shopify analytics tool

Expertise and understanding

Language is defined by usage, not expert decision and proclamation. It's why there are new words like smartphone and LOL. It's why there are obscure words like gelogenic and aretaics that most people don't know.

Now, do I know science? Yep, I know the scientific method. I know that science works by explaining past phenomena and accurately predicting future change. I know that there is a difference between physics and chemistry, although hardcore physicists will insist that every thing in chemistry is only a subsection of physics. I know that expertise does more to define blind spots than establish authority.

And I know that insight and understanding is not defined by degrees and publication, but by who can explain and predict. I also know that disparaging the source without considering the argument moves from scholarship to dogma. I know that the institution doesn't have value except in that it can produce results.
— NeoWayland

Professor says studies don't use science

J Scott Armstrong: Fewer Than 1 Percent Of Papers in Scientific Journals Follow Scientific Method

According to Armstrong, very little of the forecasting in climate change debate adheres to these criteria. “For example, for disclosure, we were working on polar bear [population] forecasts, and we were asked to review the government’s polar bear forecast. We asked, ‘could you send us the data’ and they said ‘No’… So we had to do it without knowing what the data were.”

According to Armstrong, forecasts from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) violate all eight criteria.

“Why is this all happening? Nobody asks them!” said Armstrong, who says that people who submit papers to journals are not required to follow the scientific method. “You send something to a journal and they don’t tell you what you have to do. They don’t say ‘here’s what science is, here’s how to do it.'”

Digging deeper into their motivations, Armstrong pointed to the wealth of incentives for publishing papers with politically convenient rather than scientific conclusions.

“They’re rewarded for doing non-scientific research. One of my favourite examples is testing statistical significance – that’s invalid. It’s been over 100 years we’ve been fighting the fight against that. Even its inventor thought it wasn’t going to amount to anything. You can be rewarded then, for following an invalid [method].”

“They cheat. If you don’t get statistically significant results, then you throw out variables, add variables, [and] eventually you get what you want.”

“My big thing is advocacy. People are asked to come up with certain answers, and in our whole field that’s been a general movement ever since I’ve been here, and it just gets worse every year. And the reason is funded research.”
     — Allum Bokhari

2019       2018       2017       2016       2015       2014       2011       2010       2009       2008       2007       2006       2005