Publius Maximus wrote: > On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 6:02 PM, Nicholas Geti <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hey. For once I agree with Ricardo. Good comment. >> > > But again, the point I was making was that consensus means jack squat > for proving scientific validity. It's all about the conclusion being > demonstrably reproducible, which is all about data integrity + process > integrity. >
Which proves you know "jack squat" about how science works. Scientific consensus does matter. Or did you think scientists have enough time to reproduce every conclusion since the beginning of science again and again? If there is consensus then the conclusion stays until you PROVE the conclusion is wrong, then you write a paper and see if you can get it published, only then will scientific consensus start moving. You seem to believe there is a Big Daddy in the sky approving scientific work, it's all about consensus with your peers. You may dissent to your hearts content, no one outside this list... sorry, outside Petey and Madagain, will give a damn about your opinion. You talk big words, words like "data integrity". Tell me, how would you know another man's data obtained some years ago has integrity? Can you certify he didn't make it up? Now with "process integrity". There may be that in engineering, not in science. Scientist devise their own processes to prove their theories, and such processes may later be challenged by their peers (the famous scientific consensus), but there is nothing like process integrity. After all, who would certify that integrity? God or the scientific community (the consensus again)? > In the case of AGW (not just GW, but specifically AGW) we have very > good reason to be very skeptical of both the data integrity and the > process integrity behind the so-called "consensus." > Hereby I extend an allowance for you to be skeptical about GW. Hereby I extend an allowance for you to be skeptical about gravity. Now, the scientific community will take you for what you really are and will give your *opinions* their proper weight. Then science will go on working, and politicians will keep taking from science the bits they can use to their ends and conveniently ignoring those that are uncomfortable, the media will continue to highlight what sells, and you will continue shouting and spitting your boring theories. --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[email protected] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
