Scientific Research Is Unreliable, Unreliable Scientists Report

The thread title is lifted directly from this article. I didn't see any way to improve on it.

Quote:

---

Various factors contribute to the problem. Statistical mistakes are widespread. The peer reviewers who evaluate papers before journals commit to publishing them are much worse at spotting mistakes than they or others appreciate. Professional pressure, competition and ambition push scientists to publish more quickly than would be wise. A career structure which lays great stress on publishing copious papers exacerbates all these problems. “There is no cost to getting things wrong,” says Brian Nosek, a psychologist at the University of Virginia who has taken an interest in his discipline’s persistent errors. “The cost is not getting them published.”

---

So apparently, scientists are susceptible to peer pressure and peer-review of studies is an unreliable method of catching errors as they don't take the time to work out all the supporting math.

Here's another article I read that serves as a case in point. A man in early retirement decided he wanted to take up psychology. In class when he was taught about the widely accepted idea of positive psychology....

Quote:

---

According to the graph, it all came down to a specific ratio of positive emotions to negative emotions. If your ratio was greater than 2.9013 positive emotions to 1 negative emotion you were flourishing in life. If your ratio was less than that number you were languishing.

It was as simple as that. The mysteries of love, happiness, fulfilment, success, disappointment, heartache, failure, experience, random luck, environment, culture, gender, genes, and all the other myriad ingredients that make up a human life could be reduced to the figure of 2.9013.

---

The student was skeptical of that ratio and looked into it more.... and he couldn't get the math to add up. So he contacted a hotshot mathematician to go over the formulas for him. Turns out, it was complete and utter crap....

Quote:

---

The Lorenz equation Losada used was from fluid dynamics," says Sokal, "which is not the field that I'm specialised in, but it's elementary enough that any mathematician or physicist knows enough. In 10 seconds I could see it was total bullshit. Nick had written a very long critique and basically it was absolutely right. There were some points where he didn't quite get the math right but essentially Nick had seen everything that was wrong with the Losada and Fredrickson paper."

---

Losada was the mathematician the original study's author, Fredrickson used to work out her ratio. So what was her reaction to be proven wrong?

Quote:

---

Barbara Frederickson, associate editor of American Psychology, accepts the errors in the maths that Nick Brown pointed out, but still stands by her theory of positivity.

---

So, the formula supporting her argument was total garbage.... but she still maintains she's right.

Basically, the theory was so well-received and took off so fast that no one in the field had the mathematical expertise of the courage to challenge it. It took a newcomer who wasn't concerned about ruining his career (he was already retired) to challenge it.


Ever wonder why there seems to be so many seemingly contradictory or counter-intuitive studies coming out and grabbing the headlines? Yeah...

And yet we are supposed to adhere to the constant appeals to authority in regard to global warming... What a mess.

No, we believe in global warming because (as quoted from a fellow named YinzerJim) "the fossil fuel industry is the biggest, most lucrative industry on the planet - if all the World's Climate Scientists are turning up their noses at THAT MUCH money, you know something bad is happening."

Quote:

---

And yet we are supposed to adhere to the constant appeals to authority in regard to global warming... What a mess.

---

The problems with science are mostly in the heavily-commercialized industry-linked sectors, namely biotechnology and experimental psychology. The point being that when discussing "science" as an institution, it is appropriate to be aware that it is heterogeneous with respect to many factors, including fundamental focus. That one field of science may have its problems does not automatically condemn every other field of science.

As for authority claims, the only lesson to be drawn here is what we already knew, which is to not take sensational claims based on very little research at face value. So, if you skim through a pop-psych article on CNN that goes, 'a study/experiment shows that...', be suspicious. But that's nothing surprising.

As for global warming, well, in that case you'd be dismissing not isolated studies or potentially-shoddy research but literally an entire field of scientific endeavour, so that you might as well dismiss the accumulated human knowledge of human anatomy, or even classical mechanics.

Excellent title!

As for the content itself, I am perfectly happy to blame it all on post-modernism. Especially as the article points out a lack of mathematical knowledge. Is there a single post-modernist capable of doing multiplication with multiple digits?

Also: remember that bibliography you have to write at the end of papers? Make it large, and then slap a few 1000+ page tomes on it. Do that, and now you can write whatever you want and claim "famous guy X said so". Noone is going to read your sources anyway. For extra hilarity, use a reference style which doesn't include page numbers, like APA.

A lot can't simply be taken seriously, a lot of respected 'scientists' in Dutchland have been exposed for using false data, often just made up. I believe (social&enviromental) scientific studies just as much as I trust quality newspapers and state-television. Not at all.

The problem is that your skill as a scientist (and therefore the amount of money you can get) is based on the number of articles you publish and the number of times they've been quoted. Self quoting counts.

Basically the pruning becomes that people will do their own tests of more popular articles or that only those doing pretty much the same thing (and thus knows a lot about the subject) will read the articles.

Another big problem is that people want to do something big and new rather than the boring-but-necessary work of checking other people's research, or they want to find positive results and ignore negative results - though there are more false positives than false negatives.

While I am certain there sensationalists and dubious researches, dismissing an entire field because of that is akin to saying that only poor people live in Monaco because you saw a few homeless people sleeping on the benches.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

While I am certain there sensationalists and dubious researches, dismissing an entire field because of that is akin to saying that only poor people live in Monaco because you saw a few homeless people sleeping on the benches.

---

Also, the scientific method is the most rigorously tested method we have. The issue isn't the method, but making sure it's implemented properly. Competing methods, even if done to their utmost, are nowhere near as reliable.

It's what happens when you apply capitalism to science and use simple CEO-worthy metrics to measure it when you're supposed to use your brain.
It's pretty much why I think all the ratings where US universities come out on top do not say much about what the students actually learn. That's not to say US universities aren't good, it's to say that someone who studies mathematics in Paris won't be worse than someone who studies mathematics in Harvard just because Harvard makes a whole lot more money with their research or gets quoted more often. Not to forget that these things become self-perpetuating as long as people think you can measure intelligence or ingenuity in numbers.

I'm pretty stupid for example but I get a good grade once in a while even though some internet test rated my IQ at 240. :shrug:

240? IQ tests don't go any further than 160. They are useless anyway, I scored between 78 and 149 on different tests, quite a gap. People shouldn't take university and IQ tests all that seriously.

Quote:

---

240? IQ tests don't go any further than 160. They are useless anyway, I scored between 78 and 149 on different tests, quite a gap. People shouldn't take university and IQ tests all that seriously.

---

Whoa whoa whoa, hold on there. Aren't you always quick to bring up the allegedly low IQs of Palestinians whenever the topic of Israel comes up? :inquisitive:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

Whoa whoa whoa, hold on there. Aren't you always quick to bring up the allegedly low IQs of Palestinians whenever the topic of Israel comes up? :inquisitive:

---

Just because you see them doesn't mean they actually exist.

Edit, you do got a point though, but I take it broader than that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

And yet we are supposed to adhere to the constant appeals to authority in regard to global warming... What a mess.

---

Attachment 11932

http://jamespowell.org/

Of course one can always dismiss science when it goes against one's favorite religion and/or news outlet and/or political ideology or if conspiracies is your thing.

The above examples can be dismissed too because it involved even more scientists, so you can easily forget this post if it ruins your sleep.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CBR

Attachment 11932

http://jamespowell.org/

Of course one can always dismiss science when it goes against one's favorite religion and/or news outlet and/or political ideology or if conspiracies is your thing.

The above examples can be dismissed too because it involved even more scientists, so you can easily forget this post if it ruins your sleep.

---

Obvious example of groupthink.

That was easy. :sweatdrop:

Yeah...
When we can grow wheat on Greenland, we'll be back to normal. Or was that palm trees on Spitsbergen? I am confused.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

Also, the scientific method is the most rigorously tested method we have. The issue isn't the method, but making sure it's implemented properly. Competing methods, even if done to their utmost, are nowhere near as reliable.

---

Science, including the scientific method, is not about discovering truth. It is about slowly eliminating as many errors as possible.

This thread is a sign that science is working, not that it doesn't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sigurd

Yeah...
When we can grow wheat on Greenland, we'll be back to normal. Or was that palm trees on Spitsbergen? I am confused.

---

Svalbard is of course a relocated Atlantis. It didn't sink in the ocean, it merely teleported north.

That makes as much sense as Greenland being green and global warming being a myth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

...That makes as much sense as Greenland being green and global warming being a myth.

---

Greenland does seem to have been nice for cattle and sheep. Evidence so far has only found barley. How widespread such production was is not clear though, only that it was pretty much gone by mid 13th century and I guess it could have been much earlier if we go by Northern Iceland (gone by early 12th century)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CBR

Greenland does seem to have been nice for cattle and sheep. Evidence so far has only found barley. How widespread such production was is not clear though, only that it was pretty much gone by mid 13th century and I guess it could have been much earlier if we go by Northern Iceland (gone by early 12th century)

---

The medieval viking farms of Greenland were conveniently located........at the site of present-day farms on Greenland.

Yeah, that disproved global warming alright.

And we're as confident as we can be on the locations. Greenland is arctic, and things rarely disappear from arctic soil.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

The medieval viking farms of Greenland were conveniently located........at the site of present-day farms on Greenland.

Yeah, that disproved global warming alright.

And we're as confident as we can be on the locations. Greenland is arctic, and things rarely disappear from arctic soil.

---

Really?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Yeah, that disproved global warming alright.

---

Just because Greenland had a bit milder climate back then does obviously not disprove AGW.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

The medieval viking farms of Greenland were conveniently located........at the site of present-day farms on Greenland.

---

It is quite a difference between managing grain crops and sheep fodder. I believe Greenland can't sustain any type of grain today as it couldn't after the 1300s. Not using this in any way to disprove global warming. Right should be right.
Greenland's artic summers aren't long enough for grain to mature and be harvested.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sigurd

It is quite a difference between managing grain crops and sheep fodder. I believe Greenland can't sustain any type of grain today as it couldn't after the 1300s. Not using this in any way to disprove global warming. Right should be right.
Greenland's artic summers aren't long enough for grain to mature and be harvested.

---

Greenland's summers are about the same length as the summers in Northern Norway, another area not known to be packed with grain farms. Of course, all the grain grown in Northern Norway is used for animal fodder, as the quality is quite inferior. But then again, nearly all the grain grown in Norway is used for fodder as opposed to human consumption. With Greenland's climate being a little worse combined with fertile areas being much rarer, it makes absolutely no commercial sense whatsoever to grow grain on Greenland today. It doesn't in Northern Norway(really, almost all of Norway) either, but our tendency to throw billions at anyone seen driving a tractor makes it a bit more viable.

But back in the viking days, it wasn't about producing a viable and profitable product; it was simply about getting something you would otherwise not have. If those conditions were present today as well, I'd bet we'd see a grain patch or two on Greenland. Remember, the grain grown was only a supplement to a diet based on other types of food and intended for an extremely tiny population.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CBR

Just because Greenland had a bit milder climate back then does obviously not disprove AGW.

---

Of course not, especially since Greenland's warm period is considered a local rather than a regional(not to mention global) event(as in, it was hotter than other places in the North Atlantic), and warm climate close to the arctic circle is mostly driven by ocean currents anyway.

Still doesn't stop denialists from using it as the "ultimate proof of green lobby cryptocommunists hell-bent on world domination", though. Just goes to show the level of "intelligence" present in the denialist camp, I guess...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CBR

Attachment 11932

http://jamespowell.org/

Of course one can always dismiss science when it goes against one's favorite religion and/or news outlet and/or political ideology or if conspiracies is your thing.

The above examples can be dismissed too because it involved even more scientists, so you can easily forget this post if it ruins your sleep.

---

This is exactly the kind of derisive appeal to authority to which I was referring. How many of those scientists are utilizing complicated statistical modelling programs that they do not fully understand? How many are building on prior research that has not been fully proved out due to a hesitation to question authority and/or spend precious grant dollars to replicate research for which someone else has already gotten credit? How many do you think consider the likelihood of being published and quoted before selecting study topics and/or endeavoring to prove this stuff out? How many are reluctant to undergo the kind mocking attacks against their intellectual capacity and/or integrity that you just demonstrated? How many are friends, err, colleagues, and attend the same conferences, lectures, and social events; in other words, how many have vested interest in maintaining the status quo? Is anyone even asking these questions?

Climate science is a joke compared to medical research, and if this stuff is going on in the latter, it is most assuredly going on in the former especially considering the already-shaky modelling that is so heavily relied on. By throwing around labels such as 'denialist' and casting aspersions on people's motivations as you demonstrated above, the field has essentially insulated itself from a vigorous application of the scientific method. It has become only acceptable to publish within a certain box. You may see it as proof positive that only 1 out of 9136 authors rejected man made global warming, but I see it as a big red flag. Be careful not to become the kind of zealot you mock.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CBR

Greenland does seem to have been nice for cattle and sheep. Evidence so far has only found barley. How widespread such production was is not clear though, only that it was pretty much gone by mid 13th century and I guess it could have been much earlier if we go by Northern Iceland (gone by early 12th century)

---

The medieval warming period ended about 1250 CE.

You can't deny pure observation that easily. You wouldn't say that the scientific consensus that humans have two arms and two legs is suspect by virtue of social bias, after all.

That's where the existence of global warming stands right now.

I also notice that you don't seem to provide any conditions under which global warming, or indeed any subject of scientific investigation, could be considered validated in any way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

This is exactly the kind of derisive appeal to authority to which I was referring. How many of those scientists are utilizing complicated statistical modelling programs that they do not fully understand? How many are building on prior research that has not been fully proved out due to a hesitation to question authority and/or spend precious grant dollars to replicate research for which someone else has already gotten credit? How many do you think consider the likelihood of being published and quoted before selecting study topics and/or endeavoring to prove this stuff out? How many are reluctant to undergo the kind mocking attacks against their intellectual capacity and/or integrity that you just demonstrated? How many are friends, err, colleagues, and attend the same conferences, lectures, and social events; in other words, how many have vested interest in maintaining the status quo? Is anyone even asking these questions?

Climate science is a joke compared to medical research, and if this stuff is going on in the latter, it is most assuredly going on in the former especially considering the already-shaky modelling that is so heavily relied on. By throwing around labels such as 'denialist' and casting aspersions on people's motivations as you demonstrated above, the field has essentially insulated itself from a vigorous application of the scientific method. It has become only acceptable to publish within a certain box. You may see it as proof positive that only 1 out of 9136 authors rejected man made global warming, but I see it as a big red flag. Be careful not to become the kind of zealot you mock.

---

I've already mentioned groupthink...

But how do you even know all these facts about their social circumstances?
Do you stalk climate scientists or are you just guessing?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

...You may see it as proof positive that only 1 out of 9136 authors rejected man made global warming, but I see it as a big red flag. Be careful not to become the kind of zealot you mock.

---

You are free to go through the list to spot all their errors. I will simply assume you don't have the qualifications to do it. Easier to just dismiss them all, I guess.

Maybe there are so few who reject it because the reality is the way it is. But it is of course easier to claim it is based on shady stuff, but how do you know that?

If I'm a zealot, then it would be for the scientific method. I'll drink to science and you can drink to...whatever you like.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

Climate science is a joke compared to medical research

---

:laugh4:

You are aware that medical research is one of the best examples of evidence suppression and distortion?

I'm sure that everyone understands the concept of trial against placebo. Yet in the pharmaceutical industry trial against placebo is often almost worthless. Because in most instances we already possess some treatment that is in some measure effective. So what a doctor, and by proxy society, really wants and needs to know is not, is this drug better than nothing but rather is this drug better than our current best treatment.

There is also the practice of rigging data, either by dosing the competing drug in either too high or low a dose during the trial. Too high and you've created the illusion of the side-effects of the current treatment being worse than they are. Too low and you've understated the value of the current or competing treatment. One of the best examples of this are the antipsychotic drugs Thioridazine vs. Haloperidol. In the trial process they dosed Haloperidol at 20mg, a drug which is prescribed and effective in the range of 0.5mg to 5mg. It's entirely predictable that if you dose a drug at 400% its recommended level that you'll observe more side-effects and the normally dosed Thioridazine will look better by comparison.

Medical research is also the poster child for publication bias, in this case where negative data is withheld resulting in misleadingly positive or significant findings. US law requires all FDA approved research be published and submitted to its ClinicalTrials.gov database. This is only the case 50% of the time, half either go unpublished or are delayed in publishing (by which time a drug may already be on the market).^t How can a doctor make an educated decision on the true efficacy of a drug if half of the trials are unavailable?

t Riveros, C. et al. PLoS Med. 10, e1001566 (2013).

I have taken part in the peer review process on both sides of the issue.

It is not perfect and depending on the field, it can be more political than scientific.

There is little to no incentive to replicate the work. Most reviewers are under time pressure and are working on their own projects. Even if you disagree with the findings you had also best be better politically connected than those you give a negative review.

It does not mean that peer review is worthless. It just means that it can be just as littered with pitfalls as any other human endeavor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CBR

You are free to go through the list to spot all their errors. I will simply assume you don't have the qualifications to do it. Easier to just dismiss them all, I guess.

Maybe there are so few who reject it because the reality is the way it is. But it is of course easier to claim it is based on shady stuff, but how do you know that?

If I'm a zealot, then it would be for the scientific method. I'll drink to science and you can drink to...whatever you like.

---

Wasn't there a big climate change skeptic a couple of years back who decided to do a meta-analysis on the data then admitted to pretty much eating his own words by suggesting there may be grounds for man-made climate change, even if it isn't as significant as some papers predict ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiaexz

Wasn't there a big climate change sceptic a couple of years back who decided to do a meta-analysis on the data then admitted to pretty much eating his own words by suggesting there may be grounds for man-made climate change, even if it isn't as significant as some papers predict ?

---

That would be Richard A. Muller. "Skeptics" adored the guy and some even said they would accept the result of his study, no matter the conclusion. When he concluded that global warming was real and humans were the primary cause of it*...well let's just they didn't like it, heh.

*and that earlier scientific studies (incl. the much hated Hockey Stick graph) had not been biased.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking

I have taken part in the peer review process on both sides of the issue.

It is not perfect and depending on the field, it can be more political than scientific.

There is little to no incentive to replicate the work. Most reviewers are under time pressure and are working on their own projects. Even if you disagree with the findings you had also best be better politically connected than those you give a negative review.

It does not mean that peer review is worthless. It just means that it can be just as littered with pitfalls as any other human endeavor.

---

So basically, it's a rubber stamp if the author is well-connected?

I think that was one of the suggestions of the second article I linked in the OP. It took a guy who wasn't worried about ruining his career to challenge the "settled science". :yes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Really?

---

I had a closer look at the site you provided Xiahou. This report was interesting. I'll just quote a single sentence to ram my point in this thread home:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by article, p.3

The climate and vegetation in Greenland during Norse times were much the same as today

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

I had a closer look at the site you provided Xiahou. This report was interesting. I'll just quote a single sentence to ram my point in this thread home:

---

I have been thinking about the barley ears they found on Greenland. It is well known that you can't grow grains on Greenland, they won't produce mature grains.
So they found a few burnt ears at the bottom of a dung heap. Conclusion was that it had to be the remains of something growing there as nobody would export full ears.
Haven't seen in any report a judgement of the maturity of these barley ears. where they harvested as full barley or merely failed crops?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sigurd

Haven't seen in any report a judgement of the maturity of these barley ears. where they harvested as full barley or merely failed crops?

---

The kernels were charred and about 2 mm wide or so. An Icelandic dung had similar sized kernels and it looks like that is good enough for their conclusion of a "complete Scandinavian agro-pastoral package"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by naut

:laugh4:

You are aware that medical research is one of the best examples of evidence suppression and distortion?

I'm sure that everyone understands the concept of trial against placebo. Yet in the pharmaceutical industry trial against placebo is often almost worthless. Because in most instances we already possess some treatment that is in some measure effective. So what a doctor, and by proxy society, really wants and needs to know is not, is this drug better than nothing but rather is this drug better than our current best treatment.

There is also the practice of rigging data, either by dosing the competing drug in either too high or low a dose during the trial. Too high and you've created the illusion of the side-effects of the current treatment being worse than they are. Too low and you've understated the value of the current or competing treatment. One of the best examples of this are the antipsychotic drugs Thioridazine vs. Haloperidol. In the trial process they dosed Haloperidol at 20mg, a drug which is prescribed and effective in the range of 0.5mg to 5mg. It's entirely predictable that if you dose a drug at 400% its recommended level that you'll observe more side-effects and the normally dosed Thioridazine will look better by comparison.

Medical research is also the poster child for publication bias, in this case where negative data is withheld resulting in misleadingly positive or significant findings. US law requires all FDA approved research be published and submitted to its ClinicalTrials.gov database. This is only the case 50% of the time, half either go unpublished or are delayed in publishing (by which time a drug may already be on the market).^t How can a doctor make an educated decision on the true efficacy of a drug if half of the trials are unavailable?

t Riveros, C. et al. PLoS Med. 10, e1001566 (2013).

---

I could not agree more. Indeed, please do not interpret my comparison as a ringing endorsement of medical research, quite the contrary. As objectively flawed as the medical sciences are, however, the academic standards and qualifications, peer review process, and quality control are even less rigorous in climate research. Needless to say, the climate sciences do not draw the world's best and brightest.

Quote:

---

You are free to go through the list to spot all their errors. I will simply assume you don't have the qualifications to do it. Easier to just dismiss them all, I guess.

Maybe there are so few who reject it because the reality is the way it is. But it is of course easier to claim it is based on shady stuff, but how do you know that?

If I'm a zealot, then it would be for the scientific method. I'll drink to science and you can drink to...whatever you like.

---

That's all well and good, but you must understand that the scientific method of actually verifying new science and separating objective facts from narrative conforming results is fundamentally flawed. The points highlighted in the OP are hardly new; each year brings new articles that paint a picture of a scientific community less able to regulate itself than Wall Street, and filled with the same career driven ambition and the shortcuts that are associated with it.

You are correct. I am not qualified to interpret the data, although I have no doubt that getting qualified would have been far easier that what I did study in university. I believe the earth is warming and that humans are causing it because I have no choice. I have to trust this group of career driven, unregulated, and highly susceptible to peer pressure scientists in the same way I have to trust my financial adviser. But I am under no delusions as to the moral and/or intellectual integrity of the scientific community, and I certainly am not confident enough in it to muster the ugly mixture of hubris and derision so typically displayed against those who choose not to trust this very flawed institution.

My point very bluntly is that responding to any hint of skepticism by casting aspersions against the skeptics motivations on a religious, political, or conspiratorial level is uncalled for and counterproductive. Countering perceived skepticism with study counts is a lazy appeal to authority and does not really mean anything. Such antagonism creates the kind of self-reinforcing atmosphere which is discussed in the OP in which true skepticism is highly discouraged... the kind of skepticism on which real science depends.

As displayed in this thread, global warming zealots regularly mock the religious. While it is indeed more logical to put one's trust in science over religion, one must be careful not to elevate science and its practitioners to god-like status - attacking anyone who dares question the One True Word. The scientific community, made up of flawed human beings just like any other field, simply doesn't deserve it. You may think you are defending science by discouraging skepticism, but you are actually damaging it in the long run. IMHO, of course. :bow:

...add to that the shrinking of fundage and thus the intense struggle for money...which sadly at times means an alarmist attitude instead of a scientific one...

Quote:

---

although I have no doubt that getting qualified would have been far easier that what I did study in university.

---

I suspect this is a mistake, and anyway belies your calls for rigor and "skepticism".

Skepticism is fine, but throwing out the work of literally tens of thousands of scientists is not skepticism. A skeptic asks questions, but who can possible answer the questions when one does not want to hear from those who study the very same topic the skeptic want answers in.

That climate research is not very rigorous and that it does not draw in the brightest is a big claim and I would simply call it an absurd claim. Global warming is a rather hot topic, pardon the pun, and especially studies on current and future climate is scrutinized from left and right. I know of papers that was withdrawn again because of errors noticed within days of publication. If you ever become a prominent scientist you can then prepare for the harassment like death threats and lawsuits, but that seems to be just part of the package these days.

If you disliked my dismissal of your easy dismissal of the whole science behind it, then so be it. You can start here with a list of answers to skeptical arguments https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php If you don't like them then go back to the original four reasons in my first post ~;)

Quote:

---

You are correct. I am not qualified to interpret the data, although I have no doubt that getting qualified would have been far easier that what I did study in university.

---

Attachment 11953

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dimeola

which sadly at times means an alarmist attitude instead of a scientific one...

---

Don't confuse the scientists with the media.

You only need to read a single paper to see that it's filled to the brim with if's, but's and general uncertainty. It's only when it's translated into media terms that it turns apocalyptic. For one thing, the media almost always reports on the worst of the many predictions made in a paper.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CBR

The kernels were charred and about 2 mm wide or so. An Icelandic dung had similar sized kernels and it looks like that is good enough for their conclusion of a "complete Scandinavian agro-pastoral package"

---

That paper only refers to use of grain as animal fodder, however.

Forget about your wheat fields Tore, prepare to ingest the godly diet of sheep like the rest of us in the real world. The Chinese are forcing you to become a west lander or at least live under the same weather conditions as us. Cretaceous - here we come. :sneaky:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sigurd

Forget about your wheat fields Tore, prepare to ingest the godly diet of sheep like the rest of us in the real world. The Chinese are forcing you to become a west lander or at least live under the same weather conditions as us. Cretaceous - here we come. :sneaky:

---

What do you call a westerner with a sheep under each arm?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

A pimp.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

That paper only refers to use of grain as animal fodder, however.

---

No, it says maybe and perhaps. In the conclusion they write that most likely the animals had grazed on harvested fields.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CBR

No, it says maybe and perhaps. In the conclusion they write that most likely the animals had grazed on harvested fields.

---

You need to harvest fodder.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

You need to harvest fodder.

---

And? What are you arguing about? That the barley was too poor for human consumption? That barley was only used for animals? Not what the paper is saying nor does it fit with what AFAIK Icelanders were using barley for.

The grain size, and the conclusions of the paper, would suggest that the Greenland barley was ripe. And that is what Sigurd was wondering about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CBR

That the barley was too poor for human consumption? That barley was only used for animals?

---

The paper doesn't conclude on either of those, and that* was all I was trying to highlight.

*the uncertainty

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

What do you call a westerner with a sheep under each arm?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

A pimp.

---

BAAAAAhd joke. Loved it.

One of those Welsh and New Zealand jokes apply to Norway as well?

New Zealand ranks up there, but the winner is....The Falklands (Las Malvinas) with the highest number of sheep per capita of any bit of land in the world.

I do NOT know if there was a connection between this and the invasion. Far be it from me to comment on Argentines.

Of course, the newest Holy Father is an Argentine....

Hmmm. Is there a conspiracy theory lurking in here somewhere? If so, how can we exploit the gullible and fund the org? As I recall, the Senior Member porn stash was looking a bit....long in the tooth. Might just have been photos of Andres in drag that were misplaced though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiaexz

One of those Welsh and New Zealand jokes apply to Norway as well?

---

Sheep-shagging jokes are pretty much universal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drone

Sheep-shagging is pretty much universal among sheep-farmers.

---

Fixed it for ya.

A friend of mine is a bio-chemical researcher and she told me they have to play with the results every time; scrapping the (outcomes of) experiments they do not like, limiting results to the ones that fit,... It's institutionalised really.

I also had a friend (he already held a degree in engineering) who when writing his phd (in psychology) always had to correct his professor's mathematical suggestions, ideas and all. It was clear the man didn't really understand the program he was working with, not the basic principles of the maths involved with that kind of research. He called it embarrassing. When offered a spot to work with research team of the professor afterwards, he obviously politely declined.

Fragony already mentioned the two cases of clear fraud used in Dutch research? Well, it doesn't paint a pretty picture does it? To me it's clear that the sciences who rely to much on statistics, especially as those fields aren't rich in people who are actually strong at maths. That and the mere fact that the first rule of statistics is, correlation doesn't imply causality. When people find a correlation they end up using their creativity to explain it. When people want to explain something they'll find a correlation. And even worse but apparently common practice, people will even manipulate results to achieve correlation or a different form of mathematical backing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiaexz

One of those Welsh and New Zealand jokes apply to Norway as well?

---

As an Aussie-Kiwi with a Welsh mum and Scandinavian surname I've heard a lot of sheep jokes.

What's the top selling KY jelly in NZ?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Mint flavour

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moros

A friend of mine is a bio-chemical researcher and she told me they have to play with the results every time; scrapping the (outcomes of) experiments they do not like, limiting results to the ones that fit,... It's institutionalised really.

I also had a friend (he already held a degree in engineering) who when writing his phd (in psychology) always had to correct his professor's mathematical suggestions, ideas and all. It was clear the man didn't really understand the program he was working with, not the basic principles of the maths involved with that kind of research. He called it embarrassing. When offered a spot to work with research team of the professor afterwards, he obviously politely declined.

Fragony already mentioned the two cases of clear fraud used in Dutch research? Well, it doesn't paint a pretty picture does it? To me it's clear that the sciences who rely to much on statistics, especially as those fields aren't rich in people who are actually strong at maths. That and the mere fact that the first rule of statistics is, correlation doesn't imply causality. When people find a correlation they end up using their creativity to explain it. When people want to explain something they'll find a correlation. And even worse but apparently common practice, people will even manipulate results to achieve correlation or a different form of mathematical backing.

---

The problem with looking for the right results I believe is less to do with the individuals and more to do with the current institutional practice of rewarding those who try to find new and exciting things rather than those who try to confirm what has already been proposed by other findings or those who simply try to rule out possible ideas through failure.

The issue with the humanities is an error on the part of the universities and on the current cultural stigmas we have attached to various disciplines. The fact is, there is no escaping math, not even in the humanities if you wish to actually get somewhere approaching reality. The day is coming when kids will be expected to know basic calc and statistics if they wish to even get into uni.

Math is to scientists what weight training is to athletes.

Puny athletes are not great performers, mathematically inept scientists are not great either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Math is to scientists what weight training is to athletes.

Puny athletes are not great performers, mathematically inept scientists are not great either.

---

Biology is Chemistry.
Chemistry is Physics.
Physics is Math.

Essentially, everything is math.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

Essentially, everything is math.

---

Of course!

Mathematics isn't about calculations. Mathematics is a way of thinking, the calculations are just a result of that way of thinking.



EDIT: Oh, and I nearly forgot to add that mathematics is also the only true absolute truth in the universe.

Yep. The best thing about math is that it's universal.

Quote:

---

Oh, and I nearly forgot to add that mathematics is also the only true absolute truth in the universe.

---

It would be more accurate to say that math is the only currently known absolute truth.

Mathematics doesn't exist in the universe. It exists in our heads. It is a made up tool we use to add precision to our attempts to categorize, describe, and where possible predict existence. Mathematics is perfect because it is a mental construct and not, per se, real.

Still all, a damned useful tool.

Mathematics is not really an "absolute truth". There are many cases of needing to pick your definitions and axioms just right for it to work out. You have to agree to 0^0 being 1, for instance or lot's of things involving factorials fall apart. This gets significantly less trivial when it comes to subjects such as topology and set theory which is where some of the most deep results and insights come from. One particular example of this has to do with the nature of infinity and infinite sets. Consider a function f(x) which maps x from the set of Reals to the range -1 to 1 (exclusive) using:

Code:

---

f(x) = x / (1 + (abs(x))

---

It's clear that f is 'onto' (the entire range -1 to 1 is covered) and 'one-to-one' (for each x there is a unique value of f(x)). Therefore by a counting analogy there are exactly as many instances of x (i.e numbers in the set of Reals) as there are values of f(x). However, notice that each value of f(x) is also a Real number and therefore part of the same set as x. Therefore ...


On the other hand "Mathematics" is not made up as in "fantasy". It is every bit as real as "a metre" or "a Newton" or any SI unit or physics concept you care to name. It's rather more real in some senses than most of those such as "distance" or "time" because we know] that at a fundamental level "distance" and "time" are conceptual crutches that reality does not admit whereas reality does admit the notions of "addition" or "multiplication".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios

Mathematics is not really an "absolute truth". There are many cases of needing to pick your definitions and axioms just right for it to work out. You have to agree to 0^0 being 1, for instance or lot's of things involving factorials fall apart. This gets significantly less trivial when it comes to subjects such as topology and set theory which is where some of the most deep results and insights come from. One particular example of this has to do with the nature of infinity and infinite sets. Consider a function f(x) which maps x from the set of Reals to the range -1 to 1 (exclusive) using:

Code:

---

f(x) = x / (1 + (abs(x))

---

It's clear that f is 'onto' (the entire range -1 to 1 is covered) and 'one-to-one' (for each x there is a unique value of f(x)). Therefore by a counting analogy there are exactly as many instances of x (i.e numbers in the set of Reals) as there are values of f(x). However, notice that each value of f(x) is also a Real number and therefore part of the same set as x. Therefore ...


On the other hand "Mathematics" is not made up as in "fantasy". It is every bit as real as "a metre" or "a Newton" or any SI unit or physics concept you care to name. It's rather more real in some senses than most of those such as "distance" or "time" because we know] that at a fundamental level "distance" and "time" are conceptual crutches that reality does not admit whereas reality does admit the notions of "addition" or "multiplication".

---

But what of that is mathematics? Is it the function and its solution, or is it rather the method of thinking which allowed its creation?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I omitted the conclusion because it's much more fun if you draw the inference yourself but if you insist: the range -1 to 1 (exclusive) contains exactly as many Reals as the entire set of Reals. For an encore, note how multiplication by some constant A or addition by some constant B yields a different function with exactly the same number of outputs but mapped onto a different range, which by analogy proves the same fact about that range. We have found a quantity which appears in the same instant both "smaller" than itself and also "larger" than itself.

This quantity is known as the cardinality of the continuum (c).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

But what of that is mathematics? Is it the function and its solution, or is it rather the method of thinking which allowed its creation?

---

The question is whether or not the same thinking applied differently can lead to incompatible results. To stick with the theme: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuum_hypothesis