry-pinking data, computer "models" with preconcieved outcomes, etc. The facts are there for all to see. It is a subject discredited by tainted and dishonest "research" and propaganda. End of discussion. |
jfleisher | 27 Jun 2018 2:31 p.m. PST |
Yes, end of discussion. Meanwhile, ice caps are melting, sea levels are rising, storms are getting worse every year… …but nothing to see here. |
Bowman | 27 Jun 2018 3:14 p.m. PST |
"Too many to list….." BS! Dodge noted. Bring on the evidence. Again, where is the argument against consilience? Thanks for making my initial point. |
Bowman | 27 Jun 2018 4:38 p.m. PST |
NOAA falsifing data Ya, this old canard again. Just like the old gem, "In the 70's all the scientists claimed we were headed towards an Ice Age". Everyone has heard that story and many (some here) have passed it on as truth. So what was the evidence? Time magazine 1974 "Another Ice Age", Newsweek magazine 1975 "The Cooling World". No scientists, no science data just media reports. What were the actual scientists saying in the 70's? They were predicting global warming due to accelerated CO2 release. The NOAA "falsifying data" trope has been thoroughly excoriated. Again, the mass media is to blame. A crime writer for the Daily Mail, David Rose, wrote an error laden piece on a spat between two NOAA scientists, John Bates and Thomas Karl. Bates has never said that any data was tampered with. That didn't stop Rose from proclaiming, "Exposed: How world leaders were duped into investing billions over manipulated global warming data." So when Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), chair of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology decided to call NOAA scientists before the committee, what was the source for his allegations? You guessed it, David Rose. It all came to naught. Here are some overviews of what really happened: link link link link In the scientific community this has turned into a manufactured "controversy" that went nowhere. The man making the complaints, John Bates lamented that "he was concerned that climate science deniers would misuse his complaints, but proceeded anyway because he felt it was important to start a conversation about data integrity: I knew people would misuse this. But you can't control other people." link So where is the, "…..the documented falsification and fabrication of date to support a desired preconcieved outcome in favor of global warming."? |
Bowman | 27 Jun 2018 4:54 p.m. PST |
As for East Anglia and Cimategate? Seriously? "Nature said that many in the media "were led by the nose, by those with a clear agenda, to a sizzling scandal that steadily defused as the true facts and context were made clear" (my highlighting) Nature. 480 (7375): 6. December 2011. Bill Royce, head of the European practice on energy, environment and climate change at the United States communications firm Burson-Marsteller, also described the incident as an organised effort to discredit climate science. He said that it was not a single scandal, but "a sustained and coordinated campaign" aimed at undermining the credibility of the science. Disproportionate reporting of the original story, "widely amplified by climate deniers", meant that the reports that cleared the scientists received far less coverage than the original allegations, he said." link The list goes on. Climategate ended up being an exoneration to the Climate Science for those who bothered to continue with the story. computer "models" with preconcieved outcomes, etc. Since you know nothing about climate computer modelling, I'll invoke Hitchens' Razor. The facts are there for all to see Yes they are, but they are not what you think they are. |
Nick Bowler | 28 Jun 2018 4:47 a.m. PST |
Winston -- I am most disappointed. This is the one thing that I could never understand about the US -- this constant 'I have no effect on policy' refrain. Everyone can have an impact. And, despite the contents of some TMP threads, TMP users are passionate and educated – the sort of people that civilisation need to be having an effect on policy.
|
Memento Mori | 28 Jun 2018 12:52 p.m. PST |
|
Bunkermeister | 29 Jun 2018 7:32 p.m. PST |
"Just like the old gem, "In the 70's all the scientists claimed we were headed towards an Ice Age". Everyone has heard that story and many (some here) have passed it on as truth. So what was the evidence? Time magazine 1974 "Another Ice Age", Newsweek magazine 1975 "The Cooling World". No scientists, no science data just media reports. What were the actual scientists saying in the 70's? They were predicting global warming due to accelerated CO2 release." When I attended Long Beach (California) City College Earth Science class in 1974 that is exactly what we were taught. That we were entering a new ice age due to global cooling. Mike Bunkermeister Creek Bunker Talk blog |
Martin From Canada | 30 Jun 2018 5:38 a.m. PST |
Regardless of pinning one's views to a single datapoint, when the underlying facts change, do you change your opinions to match the facts? |
Bowman | 01 Jul 2018 12:33 p.m. PST |
When I attended Long Beach (California) City College Earth Science class in 1974 that is exactly what we were taught. That we were entering a new ice age due to global cooling. Well Mike, that makes me as old as you. I finished my undergrad BSc. in 1979. While I was a biology major, mostly interested in microbiology and biochemistry, my experience was quite a bit different from yours. My one Professor, Kenneth Kershaw (who became an Emeritus in 1980) was Canada's premier expert on the ecology of the Arctic Tundra. In the 70's he told me that rising CO2 levels were already showing changes in the Arctic due to warming. I don't know what evidence you guys were looking at in Long Beach. Here is a good overview, with good references on the "global cooling myth" of the 70's. link |
|