Posted by By popular request, Brad Keyes is only permitted to post in this thread.
Comments
-
“Please, enlighten me.”
This would require you be able to think, Panties.
This has proven impossible for you.
-
“The differential characteristic of True Believers’ attempts at insult is their baseless vagueness. ”
Says the queen of vagueosity 9…
-
“an example of my sub-grade-6 understanding of science?”
And when this is done, like all other times this has been done to your demand, you will demand something different and ignore the example.
Yawn.
Find another track, dickhead.
-
See, gentle readers? Comments 2, 3, and 4 are three consecutive attempts at insult by Wow, with not one example substantiating any of them.
-
I suppose it’s too much to ask you to provide an example of my sub-grade-6 understanding of science?
The fact that you can’t synthesise a functional understanding of the climatology of global warming works for me. I suspect that it suffices for most others here too, barring your troglodyte acolytes like PentaxZ and Chameleon – but then, they’re definitive evidence that one cannot make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear…
-
‘course, this isn’t a problem for you, is it, Tim.
You don’t actually do anything to rebut these retards. Therefore not your problem. You can sit in your ivory tower and preen your “I BELIEVE in free speech!” because it doesn’t make any problems for you, does it.
-
“with not one example substantiating any of them”
When did insults have to be substantiated, shithead?
PS another example for post 81 on the last page for you.
-
Hey, why aren’t you demanding that panties substantiates his claims against, for example, tamino’s site and evidence?
Oh, that’s right: don’t harm The Cause.
-
According to Lotharsson, you shouldn’t bother, Wow:
And in an attempt to maintain his self-delusion that his opinion carries as much weight as the scientific consensus does [Brad is] tying himself in logical and rhetorical knots.
On that basis I don’t think there’s any point adding further to that thread
The irony being that if Lotharsson understood science at a passing grade 6 level, he’d know that my opinion does carry every bit as much weight as “the scientific consensus” (whatever that is), as does his opinion, my dog’s opinion or a random opinion generating program’s opinion. Opinion is not evidence. Not in science, the alien and uncharted country, Lotharsson.
-
Wow:
Hey, why aren’t you demanding that panties substantiates his claims against, for example, tamino’s site and evidence?
Is that your puerile name for PentaxZ?
-
The irony being that if Lotharsson understood science at a passing grade 6 level, he’d know that my opinion does carry every bit as much weight as “the scientific consensus”
The irony there being that if you understood science at an adult rather than six year old level, you’d understand that no, your opinion does not carry every bit as much weight as the scientific consensus.
Indeed, I don’t think anyone over about 18 months old has a problem in counting one and seeing that “more than one” is a bigger count of them.
Seems we’ve been overestimating your educational level.
Not even pre-school.
-
“Is that your puerile name for PentaxZ?”
Yes.
-
And is that the only reason why you haven’t slated him for unsubstantiated insults? that you weren’t CERTAIN that it was Panties who did it?
Because the causality there is the wrong way round.
-
Hey, surely you believe that Lotharsson’s opinion of you carries just as much weight as YOUR opinion of yourself, right?
And several others have the same opinion, each carrying just as much weight as yours each.
So, unless this is anarchy or despotism, the evidence weights against your opinion of yourself and opinions much less flattering of you by numerous others.
You aren’t a COMMUNIST, are you, Bray?
-
Indeed, I don’t think anyone over about 18 months old has a problem in counting one and seeing that “more than one” is a bigger count of them.
But 2,500 times 0 is still 0, you acalculic imbecile.
-
“This would require you be able to think, Panties.
This has proven impossible for you.”
So it was nothing but an emty, rattling bin. Not surprised.
-
And is that the only reason why you haven’t slated him for unsubstantiated insults? that you weren’t CERTAIN that it was Panties who did it?
Try this again, like an adult, and I might answer you.
-
And is that the only reason why you haven’t slated him for unsubstantiated insults? that you weren’t CERTAIN that it was Panties who did it?
Try this again, like an adult, and I might answer you.
-
“But 2,500 times 0 is still 0, you acalculic imbecile.”
Thank you for that blinding flash of the obvious, retard.
Would you also like to tell me that one plus one is two?
-
“[I am] nothing but an em[p]ty, rattling bin.”
FTFY.
-
“Try this again, I might answer you.”
Based on past performance, this is extremely unlikely.
-
And this:
Indeed, I don’t think anyone over about 18 months old has a problem in counting one and seeing that “more than one” is a bigger count of them.
Remains unanswered.
-
But 2,500 times 0 is still 0, you acalculic imbecile.
And therefore my (scientifically meaningless) opinion is worth just as much as the (scientifically meaningless) opinion of 2,500 scientists.
Geddit?
-
Mind you, you DO seem to understand that your opinion has ZERO information behind it.
You’re getting closer.
You still have your projection problems to deal with.
-
“And therefore my (scientifically meaningless) opinion”
That’s true.
“the (scientifically meaningless) opinion of 2,500 scientists.”
That is your make-believe.
Your worthless opinion is worth zero. The informed opinion of 2500 scientists is worth much more than zero.
-
Hey, given your belief that opinion is worthless, why didn’t you berate panties pointing to a petition of 1077 engineers and geologists (who may easily do their allotted work with zero informed opinion of climate science)?
Oh, right, forgot. Serve The Cause.
-
I berate all appellants to consensus on questions about nature.
It is perfectly legitimate to appeal to opinion on questions about opinion, however.
-
Since I haven’t read any comment by a “panties” I can’t say which type of question he/she/it was arguing about when pointing to the 1077 signators you mention.
-
I berate all appellants to consensus on questions about nature.
You didn’t.
Ergo your claim is falsified.
-
Since I haven’t read any comment by a “panties”
ROFL!
Another one for page 14, post 81.
With double helping of irony because this post was much earlier than even idiocy allows:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/02/02/brangelina-thread/comment-page-15/#comment-148915
-
Serve The Cause.
The only Cause I’m aware of in the climate debate is an unspeakable chthonic divinity to whom Michael Mann pledges his soul.
“By the way, when is Tom C going to formally publish his roughly 1500 year reconstruction??? It would help the cause to be able to refer to that reconstruction as confirming Mann and Jones, etc.”
“They will (see below) allow us to provide some discussion of the synthetic example, referring to the J. Cimate paper (which should be finally accepted upon submission of the revised final draft), so that should help the cause a bit.”
“I gave up on Judith Curry a while ago. I don’t know what she think’s she’s doing, but its not helping the cause“
-
Hey, Bray, why are you posting here?
That last couple of posts have merely been the gilding on the lilly demonstrating your incapacity and how every opinion of yours is, as even you attest, worthless.
So why are you doing this?
And no, “I want to educate people” or similar shit won’t do. Even you have claimed your opinion worthless.
-
OMG!
Can Wow be confined to a personal thread?
It could be argued that Wow wants one considering the number of wowisms here
And BJ? I am neither an acolyte or a troglodyte nor any other puerile insult you would care to choose.
What possesses you to write such things?
It only makes me laugh at you.
You could perhaps take the advice of Latimer (I think?) and consider getting out more.
You might find that spraying insults and arguing semantics and assuming you have the right to lecture people about (your opinion) of their abilities doesn’t get you very far out here in the real world.
You are of course entitled to your opinions but if they’re accompanied by sneering insults, don’t be too surprised if no one takes you seriously -
The only Cause I’m aware of in the climate debate is an unspeakable chthonic divinity to whom Michael Mann pledges his soul.
-
I berate all appellants to consensus on questions about nature.
You didn’t.
Ergo your claim is falsified.
Obviously hundreds of thousands of them remain unberated by me, simply because they haven’t come to my attention. What I meant was: I condemn, in principle, all of them.
-
It only makes me laugh at you.
Lets face it, a dog having a poop makes you laugh.
You’re not really adult.
-
In this sense, projection is related to denial, arguably the only more primitive defense mechanism than projection, which, like all defense mechanisms, provides a function whereby a person can protect the conscious mind from a feeling that is otherwise repulsive.
-
Wow, this is the kind of juvenile rhetoric we were just talking about:
Lets face it, a dog having a poop makes you laugh.
Grow the fuck up.
-
Obviously hundreds of thousands of them remain unberated by me
Given there are only 1400 posts on this thread, this seems HIGHLY unlikely.
But we already know you can’t do counting.
To you, zero is the same as 1 is the same as 2500.
-
What I meant was: I condemn, in principle, all of them.
That principle being “only if they refute my denialist claims will I point them out, though”?
-
Grow the fuck up.
Totally agree.
Chubby, see, even Bray wants you to grow the fuck up.
And he’s someone who can’t even grasp the counting mathematical genius of an 18 month old baby!
-
“What I meant was: I condemn, in principle, all of them.”
That principle being “only if they refute my denialist claims will I point them out, though”?
No, the principle being “I condemn all of them.”
-
No, the principle being “I condemn all of them.”
That principle being entirely not evidenced.
I get it: another worthless opinion of yours, right?
Well, here’s another opinion: you don’t condemn them all, only ones that disprove your denialist creed. And this, unlike yours, has actual evidence to inform that opinion.
-
Readers will notice that Wow has avoided answering the most pressing question: How much Heartland is paying him for this.
-
About poop, wow, do you honestly believe that your speving diarrhea in some way makes your case? Well, it propably does, but not in the way you believe.
And by the way, there isn’t “2500 scientists”. The correct number is 97. Get that into that vaccum of yours.
-
do you honestly believe that your speving diarrhea in some way makes your case?
Do you honestly believe speving is a word?
And given that the only one calling it diarrhea is you, this would be yet another case of
-
And by the way, there isn’t “2500 scientists”.
You need to direct that to the one who claimed it. You can see them do this here:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/02/02/brangelina-thread/comment-page-15/#comment-148926
yes, that’s right: your BFF Bray.
-
The correct number is 97
So you claim there are only 97 scientists now????
-
Ain’t it strange, The deltoid zealots has gotten both Jonas and Brad banned to their own threads because they can’t make their case with valid arguments. And yet they come to these threads to get their asses spanked. I would say they propably are some kind of sadomasochists.
-
Wow, show me a comment that I should condemn, according to the principle I’ve professed. Please include sufficient context to clarify that the person quoted is arguing about nature as opposed to, say, arguing about the alarmist belief in a consensus of scientists supporting them. I will read it and condemn, berate and chastise it if appropriate. But I’m going to bed so don’t get impatient if you don’t get an answer for a few hours.
Night all
-
Yes, in the survey that concluded that “98% of the scientists claims CAGW is true” there was only 97. Your precsious consensus that is.
-
The deltoid zealots has gotten both Jonas and Brad banned to their own threads because they can’t make their case with valid arguments.
Completely correct. If Joan or Bray had been able to make their case with valid arguments, they wouldn’t be banned to a single thread.
PS the word is “have”. “have gotten”. Not “has gotten”.
-
Wow, show me a comment that I should condemn
You already know.
If you don’t then this is yet more indication of how everything you say is completely empty of thought.
-
Yes, in the survey that concluded that “98% of the scientists claims CAGW is true” there was only 97
Since no such paper exists, I guess you can make up any number you like.
-
Wow, show me a comment that I should condemn
Moreover, this entirely proves my point.
If you only condemn denialist rebuttals pointing to a consensus on your own volition, but will demand that you have to be ordered to condemn a pro-denialist consensus claim, then your assertion that you condemn all appeals to consensus is proven false.
-
Information No results found for “98% of the scientists claims CAGW is true”.
-
Even according to every other denier in existence, no such paper exists.
-
http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-of-doubt-strategy-1-deny-consensus.html
That’s you, that is, Bray.
Indeed it is likely the only time you’d be associated with “Number 1″.
Being associated with “number twos” would be a much more likely occurrence…
-
Hmmmmmm?
I wonder if anyone would bother to visit Wow’s personal thread?
It probably wouldn’t matter as Wow obviously likes arguing with Wow and commenting on comments by Wow.
And Wow also likes answering Wow’s questions and if people don’t ask Wow any questions then Wow just barges in and answers questions asked of others.
It’s amusing to read.
Maybe BradK is onto something re that Heartland comment? -
Night all
So an Aussie, we reckon?
Dad’s money that put him in college was from the mining industry?
-
It probably wouldn’t matter as Wow obviously likes arguing with Wow and commenting on comments by Wow.
You should have warned those with a dwindling supply of irony meters before saying that, Chubby!
-
Leave thinking to those equipped for it, Chubby.
-
“Brad” still ineffectually wrapping his brain around ‘consensus’ and Michael Mann, I see.
And with even more limited assistance from PantieZ and Cammy. I expect Dr. Mann is quaking in his boots. You’re going nowhere fast, ain’t'cha “Brad”, in spite all that extra push from the half wit chorus.Not worth answering the rest of their combined rubbish – which they’ll have forgotten by tomorrow anyway. Oh except for this: “Is that your puerile name for PentaxZ?”
Actually, it’s a short version of ‘Panties size Z’, which came about after a prolonged period of observation on another thread which suggested – rather like the Terminator’s Skynet, an arse so bigly huge it achieved a degree of consciousness. Of course, it’s still absolutely an arse, and thinks, in its limited fashion, like an arse as is self evident to this day and in it’s gutteral, protean way will never be anything but a double-digit arse. But that’s PantieZ for you.
You can tell a lot about ideas like denial from the type of brownshirt they attract. -
And here he was berating everyone for asking him about Mann when the thread is only about Phil Jones…
-
They don’t help themselves by knowing just about nothing, and the little they do know, well it’s all the same thing innit?
-
So, Brad, what *did* you think of the new (to you) evidence for ECS being in the evidence-based range (the scientific consensus)? Since nobody asked you I shall. I am very interested to hear your views on the studies referenced, and indeed on the research background into which they fit.
This background is summarised by the IPCC reports. Remember, the IPCC doesn’t conduct original research; the reports are simply reviews of the state of scientific knowledge.
You made no mention of the excerpts from WG1 I posted up on the previous page, so here they are again for convenience:
Overall, several lines of evidence strengthen confidence in present estimates of ECS, and new results based on objective analyses make it possible to assign probabilities to ranges of climate sensitivity previously assessed from expert opinion alone. This represents a significant advance. Results from studies of observed climate change and the consistency of estimates from different time periods indicate that ECS is very likely larger than 1.5°C with a most likely value between 2°C and 3°C. The lower bound is consistent with the view that the sum of all atmospheric feedbacks affecting climate sensitivity is positive. Although upper limits can be obtained by combining multiple lines of evidence, remaining uncertainties that are not accounted for in individual estimates (such as structural model uncertainties) and possible dependencies between individual lines of evidence make the upper 95% limit of ECS uncertain at present. Nevertheless, constraints from observed climate change support the overall assessment that the ECS is likely to lie between 2°C and 4.5°C with a most likely value of approximately 3°C (Box 10.2).
Since the TAR, the levels of scientific understanding and confidence in quantitative estimates of equilibrium climate sensitivity have increased substantially. Basing our assessment on a combination of several independent lines of evidence, as summarised in Box 10.2 Figures 1 and 2, including observed climate change and the strength of known feedbacks simulated in GCMs, we conclude that the global mean equilibrium warming for doubling CO2, or ‘equilibrium climate sensitivity’, is likely to lie in the range 2°C to 4.5°C, with a most likely value of about 3°C. Equilibrium climate sensitivity is very likely larger than 1.5°C.
-
I wonder if “Brad” accepts as a consensus that out of 33,700 peer reviewed climate paper authors between 2001 and 2012, only 34 were rejectionists (c.0.1%)
-
@ chek 1565
I wonder, would you have the balls to actually behave so juvenile face to face. Na, don’t think so. You’re just another coward hiding behind your computer. And you propably doesn’t have any balls at all. Given your falsettic screaming I am almost sertan you’re a enuck.
-
pentaxZ
Do grow up.
-
“I wonder, would you have the balls to actually behave so juvenile face to face.”
Says an anonymous internet troll…
-
Given your falsettic screaming
Text doesn’t do that, PantieZ. That’s all completely within your thuggish little mind.
-
And who are you to open your mouth, BBD? You actual haven’t noticed the behaviour of the regulars here? Even CV waving jeffie, who claims having a Phd, behave like a spoilt juvenil. So, please, fuck off with your hypocrisy!!
-
“And who are you to open your mouth, BBD?”
Yes, that’s who they are.
-
Maybe if you could do more than shit out denier links and your freshly received talking points – or even had the wherewithal to defend them when they get shredded, or demonstrated some original thought, there might – just possibly – be a different opinion of you. But you can’t. You’ve never been able to yet and you likely never will PantieZ.
Even your derogatory terms (activist) are plain if unexplained code amongst your right wing clique who much prefer their drivel coming from recognised and transparent corporate lobbyists Which is why I characterise you as nothing more than a huge talking arse somebody else speaks through. So, please, fuck off with second-hand, second-rate stupidity.
Oh, and much as expertise and achievement pains you and your gang, Jeff H. doesn’t just * claim * to have a PhD, he really does have one. You could learn something (I doubt you get many opportunities to interact with the educated) but of course such an idea would be anathema to your slavering troll arse.
-
Brad says,
my opinion does carry every bit as much weight as “the scientific consensus”
That pretty much sums up the entire worth of what Brad has had to say over the last few weeks.
-
Brad did say:
my opinion does carry every bit as much weight as “the scientific consensus” (whatever that is), as does his opinion, my dog’s opinion or a random opinion generating program’s opinion. Opinion is not evidence. Not in science
This is dispiriting, given the effort that has gone into explaining that the scientific consensus is not ‘opinion’ in the loose sense BK uses here.
On the one hand we have a scientific consensus based on evidence. On the other, we have BK’s opinion, based on goodness only knows what.
When BK states that his opinion carries every bit as much weight as the scientific consensus, we have to ask him to demonstrate that his opinion is based on scientific evidence.
When we do that, he refuses to discuss this aspect of his reasoning openly.
So I refer BK back to his own words:
Opinion is not evidence. Not in science
And to # 68 above.
-
pentaxZ
So, please, fuck off with your hypocrisy!!
Some commenters here, including myself, have expressed frustration in the face of sustained bad faith.
This is not hypocrisy.
-
chek:
Even your derogatory terms (activist) are plain if unexplained code amongst your right wing clique who much prefer their drivel coming from recognised and transparent corporate lobbyists
What is “activist” a codeword FOR, chek? It’s an honest question—not being a member of a right wing clique, their alleged dialect is a fascinating mystery to me.
-
So, Brad, what *did* you think of the new (to you) evidence
Haven’t had time to read it. My time is divided between school and swatting down inane comments on my thread, which keeps me busy. However since you presented what appears to be high-quality evidence I have provisionally changed my answer from “less than 1.5C” to “I don’t know; ask someone else.”
for ECS being in the evidence-based range (the scientific consensus)?
The evidence-based range and the scientific consensus may refer to two completely different ranges. So I don’t know what question you’re asking here.
-
Wll, wll–ths Dltd-lnd, blg-styl, “r-dctn cmp” thrds tht hrbr “clss nms” lk Brd, Snspt, nd Jns (nd vn m, t n tm) crtnly brng t th bst n Dltd’s grl-thg, scl-rjct, wtrmln-drk, chk-wnnb hv-bzs, dn’t thy?
ll f pttrn. Thnk: Rd Grd pblc hmltn; Strdy-nght, bsmnt blw-t t th Lbynk; Vyshnsky n rll; Lysnk n hgh ddgn: r Pggy hvn’ “Lrd f th Fls” bd dy–th brly-cntnd, hv-mntlty tht rvld n th th Hldmr, th Grt Lp Frwrd, nd th Cmbdn Kllng Flds.
ndd, thr’s cllctv slp f th cyncl, gt-prp, dplcts, lnsky msk n ths blg’s “ghtt-thrds” jst sffcnt fr th dscrnng y t dtct th gd-cmrd, grnnng, grnshrt, glg dth’s-hd tht lrks bnth, chfng t nlsh ts fll, cll-crzy crlts.
By, hy! cld jst b sm prnd, rght-wng nttr. Rght, Dltds? S wht d y sy w pn th mttr p t th flks, gys? n tht rgrd, th flks mght Ggl: “nn Brssngtn clb f rm ytb” nd “Lrry Grthwhl yrs ytb”. Th flks mght thn dcd fr thmslvs. Fr ngh?
-
This is dispiriting, given the effort that has gone into explaining that the scientific consensus is not ‘opinion’ in the loose sense BK uses here.
The scientific opinion is the majority opinion among scientists. This is a matter of definition. If you don’t like it, write your own dictionary.
On the one hand we have a scientific consensus based on evidence. On the other, we have BK’s opinion, based on goodness only knows what.
Consensus may be based on evidence (as may my opinion), in which case you should argue from the evidence; or it may be based on something other than the evidence, in which case you should argue from the evidence; in either case, you should argue from the evidence only. There is never any rational basis for even mentioning consensus (or my opinion) in a scientific argument, and it’s prima facie suspicious when you do so.
-
BK
The evidence-based range and the scientific consensus may refer to two completely different ranges. So I don’t know what question you’re asking here.
For the nth time, tell me what the scientific consensus is based on if not the evidence.
Otherwise concede that yes, the scientific consensus emerges from the evidence. In which case your question is meaningless.
Ignoring definitional quibbles, the argument from the evidence is that ECS to 2 x CO2 is in the range ~2.5C – ~ 3C.
You say:
However since you presented what appears to be high-quality evidence I have provisionally changed my answer from “less than 1.5C” to “I don’t know; ask someone else.”
How do you justify your shift to agnosticism in the light of the evidence? It’s illogical.
-
Turns out that what ‘Sunspot’, ‘Brad’, ‘Jonas’ and their fanboys / fellow-travellers really are is unpaid* Useful Idiots playing at footsoldiers for billionaires.
*We assume. Certainly none of you are giving value-for-money, at any rate!
-
How do you justify your shift to agnosticism in the light of the evidence?
Because I haven’t read it yet.
-
BBD
For the nth time, tell me what the scientific consensus is based on if not the evidence.
For the nth time where n > 3, this is a facile question because the scientific consensus is a function of social psychology and is therefore practically guaranteed to be multifactorial. If you think scientific consensus can only possibly be based on evidence, then please tell me: what was the mistaken scientific consensus on continental drift / gastric ulcers / quasi-crystals “based on”?
If you know how to reason, you’ll understand that arguments in science should only be based on evidence, never on non-evidence (e.g. consensus).
-
Bernard J
And if you think that there no “global warming crisis”, perhaps you’d care to enter into a high-stakes wager with me…
Please say yes, and I’ll lay down the terms.
You really do lack social graces, don’t you. If you’re going to presume to “lay down the terms,” you have to do it before, not after, we agree to enter into enter into the wager.
However, I’m extremely interested, so what we’re going to do is negotiate terms. What did you have in mind?
-
Exactly!
“in either case, you should argue from the evidence only.”
Consensus, from wherever or whatever is:
noun. (often followed by “of”)
1 a) general agreement (of opinion testimony, etc)
b) an instance of this
2 (attrib) majority view, collective opinion.
Origin : Latin = agreement.Look up the definition of ‘scientific’
If they’re put together, it is basically an:
oxymoron:
noun (used in rhetoric)
a figure of speech in which contradictory terms appear in conjunction.
Origin Greek = pointedly foolish.The other oxymoron that we often hear about climate science is :
‘The science is settled’. -
OK Chameleon, now contrast your mistaken and made-up definition with what even Wikipedia can explain:
Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study. …..consensus may be based on both scientific arguments and the scientific method.
OK?
So it’s not the opinion of a majority of scientists.
It’s not even remotely “an oxymoron”.
It’s an expression with a very specific meaning.Had you and Brad managed to complete a worthwhile course of studies in your youth, you wouldn’t need this explained to you.
And, as usual, it is astounding to see the pair of you arguing goodness-knows-what from your position of profound ignorance.
-
Vince,
Wikipedia supersedes the Oxford Dictionary in defining words, does it? How fun to watch climate-alarmist scholarship at work!
-
“scientific consensus” isn’t “words”. It is an expression that has a meaning.
Your posts here betray that you are either ignorant of this meaning, or you are in denial of it.
Considering the effort that has gone into unsuccessfully educating you as to this meaning, the latter option seems likely.
-
Oh, I see – we’re back to “flying” “fox”.
Brad is stuck in a loop of cognitive malfunction.
-
Here’s a post just for you, Brad:
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2010/03/24/hostility-towards-a-scientific-consensus/
It has often been written on this blog and elsewhere that the mark of a true crank is hatred of the scientific consensus, be it consensus regarding the theory of evolution, the science that says homeopathy is impossible, anthropogenic global warming; various areas of science-based medicine; or the safety and efficacy of vaccines. Perhaps the most famous expression of distrust of a scientific consensus is the famous speech by Michael Crichton, in which he famously said:
Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.
There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.
To which I (and many others) responded, “Bullshit! Period.”
In fact science is all about coming to a consensus, but it’s about coming to a consensus based on data, experimentation, and evidence, a consensus that has reproducible results that are, as Crichton put it, verifiable by reference to the real world. After all, what is a scientific theory like the theory of evolution or Einstein’s theory of relativity but a statement of the current scientific consensus regarding a major scientific topic? What is peer review but quality control (making sure the scientific methodology is sound) coupled with testing new science against the current consensus to see where it fits in or where it exposes weaknesses? What is science but attempting to forge a consensus regarding theories and statements that most accurately describe the universe in a useful and predictable way?
Of course, questioning the consensus is often necessary in science. Indeed, it is critical to scientific advancement. However, there is a huge difference between questioning a current consensus and producing the data and experimental evidence to show that there is a real scientific question and JAQing off about science. The latter, raising spurious or already answered questions about a scientific finding or theory one doesn’t like, belongs to the province of cranks and denialists, and it is what they are very good at. The problem is that they aren’t very good at realizing why their questions are not worthy of the attention that they think they are.
Brad admits he gets his misinformation from crank sites and is now exhibiting crank behaviour.
-
Brad admits he gets his misinformation from crank sites
Argumentum ad hallucinationem.
-
Oh, I see – we’re back to “flying” “fox”.
Except that “flying fox” is a proper phrase with a dictionary definition.
-
What do you call it when 97% of architects share a certain view on an architectural question?
An architectural consensus.
What do you call it when 97% of suitmakers share a certain view on a sartorial question?
A sartorial consensus.
What do you call it when 97% of scientists share a certain view on a scientific question?
-
In fact science is all about coming to a consensus, but it’s about coming to a consensus based on [blah blah blah].
Bullshit.
Science is about gaining knowledge about nature. Until Naomi Oreskes, “scientific consensus” was almost never measured, let alone said to be a goal of science.
-
Maybe you can let us know what issue the architects and showmakers are all agreeing on, and what published peer-reviewed research exists to lead them to that agreement?
No?
Thought not.
…based on data, experimentation, and evidence, a consensus that has reproducible results…
Now, I wonder why you snipped that?
the mark of a true crank is hatred of the scientific consensus
Can’t be said too often.
-
Except that “flying fox” is a proper phrase with a dictionary definition.
Now you agree that flying fox =/= fox.
Maybe you’re making progress?
-
If you could just explain to Chameleon that her laborious efforts at reading a dictionary definition of “consensus” don’t also provide an explanation for “scientific consensus”, you might save us all another of her type! type! type! episodes.
February 14, 2013
February 14, 2013
February 14, 2013
February 14, 2013
February 14, 2013
February 14, 2013
February 14, 2013
February 14, 2013
February 15, 2013
February 15, 2013