It's been getting worse. The biggest problems are in fields where prevailing political agendas are inconsistent with fact, such as psychology, climate science and sociology, and where researchers' financial incentives are inconsistent with fact, such as pharmacology, climate science and economics. That is only the tip of the iceberg
Please identify the point on which there is such agreement, and the evidence for your claim of that agreement. I don't understand what you could possibly imagine you mean by that. Ah. I didn't say the premise had been refuted, just that your claim of consensus that it is true had. Big difference -- but one you are probably unaware of.
That's a significant credit to climate science. A paper was published in a reputable publication. That caused serious attention all across that field of science. Even your reviewer states that it was good that the study got published - if for no other reason than to provide a forum for careful analysis. The result is that within a short period of time there is an improved understanding. Science is NOT predicated on every paper being perfect. Obviously, that is a serious objective. But, the design of science has much more to do with how to identify and eliminate falsity as rapidly as possible. And, this paper is a PRIME example of how the design of modern science does that. Far far worse are the papers of soft sciences where good null hypotheses can't come within ethical limits, where funding of rigorous duplicaition and refutation doesn't exist, and where some types of bad methodology became far too accepted. ] It has been excititig to me to see these softer sciences come to grips with that problem - not that it is fully resolved, of course. The problem was brought to the fore by a scientist who decided that the possibility of such problems was serious enugh that he needed to go back and check his OWN WORK that had been broadly accepted. Now THERE is a serious scientist! And, he fully published his own findings - where were not good!
Except that climate science peer review failed, and the error was caught by an outsider, publishing his findings in a blog.
Yes. (I haven't read other reviews or looked at other papers, so I'll assume for the momment that your blog is 100% right.) There is NO claim that peer review is enough to land on a perfect conclusion. That would require humans to be omniscient. Science is not based on a notion that provig truth in the natural sciences is even a possibility - as you know. So, no steps taken can make that kind of claim. That being said, the blog is not sufficient. Being reprinted by Dr. Curry does not make it sufficient. It may make it interesting, of course.
Nic Lewis's critique on Curry's blog was the sole cause of the retraction, and was acknowledged by the authors.
Yes. As I mentioned, that's one of the positive aspects of scientific process as implemented today. The study was published by Nature, a prominent journal that has built respect, so it is absolutely going to get scrutinized. Had it been published in some backwater location that has no credibility (or in some preprint or blog) the chances that Lewis or anyone else would care are pretty low.
Sorry, but it's the "backwater" that usually leads the way. “Paradigms are not corrigible by normal science at all. Instead, as we have already seen, normal science ultimately leads only to the recognition of anomalies and to crises. And these are terminated, not by deliberation and interpretation, but by a relatively sudden and unstructured event like the gestalt switch. Scientists then often speak of the "scales falling from the eyes" or of the "lightning flash" that "inundates" a previously obscure puzzle, enabling its components to be seen in a new way that for the first time permits its solution. On other occasions the relevant information comes in sleep. No ordinary sense of the term 'interpretation' fits these flashes of intuition through which a new paradigm is born. Though such intuitions depend upon the experience, both anomalous and congruent, gained with the old paradigm, they are not logically or piecemeal linked to particular items of that experience as an interpretation would be. Instead, they gather up large portions of that experience and transform them to the rather different bundle of experience that will thereafter be linked piecemeal to the new paradigm but not to the old.” ― Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions
Reformulating how science works in order to accommodate a specific revolution that you happen to want is not a legitimate response to the overwhelming world wide view that is open to review and participation by all. It still remains that the process used today has guided the fabulously successful world of science over the last 100 years. Revolution has to be earned. And, it is telling that the issues of Dr. Curry and Nic Lewis are known, because of the paper being published by a trusted source.
German Measurement Expert Joins Nobel Laureate Ivar Giaever: “AGW Science Is Pseudoscience”! By P Gosselin on 19. December 2020 Share this... A German expert joins renowned physicists in pointing out that the climate data harbor far too much uncertainty and that conclusions drawn from such data are “pseudoscience”. At geologist Dr. Sebastian Lüning’s Die kalte Sonne here, Dr. Andreas Karl presents an essay on the reliability of the modern temperature record (1850-2020) based on recorded measurements. 1880: 1 dataset per 3 million sq km It is a fact that land surface temperature records going back before 1900 globally are very few and sparse. Worldwide there are only 116 stations Version 3, unadjusted datasets going back to January 1880 – most of them are located in USA (northern hemisphere). The temporal development of temperature measurement stations distributed over the earth over a period of 100 years, 1885-1985. Source: Energy & Environment · Vol. 22, No. 4, 2011; Pat Frank “Imposed and Neglected Uncertainty in the Global Average Surface”. In 1880 it was just 116 stations for measuring the earth’s 510.1 million km². Obviously the data are nowhere near sufficient to allow any conclusions having any degree of certainty. In his essay, Karl examines the available database and how the whole discussion about “climate change” and “global warming” is based on the temperature data of the last 170 years, i.e. the start of the Industrial Revolution. How reliable are the worldwide directly measured data of the last 170 years? Not very reliable at all, Karl concludes, citing renowned physicists like Freeman Dyson, and agrees with highly respected Norwegian-American physicist and Nobel Prize winner Ivar Giaever, who called climate science “a pseudo-science”. . . .
Reef Heresy? And the Importance of Asking Questions December 20, 2020 By jennifer 7 Comments I am so privileged to have written the introduction to Peter Ridd’s new book, ‘Reef Heresy?’. In it I explain that it is of great concern to both Peter, and myself, that those who claim the Great Barrier Reef to be in terminal decline are so … [Read more...]
The Upcoming Biden Administration Calls For Extreme Levels Of Reality Denial December 18, 2020/ Francis Menton As discussed here in a recent post, being a climate “believer” requires basic refusal to deal with the real world as it exists. And no matter how crazy it has been up to now, with the incoming Biden administration, get ready for the make believe to move up to a whole new level. Can we actually change the weather by throwing trillions of taxpayer dollars into windmills and solar panels? That’s what we are all now going to pretend. Kim Strassel sees where it’s going in today’s Wall Street Journal: t’s all about green. Climate will be the driving priority of this White House—Mr. Biden’s make-nice to progressives. He’ll have a climate envoy ( John Kerry ), a climate czar ( Gina McCarthy ), and climate obsessives leading every department ( Janet Yellen, Pete Buttigieg, Jennifer Granholm ). [*]So suppose you run a big oil company. . . . READ MORE
Actually, what people seek is the opportunity to take up these data without being attacked as racist.
Maybe. I doubt it, though, because it's pretty darn thoroughly refuted. So, who are these history buffs who spend time looking at dead science? Besides, it shows up when it is being used to justify racist policy objectives.
Hardly. 'The Bell Curve' 20 years later: A Q&A with Charles Murray ... www.aei.org › economics › bell-curve-20-years-later-q.. Oct 16, 2014 — Natalie Goodnow · An increasingly isolated cognitive elite. · A merging of the cognitive elite with the affluent. · A deteriorating quality of life for ...
The word "racism" should be banned from polite discussions. It interferes with the dialogue on race Bill Clinton called for, and which we need to have. The failures of Head Start and No Child Left Behind provide graphic evidence of claims made in The Bell Curve. These are the basic assertions of The Bell Curve: a high IQ is the most single factor in determining academic and economic success; intelligence is found more frequently in some races than other races; intelligence if primarily determined genetically. I doubt many people genuinely believe that. Unfortunately, many people think it is virtuous to lie about that and to force others to lie.
The Bell Curve has never been refuted. The basic assertions are obvious to those who teach in multi racial public schools. If those who pretend that The Bell Curve is pseudo science really though so, they would welcome a candid and honest debate over the matter. They suppress a debate because the fear the political implications of truths Charles Murray has so bravely stated. Charles Murray is a great man. I hope he lives long enough to be fully vindicated.
No. The scientific part has never been refuted even a little bit. The policy proposals are open to debate, and I think some are misguided, but the science presented in The Bell Curve remains as well established as anything in psychometrics. If you think psychometrics or the findings presented in The Bell Curve are dead science, you are dead wrong. How would you tell the difference between racist and realist policy objectives if you can't tell the difference between established psychometrics and racist pseudoscience?
As my son put it, "No Child Allowed Ahead." IMO it would be more accurate to say that not having a low IQ is crucial to academic and economic success. High IQ is useful in certain occupations, but in most it does not confer that much of an advantage. Basically, aside from a handful of very intellectually demanding occupations like engineering, medicine, law, and science, an IQ one sigma above the mean is enough to reach the highest level of success. At more than two sigmas above the mean, additional IQ confers little or no benefit. It would be more accurate to say both the mean and standard deviation of IQ are different in different races. If they don't, then they aren't familiar with the science.
