On Wed, 2009-11-25 at 12:42 +0100, Robert Scott Gassler wrote: > I remember debating a Prof. Levis Kochen of the University of Washington in > the early 70s over whether secret research at the Pentagon was science. He > said, sure, because it was of high quality (tho he did not say how he knew). > I said absolutely not, because science has to be open and public.
More on Judith Curry: http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/27/a-climate-scientist-on-climate-skeptics/ << (...) What has been noticeably absent so far in the ClimateGate discussion is a public reaffirmation by climate researchers of our basic research values: the rigors of the scientific method (including reproducibility), research integrity and ethics, open minds, and critical thinking. Under no circumstances should we ever sacrifice any of these values; the CRU emails, however, appear to violate them. (...) If climate science is to uphold core research values and be credible to public, we need to respond to any critique of data or methodology that emerges from analysis by other scientists. Ignoring skeptics coming from outside the field is inappropriate; Einstein did not start his research career at Princeton, but rather at a post office. I’m not implying that climate researchers need to keep defending against the same arguments over and over again. Scientists claim that they would never get any research done if they had to continuously respond to skeptics. The counter to that argument is to make all of your data, metadata, and code openly available. Doing this will minimize the time spent responding to skeptics; try it! If anyone identifies an actual error in your data or methodology, acknowledge it and fix the problem. Doing this would keep molehills from growing into mountains that involve congressional hearings, lawyers, etc. (...) >> Common sense ... and a career at risk! Laurent _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
