I agree with much of what Judith Curry is saying. Einstein is not a good example, however. He had a doctorate in physics from the University of Zurich, so he was not an outsider. (Bjorn whozits OTOH, is a political scientist, and Lou Dobbs...)
BTW, it was the patent office, not the post office. He was also a theorist, not an empirical scientist. More difficult to do, but at least he did not depend on the availability of data from others, like climate scientists and most economists. Otherwise, I find this whole discussion disturbing. I am going to investigate and perhaps rewrite some of my lectures. >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 > > _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
