Muffing the margins

Are you a Gorebot? A Denier? Let's mix it up here and figure this issue out!
User avatar
Posts: 1206
Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2014 8:11 pm

Re: Muffing the margins

Post by Lily » Thu Nov 15, 2018 4:43 pm

Congratulations on the first adult intelligent debate on this board since its inception. :thankyouyellow:
2 x

User avatar
Heir Apparent
Posts: 3344
Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2014 8:19 pm

Re: Muffing the margins

Post by clusterchuck » Fri Nov 16, 2018 10:01 am

clusterchuck wrote:
Thu Nov 15, 2018 2:58 pm
evilconempire wrote:
Thu Nov 15, 2018 1:39 pm
clusterchuck wrote:
Thu Nov 15, 2018 12:22 pm
Multiple people overlooking the same page one error is solid evidence of like mindedness, IMO. Much less speculation than concluding they all made the exact same error - which would be remarkable.

I disagree scientists/educated people have special attributes separating them from other groups and/or having more diverse positions than other areas of human endeavor.

IME no one is immune to group think. I'm not suggesting all scientists act the same, but I am suggesting special interest and collaborative groups tend to gather tightly around central theories and concepts, especially those who associate at the personal and professional level in a relatively narrow field such as climate change. Personality types being what they are, the dynamic of leader, follower, influencer are just as real in the scientific community as anywhere else. In that regard, scientists have the same opinion diversity as most any other technical sector of society.

The research article was published in the media Journal Nature. In my book, that constitutes an article in the media. At the time of publication it contained errors overlooked by both researchers and peers. The fact that a human outside the peer group read and found errors on page one isn't "transparency". IMO.

So far, the authors admission the errors exist have been labelled "honesty" and "transparency". Which I find fascinating, psychologically speaking.
It's not evidence of anything except that humans are fallible and everyone can make a mistake. It's more likely to be evidence that the referees did not do their job properly, which is also a common human trait. It is not evidence of an agenda or a like-mindedness unless we are really lowering the bar for what is evidence.

Educated people do not think in the same way that an uneducated person does. Education is not just learning facts and figures. It's about training the mind. It is my experience that educated people do have a more diverse set of positions on a much larger set of topics. They are much less likely to be subject to outside influences on their views.

Your comparison of an article published in the media is nothing like a study in a scientific journal. That was the point. You can't go through a journalists notes to review everything that lead to the article. You can with study printed in a scientific journal.

The researcher's admitting to the error and correcting it is not transparency. The making the methodology available for anyone to review is.
While it's true any human can make "a mistake", the fact that peers (ostensibly) reviewed the research, and, assuming more than one peer performed review, I find it highly implausible researcher(s) and reviewer(s) accidentally overlooked the same fundamental/foundation-al error.

If it's true peers "didn't do their job" with this "major study" - which is responsible for overlooking page one math errors - then the peer review process, especially in the contested world of climate change research, comes into question. Could this event be evidence of rubber stamping in the "peer review" process? We may never know.

I understand your premise that educated humans have a wider set of positions on more diverse topics than "uneducated" people, but in this instance, I conclude the educated people in this string of errors and omissions made their "mistakes" based on basic human conditions every human is subject to, regardless of education.

I also understand your thoughts on "transparency", it's my opinion this event does not qualify. Certainly, methodology published in theoretical research allows for procedural transparency, but, IME theoretical research and conclusions are much more accurate right out of the gate than this embarrassing example or peer reviewed data. The review process exists to eliminate glaring first page math errors, this example of a failed process cannot, IMO, be dismissed as "humans make mistakes". Far too many eyes and minds on the topic for such a basic and critical error leading to post publication discovery in the "transparent" process.

The researchers had no recourse but to "admit" their error. Math is math so there is no contest. They "admitted" the mistake because it was found after publication in media where scientific research is made public in accepted norms including methodology supporting research conclusion. Again, I don't call that transparency, I call that clear example of bias in a system *theoretically* free of bias.

Adding this event to the pile of contested "preponderance of evidence" reviewed by peers and accepted by like minded climate scientists - much of which is built on wildly spongy software modeling - only raises more questions in the minds of heretical skeptics.
0 x

Post Reply