Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Wednesday November 22 2017, @11:54AM   Printer-friendly
from the whom-do-you-trust...-and-why? dept.

Danger, Will Robinson!

Given that collaboration [in science] is the norm, you may be asking yourself the eternal question: Who cares? How does the image of a lone scientist hero cause any danger to me?

The problem arises when there is a debate about a scientific topic. Following this structure, debate is a necessary and encouraged part of the scientific process. This debate happens before the idea is released to anyone outside of a few scientists and, while it can become heated at times, takes place with great respect between proponents of different viewpoints.

The danger can come when scientific results are released to the public. Our society now provides a platform for anyone to comment, regardless of his or her education, experience or even knowledge of the topic at hand.

While this is an excellent method of disseminating knowledge, it can also provide a platform for any opinion—regardless of the weight of data behind it—to be equal to that released in more traditional scientific ways.

Particularly in today's largely populist climate, people are looking to see the lone scientist hero overthrow the perceived dominance of facts coming from academia.

And herein lies the problem. In this situation, the opinion of a lone commenter may be considered on equal footing with that of tens or hundreds of people who have made the subject their life's work to ensure their interpretations are correct.

Everybody is entitled to their own scientific opinion, but everybody is not entitled to their own scientific facts?


Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1) 2
  • (Score: 5, Informative) by Bot on Wednesday November 22 2017, @12:49PM (14 children)

    by Bot (3902) on Wednesday November 22 2017, @12:49PM (#600146) Journal

    > The danger can come when scientific results are released to the public. Our society now provides a platform for anyone to comment, regardless of his or her education, experience or even knowledge of the topic at hand

    In other words, the danger can come from the scientific method itself. All of this because... climate change?
    Which is nothing more than a way to steer away the debate from the nastier topic, pollution? Which is wanted and not an unavoidable side effect? because it clearly INCREASES the amount of control of the elite on the peons, because when the peons need therapy just to stay alive they are effectively pwned?

    But OK, let's keep looking at the nail of the finger pointing at the moon.

    --
    Account abandoned.
    • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday November 22 2017, @01:06PM (11 children)

      by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday November 22 2017, @01:06PM (#600153) Journal

      "the danger can come from the scientific method itself"

      Not exactly. The scientific method doesn't require anyone to broadcast their flimsy deductions and hypothesis based on inadequate research. It's alright for people to discuss science that they only partly understand, but passing yourself off as a "scientist" while doing so is dishonest. Trying to publish your opinion in a scientific journal amounts to fraud.

      • (Score: 5, Insightful) by FatPhil on Wednesday November 22 2017, @01:43PM (9 children)

        by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Wednesday November 22 2017, @01:43PM (#600164) Homepage
        Trying to publish your *honestly held* (i.e. you believe it stands up to adversarial argumentation and scrutiny) opinion in a scientific journal is trying to play the science game correctly (you're challenging the world to disprove you, a la Popper). If those opinions are clearly bogus, then the *journal* is *incompetent*, and should be shamed.
        --
        Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 22 2017, @03:49PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 22 2017, @03:49PM (#600202)

          This is wrong/outdated. In modern science you dont challenge the world to "disprove you", you challenge it to fail to reject the null hypothesis.

        • (Score: 3, Insightful) by maxwell demon on Wednesday November 22 2017, @08:00PM (3 children)

          by maxwell demon (1608) on Wednesday November 22 2017, @08:00PM (#600311) Journal

          You only show that you don't understand anything about science. It is by far not sufficient that you honestly hold that opinion. What you publish in a scientific journal is evidence for your claims.

          --
          The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
          • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Thursday November 23 2017, @09:32AM (2 children)

            by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Thursday November 23 2017, @09:32AM (#600586) Homepage
            > You only show that you don't understand anything about science.

            Yo' moma.

            > It is by far not sufficient that you honestly hold that opinion.

            In order for it to not be fraud, it is.

            > What you publish in a scientific journal is evidence for your claims.

            Not necesarrily, and in fact rarely. It's an assertion that you have evidence. Mostly it's an interpretation of the actual evidence which is rarely made public.

            Your post is remarkably incoherent, given your usual high standards. Maybe you misread my post, or the post to which it was a response.
            --
            Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
            • (Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Thursday November 23 2017, @07:06PM (1 child)

              by maxwell demon (1608) on Thursday November 23 2017, @07:06PM (#600773) Journal

              > It is by far not sufficient that you honestly hold that opinion.

              In order for it to not be fraud, it is.

              You know the difference between "necessary" and "sufficient"?

              --
              The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
              • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Friday November 24 2017, @08:40AM

                by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Friday November 24 2017, @08:40AM (#600994) Homepage
                Yes, I do.

                I don't believe someone propagating honestly held beliefs is committing fraud.

                Therefore that condition is *sufficient* for it to not be fraud.

                C.f. discussions about what makes a "lie", and as there are such discussions, other opinions are clearly available.
                --
                Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
        • (Score: 4, Informative) by c0lo on Wednesday November 22 2017, @08:27PM (3 children)

          by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday November 22 2017, @08:27PM (#600328) Journal

          you're challenging the world to disprove you

          It isn't the world burden to disprove you, it is your burden to provide evidence to your claims.
          If the world needs** afterwards to do something, it has nothing to do with you, it will always have to do with:
          - the evidence that was provided and
          - the interpretation of that evidence.
          If this process make an idiot or a Nobel price winner out of you, that's secondary - in other words, don't take it personally, it's just business.

          ---

          ** this need will be based on the relevance of your claims. Don't expect the world to do something about it in your lifetime - as one example: Gregor Mendel [wikipedia.org]

          The profound significance of Mendel's work was not recognized until the turn of the 20th century (more than three decades later) with the rediscovery of his laws. Erich von Tschermak, Hugo de Vries, Carl Correns, and William Jasper Spillman independently verified several of Mendel's experimental findings, ushering in the modern age of genetics

          --
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
          • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Thursday November 23 2017, @09:34AM (2 children)

            by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Thursday November 23 2017, @09:34AM (#600587) Homepage
            >> you're challenging the world to disprove you

            > It isn't the world burden to disprove you, it is your burden to provide evidence to your claims.

            Erm, and that's what you were doing by publishing the paper, for pity's sake.

            Was I typing in Swahili or something, it's odd to get 2 responses that show a complete failre to understand what I was saying.
            --
            Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
            • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday November 23 2017, @11:11AM (1 child)

              by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Thursday November 23 2017, @11:11AM (#600610) Journal

              Erm, and that's what you were doing by publishing the paper, for pity's sake.

              You made the matter sounds personal. Look at "your challenge to the world", "your honest held belief".
              It makes the phrase sound as "the hero scientist against the adversarial world".
              Swahili or not, come one, give it one more read and see if you can exclude that interpretation.

              --
              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
              • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Thursday November 23 2017, @01:58PM

                by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Thursday November 23 2017, @01:58PM (#600658) Homepage
                I used the pronoun "your" because that's what everyone uses rather than "one" nowadays when they mean "an arbitrary person". Is "an arbitrary person" too personal to you too?

                I gave it another read. Stet.
                --
                Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
      • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 22 2017, @07:52PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 22 2017, @07:52PM (#600305)

        The scientific method only has to do with the details of scientific investigation, and has nothing to do with peer review, consensus, publishing, or commentary. Those are elements of the academic process and public opinion in general, which may or may not include the scientific method.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 22 2017, @01:08PM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 22 2017, @01:08PM (#600154)

      In other words, the danger can come from the scientific method itself.

      The scientific method consists of clueless people making clueless comments about things they don't understand? I don't think so.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 22 2017, @04:28PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 22 2017, @04:28PM (#600231)

        Pretty sure the Bot was indicting the article not making such a bad statement.

  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Virindi on Wednesday November 22 2017, @01:00PM (29 children)

    by Virindi (3484) on Wednesday November 22 2017, @01:00PM (#600150)

    And herein lies the problem. In this situation, the opinion of a lone commenter may be considered on equal footing with that of tens or hundreds of people who have made the subject their life's work to ensure their interpretations are correct.

    How about we base our response to challenge on facts and the rigor of the experiment, rather than the perceived authority levels of the various parties? This sounds a lot like a defense of the new tribalist 'science', where authority is what really matters.

    If the "hundreds of people" are wrong, they are wrong. They will probably be right more often than not, but groupthink is dangerous to the advancement of human knowledge and thrives in this kind of environment. Judging based on authority rather than facts is a good way to protect groupthink.

    • (Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Wednesday November 22 2017, @01:06PM (28 children)

      by PiMuNu (3823) on Wednesday November 22 2017, @01:06PM (#600152)

      Agreed. I know lots of very dumb people with PhDs. I know some very bright people without PhDs. A flawed statistical analysis is still flawed.

      The problem is that most people are not trained with proper ability to judge critically an argument for or against a particular topic. One might argue that most people cannot properly understand statistics due to lack of maths sort of brain, but at least being able to judge different arguments (e.g. understanding common logical fallacies, difference between emotive and evidence-based arguments, etc) should be reachable by most people, with some reasonable training.

      • (Score: 5, Informative) by Virindi on Wednesday November 22 2017, @01:15PM (16 children)

        by Virindi (3484) on Wednesday November 22 2017, @01:15PM (#600156)

        Indeed, and going further along this line of reasoning....

        If there is an issue of such huge public import that resolving it would require potentially devastating economic changes, the public must be informed about it in intimate detail and should be expected to study it themselves. Of course this would have to include all raw data, computer code, etc. It should be pushed by trying to explain in as detailed a manner as possible why the conclusions are what they are.

        Instead what we get is, "Some really important people decided this. Trust them. Any discussion or questioning makes you a heretic unless you are one of the anointed authorities. Oh and the raw data and model parameters are not included in the paywalled paper."

        This is neither scientific, nor democratic.

        • (Score: 3, Interesting) by stormwyrm on Wednesday November 22 2017, @11:04PM (13 children)

          by stormwyrm (717) on Wednesday November 22 2017, @11:04PM (#600403) Journal

          The problem is that isn't realistic. There is a LOT of training and expertise required to be able to understand the raw data and computer code, etc. that climate scientists used to come up with their conclusions. The science of the climate in all of its intimate detail is not a simple thing that can be explained to a layperson in a few hours. It literally takes years of specialised study to even get the most basic grasp of the topic. Sorry, much of science is not simple. People who aren't climate scientists will look at the raw data and code and be unable to make sense of it themselves, or understand why things were done in a certain way, or they may defer to some other "expert" (the irony) who will look at the data and tell them what they want to hear.

          Climate scientists are like a physician who has just told his patient that he suffers from something deadly like, say, cancer, and will need difficult surgery and after that chemotherapy with nasty side effects, or else he will die an excruciating death in only a few years. It is an issue of such huge personal import that resolving it will require a potentially physically devastating treatment. Would such a person demand from his doctor that he be informed about his cancer in intimate detail and study it himself? To demand how the tests that diagnosed his cancer actually worked, and why it reached the conclusion that he had cancer? Or demand to know how and why these nasty chemotherapy drugs he is being given work and the full scientific reasoning behind why he is being given them? There is plenty of science behind cancer that will require nothing less than the educational background of an oncologist to fully understand. Someone who had a diagnosis of cancer though might ask for a second opinion, but if that second opinion concurs with the first, what then? Is that person going to suddenly rail against the medical community and its "anointed authorities" who denounce anyone who disagrees with their conclusions "heretics"? Will they opt for "alternative medicine" from some other "expert" who disagrees with the regular doctors? Some people do that yes, and it seems that the majority of those people die much sooner than those who opt for science-based medical treatment.

          --
          Numquam ponenda est pluralitas sine necessitate.
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 23 2017, @12:06AM (1 child)

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 23 2017, @12:06AM (#600436)

            I don't the oncologist knows all the specifics you stated about finding the cancer. The doctor is most likely just about you in knowledge about the how cancer detection works. All he does is say,"I ran this test and it says you have cancer." He doesn't know all the mechanisms involved or why they work; a cancer researcher might know. Primary care providers are no more the then help desk of medical world. "I'm doing this because I've been told it works." Specialists like oncologists are like system administrators. "I know I need to configure this doo-hickey to get the results I want." But neither are actually primary sources for knowledge. You need researchers/coders/engineers for that.

            • (Score: 2, Interesting) by anubi on Thursday November 23 2017, @11:03AM

              by anubi (2828) on Thursday November 23 2017, @11:03AM (#600606) Journal

              Just like watching those forensic detectives on TV.

              I get the idea most have no idea how the chemicals they use work, they are just given them and shown how to use them.

              I know when I was a TV repairman as a kid, there was one guy who called me out to fix his TV. Arriving, I noticed his antenna lead-in wire had broken off and it was several inches from the terminal it was supposed to connect to.

              His reply?

              "You mean to tell me the TV signal got 30 miles from Dothan, all the way to here, and could not make it just one more foot ?!??! "

              --
              "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
          • (Score: 4, Interesting) by Virindi on Thursday November 23 2017, @01:47AM (9 children)

            by Virindi (3484) on Thursday November 23 2017, @01:47AM (#600459)

            The science of the climate in all of its intimate detail is not a simple thing that can be explained to a layperson in a few hours.

            Climate scientists are like a physician who has just told his patient that he suffers from something deadly like, say, cancer, and will need difficult surgery and after that chemotherapy with nasty side effects, or else he will die an excruciating death in only a few years. It is an issue of such huge personal import that resolving it will require a potentially physically devastating treatment. Would such a person demand from his doctor that he be informed about his cancer in intimate detail and study it himself?

            Actually, yes. I know several people who were diagnosed with life-threatening cancers and their immediate reaction was in common: go learn about it as much as possible. In more than one case known to me, the person spent weeks and weeks reading every paper they could find about their particular condition. It's not that they don't believe their doctor, it's that when something has such a great personal impact on them, they want to be informed rather than operating on blind trust.

            Which is exactly what I was saying about how climate science should be sold.

            You can bet that if tomorrow someone discovered a planet-killing asteroid on an Earth trajectory, every reasonably intelligent person on the planet would become obsessed with learning every detail of deflection plans, orbital mechanics, asteroid composition, etc. It would quickly become common knowledge. Trying to sell a crisis based on faith is, as I said before, an approach doomed to fail.

            • (Score: 2) by stormwyrm on Thursday November 23 2017, @02:35AM (8 children)

              by stormwyrm (717) on Thursday November 23 2017, @02:35AM (#600474) Journal
              A planet-killing asteroid is a comparatively easy threat to see and understand, but the subtleties of a changing climate, not so much. As I said it literally takes many years of difficult study to be able to understand the science behind climate change. Those who have the time and inclination to make that kind of difficult study have taken a look at the data, did their analysis, and understood it, and some 97% of those people have reached a consensus [thelogicofscience.com] that yes, the climate is changing and yes, there will be disastrous consequences if we do not take steps to curb greenhouse gas emissions. Indeed, there is still a possibility that all of those people could be wrong, but if anyone wants to claim that, that would be an extraordinary claim, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
              --
              Numquam ponenda est pluralitas sine necessitate.
              • (Score: 2) by Virindi on Thursday November 23 2017, @08:40AM (6 children)

                by Virindi (3484) on Thursday November 23 2017, @08:40AM (#600563)

                some 97% of those people have reached a consensus [thelogicofscience.com] that yes, the climate is changing and yes, there will be disastrous consequences if we do not take steps to curb greenhouse gas emissions

                Do you seriously believe such numbers are accurate? If I were a professional scientist (of any type) and I got some survey asking if I believed in climate change, I would consider it insane to return it saying I did not believe in it. If anyone found out, it would be career suicide.

                • (Score: 1) by anubi on Thursday November 23 2017, @11:08AM

                  by anubi (2828) on Thursday November 23 2017, @11:08AM (#600608) Journal

                  However, some people can have all sorts of credentials and....

                  come up with stuff like this... [youtube.com]

                  --
                  "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
                • (Score: 2) by stormwyrm on Thursday November 23 2017, @12:04PM (4 children)

                  by stormwyrm (717) on Thursday November 23 2017, @12:04PM (#600619) Journal

                  Look at it this way, if I were a professional climate scientist and I had actual honest to goodness scientific evidence that climate change was bunkum, why the hell would I NOT tell people so? How in the world would that amount to career suicide? I would eventually be acclaimed the way Galileo or Einstein were, once I showed them my evidence which is rock solid! Scientists live for being able to prove their peers wrong. If you think that scientists are all afraid to buck the accepted wisdom think again. This is not how science works and progresses. Please, read this link:

                  https://thelogicofscience.com/2015/01/28/science-and-the-public-part-3-a-scientific-consensus-is-based-on-evidence-not-peer-pressure-and-adherence-to-dogma/ [thelogicofscience.com]

                  No, the reason why 97% of climate scientists when asked if they accepted climate change is because they have looked at the evidence and have been convinced by it.

                  --
                  Numquam ponenda est pluralitas sine necessitate.
                  • (Score: 2) by Virindi on Thursday November 23 2017, @01:18PM (3 children)

                    by Virindi (3484) on Thursday November 23 2017, @01:18PM (#600640)

                    What if you merely had doubts, but not "rock solid" evidence?

                    Expressing those doubts would end your career, so it is a situation where you'd have to be very, very sure before you speak up.

                    • (Score: 2) by stormwyrm on Thursday November 23 2017, @02:16PM (2 children)

                      by stormwyrm (717) on Thursday November 23 2017, @02:16PM (#600664) Journal
                      Well, isn't that exactly how science is supposed to work? Scientific theories live or die based on evidence. If a scientist were to express doubt of the current consensus in their field without good evidence to support their doubt they would rightly be ridiculed. And isn't that exactly how it should be? Also, being very, very sure before you speak up is always a good policy to live by, whether or not you are a scientist. I don't see why you think that is some kind of problem.
                      --
                      Numquam ponenda est pluralitas sine necessitate.
                      • (Score: 2) by Virindi on Thursday November 23 2017, @04:25PM (1 child)

                        by Virindi (3484) on Thursday November 23 2017, @04:25PM (#600702)

                        No, because punishing those who express doubts is inherently dangerous. It supports groupthink and raises the bar for the introduction of contradictory evidence through a mechanism of fear.

                        Consider the possibility that there is some accepted theory. Then, multiple people discover different weak or circumstantial evidence against it, but none of them come forward because of fear of excommunication. This means that all the evidence is not being heard, that alone is not scientific. Additionally, in such a circumstance, it would be possible that the totality of such weak, independent evidence amounts to stronger counter-evidence......except once again, because of this culture of punishment, it is never heard.

                        Suppression of evidence, even weak or circumstantial evidence, is not good for the advancement of human knowledge.

                        • (Score: 2) by stormwyrm on Thursday November 23 2017, @09:47PM

                          by stormwyrm (717) on Thursday November 23 2017, @09:47PM (#600843) Journal

                          As Carl Sagan once said, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If some theory becomes established to the point that it is considered a scientific consensus, it got that way because there already exist multiple very strong lines of evidence supporting it. To overturn something like that you need to have some very strong counter-evidence or else a reasonable theoretical basis for believing that the present theory has problems. If you have some evidence, even if it might not be really all that strong, pointing to problems with a current accepted theory that is enough for you to publish a paper that will be taken seriously, if only for other scientists to try to refute you or explain your evidence in a way that shows that the current theory can still explain it. Take for instance Lambda-Cold Dark Matter Cosmology, another theory on which there is a strong scientific consensus. A paper showing how galaxy rotation curves challenge dark matter [soylentnews.org] caused a considerable stir within the astrophysics community because it seemed to give good evidence that rival theories to dark matter like modified gravity might be plausible, but it was later shown that the evidence found there could still be explained by dark matter [soylentnews.org].

                          Once again you have asserted things like "excommunication" or a "culture of punishment". Please show some actual evidence (there's that word again!) that such a culture actually exists to a significant degree in the modern scientific community, enough to show the effects you mention. So far you have only made assertions without any evidence that that is actually how the modern scientific community operates.

                          --
                          Numquam ponenda est pluralitas sine necessitate.
              • (Score: 2, Informative) by khallow on Thursday November 23 2017, @07:58PM

                by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday November 23 2017, @07:58PM (#600787) Journal

                Those who have the time and inclination to make that kind of difficult study have taken a look at the data, did their analysis, and understood it, and some 97% of those people have reached a consensus [thelogicofscience.com] [thelogicofscience.com] that yes, the climate is changing and yes, there will be disastrous consequences if we do not take steps to curb greenhouse gas emissions.

                Let's read that link rather than just say stuff.

                Even if you have never paid any real attention to the climate change “debate,” you have probably seen someone say that, “97% of climatologists agree that we are causing climate change.” This is a number that I have personally cited on numerous occasions, and it is a number that is highly contested by the climate change deniers. Indeed, I rarely mention the consensus without people responding by adamantly proclaiming that the 97% number is a myth, and the study that produced it (Cook et al. 2013) has been debunked. Therefore, in this post, I want to deal with the consensus on climate change from several angles. First, I want to focus on the prominent Cook et al. study and explain what the authors actually did, what they found, and why their study was robust. I also want to deal with some of the common criticisms of their study. Finally, I want to look at several other lines of evidence that show that there is a strong consensus on global climate change.

                So what exactly is supposed to be wrong with the Cook study? For starters, it classifies research incorrectly [populartechnology.net]. There are numerous interviews with researchers who complain that their work was misintepreted or excluded. This was explored further [populartechnology.net] to find a considerable portion of the overall papers in the field had been excluded.

                And if you glance at the "updates" from my first link, you see also that John Cook failed to disclose a conflict of interest, namely that the paper was done to provide talking points for climate change propaganda.

                It severely overstates the case. Almost no one explicitly supported climate change theory in their papers. As someone else chose [wattsupwiththat.com] to interpret this data:

                The new paper by the leading climatologist Dr David Legates and his colleagues, published in the respected Science and Education journal, now in its 21st year of publication, reveals that Cook had not considered whether scientists and their published papers had said climate change was “dangerous”.

                The consensus Cook considered was the standard definition: that Man had caused most post-1950 warming. Even on this weaker definition the true consensus among published scientific papers is now demonstrated to be not 97.1%, as Cook had claimed, but only 0.3%.

                Also

                Dr William Briggs, “Statistician to the Stars”, said: “In any survey such as Cook’s, it is essential to define the survey question very clearly. Yet Cook used three distinct definitions of climate consensus interchangeably. Also, he arbitrarily excluded about 8000 of the 12,000 papers in his sample on the unacceptable ground that they had expressed no opinion on the climate consensus. These artifices let him reach the unjustifiable conclusion that there was a 97.1% consensus when there was not.

                “In fact, Cook’s paper provides the clearest available statistical evidence that there is scarcely any explicit support among scientists for the consensus that the IPCC, politicians, bureaucrats, academics and the media have so long and so falsely proclaimed. That was not the outcome Cook had hoped for, and it was not the outcome he had stated in his paper, but it was the outcome he had really found.”

                Let us note here that there are probably more such scientists in agreement that global warming is largely man-made. I am part of that. It is deceptive to portray that as consensus on the rest of the climate change baggage such as the need for urgent mitigation efforts. A straw man argument is the fundamental basis of this paper.

                Finally, the methodology of the research was deeply flawed [blogspot.co.uk].

                Cook enlisted a small group of environmental activists to rate the claims made by the selected papers. Cook claims that the ratings were done independently, but the raters freely discussed their work. There are systematic differences between the raters. Reading the same abstracts, the raters reached remarkably different conclusions – and some raters all too often erred in the same direction. Cook’s hand-picked raters disagreed what a paper was about 33% of the time. In 63% of cases, they disagreed about the message of a paper with the authors of that paper.

                The paper’s reviewers did not pick up on these things. The editor even praised the authors for the “excellent data quality” even though neither he nor the referees had had the opportunity to check the data. Then again, that same editor thinks that climate change is like the rise of Nazi Germany. Two years after publication, Cook admitted that data quality is indeed low.

                [...]

                The time stamps also reveal something far more serious. After collecting data for 8 weeks, there were 4 weeks of data analysis, followed by 3 more weeks of data collection. The same people collected and analysed the data. After more analysis, the paper classification scheme was changed and yet more data collected.

                Cook thus broke a key rule of scientific data collection: Observations should never follow from the conclusions. Medical tests are double-blind for good reason. You cannot change how to collect data, and how much, after having seen the results.

                Cook’s team may, perhaps unwittingly, have worked towards a given conclusion. And indeed, the observations are different, significantly and materially, between the three phases of data collection. The entire study should therefore be dismissed.

                So your link starts with defending extensively a piece of known bad science. And you linked it why? This is yet another reason why I think the climate change mitigation side is broken. They would rather defend bad science than come with scientifically valid defenses of their beliefs.

          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday November 23 2017, @03:42AM

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday November 23 2017, @03:42AM (#600503) Journal

            Climate scientists are like a physician who has just told his patient that he suffers from something deadly like, say, cancer, and will need difficult surgery and after that chemotherapy with nasty side effects, or else he will die an excruciating death in only a few years. It is an issue of such huge personal import that resolving it will require a potentially physically devastating treatment. Would such a person demand from his doctor that he be informed about his cancer in intimate detail and study it himself? To demand how the tests that diagnosed his cancer actually worked, and why it reached the conclusion that he had cancer? Or demand to know how and why these nasty chemotherapy drugs he is being given work and the full scientific reasoning behind why he is being given them? There is plenty of science behind cancer that will require nothing less than the educational background of an oncologist to fully understand. Someone who had a diagnosis of cancer though might ask for a second opinion, but if that second opinion concurs with the first, what then? Is that person going to suddenly rail against the medical community and its "anointed authorities" who denounce anyone who disagrees with their conclusions "heretics"? Will they opt for "alternative medicine" from some other "expert" who disagrees with the regular doctors? Some people do that yes, and it seems that the majority of those people die much sooner than those who opt for science-based medical treatment.

            You ask a bunch of questions. What you don't get here is that the people who will research their illness will more likely be able to determine who the real experts are, while the people who take such things on faith are more likely to end up listening to the charlatans because they have no way to distinguish between expert and fake.

            I'll note that has been quite the problem with the climate change thing with a lot of would-be experts claiming all sorts of potential catastrophes without providing evidence for those catastrophes. Later in this thread, you wrote:

            A planet-killing asteroid is a comparatively easy threat to see and understand, but the subtleties of a changing climate, not so much. As I said it literally takes many years of difficult study to be able to understand the science behind climate change.

            Bullshit. I agree that modern climatology has been obfuscated impressively, but we don't need extremely high levels of "understanding" of the science, we need evidence which is in short supply. But then, I don't feel the need to employ several fallacies just to explain some point of science. Maybe I'm doing it wrong.

        • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 22 2017, @11:13PM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 22 2017, @11:13PM (#600409)

          If there is an issue of such huge public import that resolving it would require potentially devastating economic changes, the public must be informed about it in intimate detail and should be expected to study it themselves. Of course this would have to include all raw data, computer code, etc. It should be pushed by trying to explain in as detailed a manner as possible why the conclusions are what they are.

          You mean such as the large and publicly accessible data sets that NOAA, NASA, and countless other governmental and research institutions have out there?

          You mean like the numerous publicly available journal articles subject to peer review, including analysis of those same data sets?

          Have you even looked for the data? From what I've seen, everything you have asked for is available and more, excepting the actual computer code itself... but if you aren't going to trust their conclusions, shouldn't you be doing your own "clean" analysis of the data yourself rather than their "flawed code?"

          Are you sure you aren't letting your preconceived notions bias you? From what I've seen, the people you are attacking seem to be open and transparent... at least in comparison to the groups like ExxonMobile who are saying, "we have scientists who disagree with those clearly-bias university researchers... but you don't need to see our evidence, trust us."

          • (Score: 2) by Virindi on Thursday November 23 2017, @01:40AM

            by Virindi (3484) on Thursday November 23 2017, @01:40AM (#600457)

            Yes. A lot is open, for sure...for instance, NASA temperature measurements.

            The part that is not open, as far as I can tell, is the actual model runs. Computer code, input data, raw output data.

            but if you aren't going to trust their conclusions, shouldn't you be doing your own "clean" analysis of the data yourself rather than their "flawed code?"

            A result which is not subject to being reproduced, is not falsifiable. This same problem occurs in other branches of science as well: papers which do not adequately describe experimental methods used.

            In the case of a model, it would be expected to get completely different results if you used different code and different input values.

            But, I wasn't just talking about climate science either. I know we latched on to that, but really the discussion was more of a general nature. And yes, there are branches of science where that kind of "full data" does exist, such as particle physics.

            Are you sure you aren't letting your preconceived notions bias you? From what I've seen, the people you are attacking seem to be open and transparent... at least in comparison to the groups like ExxonMobile who are saying, "we have scientists who disagree with those clearly-bias university researchers... but you don't need to see our evidence, trust us."

            I think you are casting me too much as an "evil denier". I never stated a position on this subject at all.

      • (Score: 2, TouchĂ©) by aristarchus on Wednesday November 22 2017, @04:20PM (6 children)

        by aristarchus (2645) on Wednesday November 22 2017, @04:20PM (#600225) Journal

        Agreed. I know lots of very dumb people with PhDs. I know some very bright people without PhDs.

        Amazing! I know lots of very smart people with PhDs, and lots of really stupid and ignorant people who do not have PhDs! What are the odds?

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 22 2017, @07:55PM (2 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 22 2017, @07:55PM (#600307)

          Your ability to assess intelligence may not be as good as you think it is.

          • (Score: 4, Insightful) by aristarchus on Wednesday November 22 2017, @08:04PM (1 child)

            by aristarchus (2645) on Wednesday November 22 2017, @08:04PM (#600313) Journal

            But amazingly enough, it equally well may actually be better than I think it is! Do you have any evidence for one surmise versus the other? I, for one, am sick and tired of American anti-intellectual exceptionalism.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 25 2017, @02:22PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 25 2017, @02:22PM (#601382)

              👹👹U+1F479

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 24 2017, @11:33AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 24 2017, @11:33AM (#601017)

          What are the odds?

          Pretty even.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 25 2017, @01:57PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 25 2017, @01:57PM (#601373)

          :trollface:

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 25 2017, @02:42PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 25 2017, @02:42PM (#601391)

          u😸

      • (Score: 5, Interesting) by Arik on Wednesday November 22 2017, @06:55PM (3 children)

        by Arik (4543) on Wednesday November 22 2017, @06:55PM (#600289) Journal
        "The problem is that most people are not trained with proper ability to judge critically an argument for or against a particular topic."

        Yes indeed. I'll further note that many of these people have job titles that permit them to pose as 'scientists' nonetheless.

        Another, closely related problem is that most people fundamentally do not understand science at all, at all. Worse yet, they think they do. But they're scientistic rather than scientific, it's just cult mentality, science means believing whatever the 'orthodox scientists' (a contradiction in terms btw) tell you. This is no more scientific than creationism.

        And unfortunately that mentality is exactly what I'm seeing in TFA. Someone who fundamentally failed to grasp the concept of science itself, at the most basic level, complaining that not everyone obediently listens and believes when the 'orthodox scientists' speak and searching for ways to force the wrong-thinkers to repent.

        The author may call himself a scientist but he still thinks like a priest. And a bad one at that. :(
        --
        If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
        • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 22 2017, @11:24PM (2 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 22 2017, @11:24PM (#600417)

          But they're scientistic rather than scientific, it's just cult mentality, science means believing whatever the 'orthodox scientists' (a contradiction in terms btw) tell you. This is no more scientific than creationism.

          No. Orthodox science (although I've not heard that particular term before, usually people rail against "settled science") is a descriptive term of the state of a theory, as opposed to some holy-anointed title. Let me give a less inflammatory example than climate change.

          Imagine somebody came to you and said, "I have a perpetual motion machine. I have the physics all worked out. Just give me $10,000 to build a prototype, and I'll give you a 10% share. We're going to be rich!" Would you give it to them?

          That flies directly in the face of "settled science," so I assume you're going to just dismiss them off-hand. They are flying against the "scientific consensus," and thus would need to prove their case rather than force others to disprove it. If somebody could conclusively disprove Neuton's Laws of Motion then physics universities around the world would celebrate ("new scientific field = exciting new areas of research... and possibly larger budgets and new departments"), not try to hush up the "heretics." It's only you can only hear so many patent requests for a perpetual motion machine you say, "enough, provide a working model, or leave me alone." [wikipedia.org]

          Likewise, you can only hear so many industry-funded studies saying, "but you didn't include ___" when you had before you say, "enough quibbling, this science is 'settled,' so if you want to disprove it the burden of proof is now on you."

          Of course, if you think you do have a good model or explanation besides Anthropogenic Global Warming, you should present your evidence and conclusions. If nothing else, you'll get rich from groups like ExxonMobile, and if you are right, you could literally change the world for the better.

          • (Score: 2) by Arik on Thursday November 23 2017, @12:16AM

            by Arik (4543) on Thursday November 23 2017, @12:16AM (#600439) Journal
            "Orthodox science (although I've not heard that particular term before, usually people rail against "settled science") is a descriptive term of the state of a theory"

            Indeed. The only problem is it's not describing the state of the theory in terms of science, but of politics.
            --
            If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
          • (Score: 2) by Arik on Thursday November 23 2017, @07:50AM

            by Arik (4543) on Thursday November 23 2017, @07:50AM (#600547) Journal
            "Of course, if you think you do have a good model or explanation besides Anthropogenic Global Warming"

            It's interesting to me that you automatically assume my opinion here and clearly based the majority of your reply on that assumption, though I didn't say anything of the sort.

            You can count me as a skeptic in a sense but certainly not in the sense you are thinking. I rather suspect that the Orthodox Church of AGW significantly *under*estimates the impact of human activity on the environment in fact. Anyone that thinks that climate isn't changing or that human activity has no part in that change is just ignorant.

            But what I am deeply skeptical of is the insistence that the current Orthodox theory on the subject is in any way comparable to the first and second laws of thermodynamics. These are simple principles, of the sort which provide useful and easily testable implications, which have withstood a great number of very ingenious and well informed attempts to falsify, for a significant length of time. They are also principles on whose basis engineers and technology rely. They have been tested and tested and tested and tested and over the years they have been slightly refined but in bulk they have held strong.

            The litany of the Orthodox Church of Climate Change does not resemble that in any way. It's not a fundamental principle that generates lots of immediately useful predictions that can be easily and quickly tested, nor has it been a thing for anywhere near as long. The cases are entirely non-congruous.

            That's no quibble. That's cutting to the root.

            --
            If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
  • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 22 2017, @01:14PM (20 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 22 2017, @01:14PM (#600155)

    The solitary scientist will soon be considered the ultimate threat to mankind. Biology research can be done with ever cheaper methods, equipment, and faster computers and more capable software. Results can be shared and discussed using "solitary social networks" on the dark web. Off the grid biology can lead to the production of drugs, deadly diseases, supersoldiers, and a lot more. The opinions of po-lice, ethicysts, and plebeians can be ignored as long as you don't get caught. Long live the solitary scientist.

    • (Score: 2) by kazzie on Wednesday November 22 2017, @03:52PM (14 children)

      by kazzie (5309) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday November 22 2017, @03:52PM (#600207)

      Off-the-grid chemistry has already led to designer drugs (known as "legal highs" in the UK) that sought to avoid illegality by being a slightly different chemical compound (but with much the same effect on the body).

      • (Score: 3, Interesting) by edIII on Wednesday November 22 2017, @08:15PM (9 children)

        by edIII (791) on Wednesday November 22 2017, @08:15PM (#600321)

        Not interested in drugs, but if it were really that easy to perform advanced science, alone, with no oversight, it would be bioweapons.

        I've got a pretty good idea for a bioweapon. Sort of inspired by that movie Doom and research into empathy. If it were possible to genetically identify what makes politicians, bankers, and executives so sociopathic/psychotic controlling avaricious mother fuckers, I could target them directly.

        Options are killing them, but that may be to easy, and cause to much pain to the normal relatives. I'm wondering if it would be possible with some kind of retrovirus to reprogram their brains, or maybe, cure them.

        That would be the most disruptive thing we could do to the 1%. Give them empathy and a connection to their soul back.

        --
        Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
        • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday November 22 2017, @08:57PM (8 children)

          by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday November 22 2017, @08:57PM (#600344) Journal

          Nice idea of SF.

          But I'd recommend A Clockwork Orange [wikipedia.org] for you next weekend, there are some interesting ethical implication in the "unwilling application of cures to sociopathy"

          --
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
          • (Score: 2) by edIII on Wednesday November 22 2017, @09:31PM (7 children)

            by edIII (791) on Wednesday November 22 2017, @09:31PM (#600361)

            I'm okay with the ethics and find it no different than chemically castrating a pedophile or rapist before letting them out of prison, or as a condition of release. Their influences must be removed from societies, otherwise we truly have no hope. Those of us not sociopathic or psychotic also happen to be predominately passive and/or apathetic. Not enough of us stand up, fight, resist, and the result is what we have now. Non representative governments, massive income inequality, etc. In the US over here, we could take back our country and our lives with massive national strikes to force the 1% to capitulate and start heading towards income equality. Very least improve conditions and obtain living wages. Instead, it's Kardashians and bitching on Twitter.

            There may be a minor ethical concern, but you know, I can fucking live with it. I'll take that hit to my karma if it means people have their hearts turned on and their souls back. Compared to brutal oppression, rape, sexual assault, theft, murder, instilling some feelings within somebody seems rather trivial.

            I'm aware of A Clockwork Orange :) Never fully watched it though because I couldn't stand the wanton pointless violence of it. Another good film which explores the topic, THX 1138 [wikipedia.org].

            --
            Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
            • (Score: 3, Interesting) by c0lo on Wednesday November 22 2017, @10:27PM (6 children)

              by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday November 22 2017, @10:27PM (#600387) Journal

              Those of us not sociopathic or psychotic also happen to be predominately passive and/or apathetic.

              Careful what you wish for.
              1. Would it be otherwise, then the 'those of us' will very likely become sociopaths. At least a significant number of them. I'm sure you've met 'petty dictators' in your life, from the local policeman, to the righteous neighbours who disapprove something in your life style, something that don't impact their life, to pointless SJW.
              2. the reaction of individuals is very seldom the reaction of a large group of them. In most of the cases, the social reaction of a group of individuals large enough is that of a almost mindless mob.

              There may be a minor ethical concern, but you know, I can fucking live with it

              Sorry, but I can't.

              I'm aware of A Clockwork Orange :) Never fully watched it though because I couldn't stand the wanton pointless violence of it.

              Maybe I got you wrong in the above (if so, I'm happy to stand corrected), but how do you reconcile 'the removal of sociopaths by fighting them, with minor ethical concerns' with 'can't stand wanton violence'? You don't think that the sociopath will actually vanish into oblivion at the snap of your fingers, do you?

              --
              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
              • (Score: 3, Interesting) by edIII on Wednesday November 22 2017, @11:34PM (5 children)

                by edIII (791) on Wednesday November 22 2017, @11:34PM (#600424)

                1. Would it be otherwise, then the 'those of us' will very likely become sociopaths. At least a significant number of them. I'm sure you've met 'petty dictators' in your life, from the local policeman, to the righteous neighbours who disapprove something in your life style, something that don't impact their life, to pointless SJW.

                I kind of believe that we are creating more and more of them each day. After all, it's the only path that is rewarded. What is taught to kids? What is taught to victims? Suck it up, morality is just to sound good, and get whatever you can while the getting is good. Those in power always have been largely unaccountable and don't play by the same rules. People aren't morons. They know the games that are being played, they just lack the strength of will and/or sophistication to organize and "fight" back.

                2. the reaction of individuals is very seldom the reaction of a large group of them. In most of the cases, the social reaction of a group of individuals large enough is that of a almost mindless mob.

                I did mean passive and/or apathetic as a group. Agree with you that people act differently as individuals than they do as a group.

                Sorry, but I can't.

                I can. I'll live with it for you.

                Maybe I got you wrong in the above (if so, I'm happy to stand corrected), but how do you reconcile 'the removal of sociopaths by fighting them, with minor ethical concerns' with 'can't stand wanton violence'? You don't think that the sociopath will actually vanish into oblivion at the snap of your fingers, do you?

                Yes, a minor misunderstanding. By fighting, I meant activism. Standing up, attending rallies, attending mass protests, sit ins, etc. I did not mean physical violence towards those identified as the problem. Not even the White Nationalists that take to the streets deserve wanton violence upon them. Defending ourselves if necessary, but never attacking. The teacher in San Francisco that attacked a "Nazi" was completely wrong in saying it was always justified to perform violence upon people identifying as Nazis.

                The sociopaths, aka 1%, will not vanish, and I'm not proposing a bioweapon to kill them per se. I've been proposing for some time that the 1% be eliminated. Specifically their influence upon society and the income inequality. Killing them outright is extremely problematic, and that's without considering ethics or morality at all. The problem has always been one of identification, isolation, and mitigation. A race war is so much more convenient, because it's very easy to identify the sides of the conflict. This is not the same situation, even remotely. The idea the 1% are white American men is silly, simplistic, and naive. I find it incredibly hilarious that White Nationalists go on about diversity, and how diversity is bad, when the 1% are entirely diverse, multi-racial, and multi-cultural. In fact, I would say they have one overarching culture; Social dominance, violence, avarice, and dishonesty.

                The bioweapon targets what makes somebody a sociopath, that deep seated disease that makes them shallow, manipulative, avaricious, and deeply narcissistic. Our ethical conundrum is whether it is right or not to introduce a process that evolves them and forces changes within their brain chemistry, and their very psychological makeup. How do you rape somebody when it makes you want to cry watching their pain, fear, and suffering? How do you continue when there is an overwhelming fundamental need to nurture instead?

                Nobody is disappearing. Actual murder is just not possible, although I've argued that it is entirely necessary at this point to save the species. The planet will most be likely be fine and has suffered mass extinctions before. That, and Earth isn't going to be this habitable blue jewel forever anyways. What is a tragedy, is that a species evolved here on this planet that turned out to be too self-destructive to survive, in the face of sophisticated knowledge and understandings of ourselves, nature, and the universe.

                Considering all that, you fucking betcha. I'll pound that button happily to let loose the bioweapon upon them. The rest of you can discuss the ethical implications for hundreds of years, but at least you may have a chance to survive that long. Personally, I'm not hurting them all that much, if anything, and there is a chance that they could be objectively and subjectively more happy with their lives. I'll roll the dice that I won't end up in some level of Hell, but even so, somebody has to do it, and I would do it for you. I have no choice, as it is turned on in me to a very strong degree to live for others, performs actions that benefit everybody, and that the sea raises up all ships.

                --
                Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 23 2017, @03:09AM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 23 2017, @03:09AM (#600485)

                  Yeah, but creating "sociopaths" is a societal problem. Sociopaths supposedly actually have a different brain structure than the average human, but capitalist promotion of greed by exploiting your fellow man by giving the lion's share of the rewards to a tiny portion at the top. Thus pyramid scheme. Leaders are nothing without their team, we need to readjust the economic rewards for the various team roles. Like wildly adjust and correct for the tri..outliers!

                • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 23 2017, @03:14AM (1 child)

                  by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 23 2017, @03:14AM (#600486)

                  Where is the -1 Scary mod when I want it?

                  • (Score: 2) by edIII on Friday November 24 2017, @05:14AM

                    by edIII (791) on Friday November 24 2017, @05:14AM (#600937)

                    LOL. For what?

                    Advocating we give everyone empathy? That's all I proposed, a literal cure for sociopathic behavior, in which pretty much all other discussions is rightly framed as a disease of the mind. For one not suffering the disease the effects are no different than a placebo.

                    If Care Bare Guerilla warfare scares you...

                    --
                    Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
                • (Score: 2) by Magic Oddball on Thursday November 23 2017, @08:50AM (1 child)

                  by Magic Oddball (3847) on Thursday November 23 2017, @08:50AM (#600568) Journal

                  There's a couple of big problems with your logic. First, anti-social personality disorder involves specific structural differences in the brain that also crop up in successful, seemingly-normal people [smithsonianmag.com]. The main thing that appears to determine which route the person takes is whether they also have a particular allele that causes them to be more susceptible to social influence as children, and whether they're raised in a highly functional, affectionate family.

                  Second, the genetics behind neuropsych/neurodevelopmental conditions like that most likely are the reason their associated traits appear in our species: remove the underlying genes, and we lose the benefits of the trait, which would make humanity quite a bit less successful in the long run.

                  Also, a couple of briefer thoughts:
                  1) The vast majority of rapists & murderers show no sign of being sociopaths, bad people, or diagnosable with anything.

                  2) Your sentiment is the exact sort of thing that a sociopath would write: "I can live with violating their most fundamental rights, if it'll make the world more the way I think it should be, and besides, they'd be happier being like me anyway."

                  • (Score: 2) by edIII on Friday November 24 2017, @05:30AM

                    by edIII (791) on Friday November 24 2017, @05:30AM (#600942)

                    On #2, It's not an easy decision mind you. I'm old, and the world has only ever gotten worse, and we're reaching a point of no return. If we haven't already.

                    Extenuating Circumstances. How much worse does it need to get before you would do something? 99.9999% inequality? Almost all of our rights gone? Completely under a totalitarian regime? Escalating economic impacts from climate events bringing us to ruin? The consumer protections of a wet napkin? Pollution all around you, because you know, accidents happen?

                    Sorry, but we've past the point were we can afford to have them around us. It's a like a sci-fi movie where you need to kick the infected guy off the space station, and I'm the a-hole that's got press the button on the airlock. Except, instead of killing him, it's, "Frank, now I'm sorry buddy, but I got to give you the ability to have feelings okay? You won't be able to poke anyone with a fork and smile anymore okay?".

                    --
                    Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 23 2017, @01:36AM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 23 2017, @01:36AM (#600456)

        Genetically modified microbes could be used to secrete drugs like hydrocodone, morphine, and LSD [theguardian.com]. This could become a lot easier than using traditional chemistry to make the drugs. Once you have a genome sequence, you can share it digitally. In the future, everyone with the ability to synthesize an organism from scratch in their lab could use it right away. Others could use mail order services to get the DNA or organism made.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 23 2017, @03:21AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 23 2017, @03:21AM (#600491)

          > Genetically modified microbes could be used to secrete drugs ...

          This is a little more subtle than the psychedelics in the water in "The Futurological Congress" by Stanisław Lem. But perhaps discussing the same distopian future?
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Futurological_Congress [wikipedia.org]

      • (Score: 1) by ants_in_pants on Thursday November 23 2017, @06:08AM (1 child)

        by ants_in_pants (6665) on Thursday November 23 2017, @06:08AM (#600536)

        note: RCs are generally considered dangerous because the effects over long-term use are less known.

        LSD-25 analogs have taken many of my friends' psyches away.

        --
        -Love, ants_in_pants
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 23 2017, @06:15AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 23 2017, @06:15AM (#600537)

          Define "psyche".

    • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday November 22 2017, @08:52PM (4 children)

      by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday November 22 2017, @08:52PM (#600340) Journal

      shared and discussed using "solitary social networks"

      The image of a solitary scientist sharing and discussing the research on social networks is a nice literary construct.
      In the same category as "military intelligence" and "deafening silence".
      The "dark web" and the "conspiratorial air" surrounding the image are just smoke and mirrors obscuring the stylistic contradiction.

      ---

      If you want to make a point, make it in full and clear.
      For example, you could say (if that was you point): "solitary" is irrelevant, the danger stays in the very concept of "sanctioned science" - if the/some scientists need to go dark to continue doing what they do, then something is fishy.
      Or whatever point you want to make.

      --
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 23 2017, @01:24AM (3 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 23 2017, @01:24AM (#600453)

        Sorry, I thought you were smart enough to realize the implications by yourself without being lectured.

        Normal scientists share results with known peers, compete for grants, abide by ethics restraints shackles, and care about shit like impact factors. Solitary scientists, if they care to share anything at all, would share results anonymously for the purpose of acquiring or distributing knowledge, to benefit directly from the knowledge of others or to spread their advances. They don't care about getting credit or a Nobel prize. They can conduct any unethical or illegal experiments they want. Interacting with others in the "solitary" way is a simple form of peer review that can benefit each individual. You are still operating your lab in your basement, unknown to your neighbors and contemporaries.

        The dark web is a necessary component, not stylistic, because anything less and your country's intelligence services will put you in cuffs or kill you. The FBI is monitoring the DIY biology community closely. They want to undermine good science under the guise of ethics and national security. Fuck them until death.

        • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday November 23 2017, @01:56AM (2 children)

          by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Thursday November 23 2017, @01:56AM (#600462) Journal

          They can conduct any unethical or illegal experiments they want

          The FBI is monitoring the DIY biology community closely. They want to undermine good science under the guise of ethics and national security. Fuck them until death.

          I wish** you to become the guinea pig for such an unethical and illegal scientist, in a non-lethal way. (Shall that one be virusology or experimental drugs? I'll let you decide between the two.)
          Be it only for the reason to share with the 'white Web' the reasons for which ethical considerations are... ummm... a necessary evil in science.

          ---
          ** I actually don't wish you this, but you should get the idea, smart as it seems you are.

          Ummm... just in case you are not that smart, I'm sure I'll welcome you in my basement; I always wanted to get into 'evil chemistry' or drugs. I assure you I'll be as unethical towards you as you like, I might actually exceed your expectations... and I'll share the knowledge, derived from unethically using you, on the Web, the dark one if so you like. (grin)
          PS I don't have a basement, so we may want to delay the things for a while.

          --
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 23 2017, @02:22AM (1 child)

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 23 2017, @02:22AM (#600468)

            Why bother kidnapping or coercing a guinea pig? At the end of this road, we will be making genetically modified babies in artificial wombs. All the test subjects you could ever need can be created in a lab with a low risk of exposure to the outside world. Basement, shipping container, shack in the woods, whatever fits your budget.

            • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday November 23 2017, @02:31AM

              by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Thursday November 23 2017, @02:31AM (#600473) Journal

              For real world, in the field, experimental confirmation.

              I mean... look, where's the evil part of the fun if your discovery doesn't lead to "world domination mwa-ha-ha-ha"? (grin)

              --
              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
  • (Score: 2, Funny) by realDonaldTrump on Wednesday November 22 2017, @01:18PM (11 children)

    by realDonaldTrump (6614) on Wednesday November 22 2017, @01:18PM (#600157) Homepage Journal

    Science is overrated, very expensive, and it's out of control. We need a little bit of it, but right now we have much more than we need. In a time of limited resources, one must ensure that the nation is getting the greatest bang for the buck. We cannot simply throw money at these institutions and assume that the nation will be well served. And let me tell you, we just won't have the money to throw. Because we're doing the biggest tax cut ever. What we ought to focus on is assessing where we need to be as a nation and then applying resources to those areas where we need the most work. Our efforts to support research and public health initiatives will have to be balanced with other demands for scarce resources. Working with Congress -- the people’s representatives -- my administration will work to establish national priorities and then we will work to make sure that adequate resources are assigned to achieve our goals. Adequate resources, not one penny more. Look at what's happening with every agency. Scientists getting rich off waste, fraud and abuse. We're looking very carefully at every one of those guys.

    Innovation has always been one of the great by-products of free market systems. Entrepreneurs have always found entries into markets by giving consumers more options for the products they desire. The government should do all it can to reduce barriers to entry into markets and should work at creating a business environment where fair trade is as important as free trade. Similarly, the federal government should encourage innovation in the areas of space exploration and investment in research and development across the broad landscape of academia. Though there are increasing demands to cut taxes, curtail spending and to "balance" the federal budget, we must make the commitment to invest in science, engineering, health care and other areas that will make the lives of Americans better, safer and more prosperous. Much, much more prosperous. Laws that tilt the scales toward special interests must be modified to balance the needs of society with the preservation of our valuable living resources. My administration will strike that balance by bringing all stakeholders to the table to determine the best approach to seeking and setting that balance.

    There is still much that needs to be investigated in the field of "climate change." But sometimes a little science can be a good thing. Perhaps the best use of our LIMITED financial resources should be in dealing with making sure that every person in the world has clean water. Every, every person. Perhaps we should focus on eliminating lingering diseases around the world like malaria. Perhaps we should focus on efforts to increase food production to keep pace with an ever-growing world population. Perhaps we should be focused on developing energy sources and power production that alleviates the need for dependence on fossil fuels. It should be the goal of the American people and their government to achieve energy independence as soon as possible. Energy independence means exploring and developing every possible energy source including wind, solar, nuclear and bio-fuels. Not too much wind. Let me tell you, the wind is a very deceiving thing. First of all, we don’t make the windmills in the United States. They’re made in Germany and Japan. They’re made out of massive amounts of steel, which goes into the atmosphere, whether it’s in our country or not, it goes into the atmosphere. They kill all the birds. In France they were going to build a wind farm on a battlefield. UNBELIEVABLE! A thriving market system will allow consumers to determine the best sources of energy for future consumption. Further, with the United States, Canada and Mexico as the key energy producers in the world, we will live in a safer, more productive and more prosperous world.

    And we need more of the science of fixing brains. Here we have Noah, a guy who came to us from the year 2028. And his brain is in terrible, terrible shape. So many things wrong with him, even in 2028 they couldn't fix it all. And we have Crooked Hillary, who made terrible decisions. Obviously she has a bad brain because, as stated by Bernie, she has bad judgement. And yet she fooled a lot, a lot of people. What does that say about the American people, mentally? This is one of the great unfolding tragedies in America today. We have no idea how brains work, let alone how to fix brains that go bad. And a lot, a lot are going bad. You look at what happened in Las Vegas, the Mandalay Bay thing. It's not a guns thing, it's a brains thing. This entire field of interest must be examined and a comprehensive solution set must be developed so that we can keep people safe and productive.

    Scientific advances do require long term investment. This is why we must have programs such as a viable space program and institutional research that serve as incubators to innovation and the advancement of science and engineering in a number of fields. We should also bring together stakeholders and examine what the priorities ought to be for the nation. Conservation of resources and finding ways to feed the world beg our strong commitment as do dedicated investment in making the world a healthier place. The nation is best served by a President and administration that have a vision for a greater, better America. We must decide on how best to proceed so that we can make lives better, safer and more prosperous. Much, much, much more prosperous. #MAGA 🇺🇸

    • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday November 22 2017, @01:44PM (6 children)

      by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday November 22 2017, @01:44PM (#600165) Journal

      I want to thank you for that meaningless wall of text, whatever your name is. Totally meaningless, and everyone will be forced to read it, to figure that out. You're almost a genius yourself - well - if you had about 120 mor IQ points, you could be.

    • (Score: 2) by OrugTor on Wednesday November 22 2017, @03:25PM

      by OrugTor (5147) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday November 22 2017, @03:25PM (#600187)

      The post seems a little too articulate for Trump. The sentence structure and vocabulary choices go beyond what we have come to expect from him. The ideas and tone are, as ever, spot-on. Anyway, thanks for the chuckle.

    • (Score: 2, Funny) by starvingboy on Wednesday November 22 2017, @03:33PM (2 children)

      by starvingboy (6766) on Wednesday November 22 2017, @03:33PM (#600189)

      Heh, this is the guy who finally got me to sign up for an account, just so I could quit seeing his posts. It USUALLY works, apparently I need to adjust some settings. Dang dude, find another hobby already!

      • (Score: 3, Funny) by Snow on Wednesday November 22 2017, @05:29PM (1 child)

        by Snow (1601) on Wednesday November 22 2017, @05:29PM (#600263) Journal

        @realDonaldTrump

        I like your hobby. It's a great hobby -- maybe the greatest hobby ever. You always have great words, words I admire, sometimes -- usually I admire them -- but great, great words. You know, some people (like the #LOSER starvingboy) they say @realDonaldTrump doesn't have good words -- bad words even. But he's wrong. Your words are great.

        • (Score: 1) by realDonaldTrump on Wednesday November 22 2017, @07:08PM

          by realDonaldTrump (6614) on Wednesday November 22 2017, @07:08PM (#600291) Homepage Journal

          Thank you for your LOYAL support! I have a lot, a lot of enemies here, foolish Dems and disloyal Republicans. But you are a total gem.

          To be perfectly honest with you, my friend @Steven_K_Bannon helped me write that one. Where it gets a little bit politically correct and a little hard to understand, that's him. I like him. He is a good man. He is not a racist. I can tell you that. He is a good person. He actually gets a very unfair press in that regard. He is a good person and I think the press treats him, frankly, very unfairly.

  • (Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 22 2017, @01:28PM (7 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 22 2017, @01:28PM (#600160)

    Some of the greatest discoveries known to mankind have been done by solitary scientists (or at least a small group).

    • (Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Wednesday November 22 2017, @02:07PM (2 children)

      by PiMuNu (3823) on Wednesday November 22 2017, @02:07PM (#600173)

      ... but the internet (voip, websites, irc) and cheap international travel only came about 20-50 years ago.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 22 2017, @03:08PM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 22 2017, @03:08PM (#600186)

        the internet (voip, websites, irc) and cheap international travel

        "Science"... like the one of a parrot that learns to speak "words".

        • (Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Wednesday November 22 2017, @03:49PM

          by PiMuNu (3823) on Wednesday November 22 2017, @03:49PM (#600201)

          Like the LHC, many space telescopes, etc etc

    • (Score: 3, Informative) by urza9814 on Wednesday November 22 2017, @06:53PM (2 children)

      by urza9814 (3954) on Wednesday November 22 2017, @06:53PM (#600288) Journal

      Some of the greatest discoveries known to mankind have been done by solitary scientists (or at least a small group).

      Yes, and it is said that Seymour Cray once programmed an operating system of his own design into a supercomputer of his own design through using only its toggle switches. But anybody doing that today is going to end up with a science fair project, not a cutting-edge supercomputer. Complexity increases over time until it exceeds what one person is capable of.

      There's a limit to how much of the universe can be probed by one guy in his garage, and most of that is already known. One person can discover gas laws by burning candles in jars or discover infrared light by putting thermometers behind prisms...but one person cannot build the LHC and discover the Higgs Boson.

      • (Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 22 2017, @10:53PM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 22 2017, @10:53PM (#600400)

        Complexity increases over time until it exceeds what one person is capable of.

        Complexity increases until it exceeds what a customer is ready to pay for. Which is entirely unrelated to the problem domain.

        The latest Apple toy is not a hard requirement for doing a voicecall or sending an email; the latest MS Office is not a hard requirement for editing a text or a table. Every thing is growing in complexity, but that complexity is working against the user, not for him. Neither sounds nor letters have become any complexer since 1970s.

        • (Score: 2) by urza9814 on Monday November 27 2017, @03:04PM

          by urza9814 (3954) on Monday November 27 2017, @03:04PM (#602067) Journal

          The latest Apple toy is not a hard requirement for doing a voicecall or sending an email; the latest MS Office is not a hard requirement for editing a text or a table.

          What's that got to do with scientists? Sure, a single person could write the thousandth "new" spreadsheet application or text editor, but that's not advancing any new frontiers, it's just reinventing the wheel.

          Neither sounds nor letters have become any complexer since 1970s.

          No, but physics and biology and chemistry have. Theory could *potentially* be advanced by the lone scientist -- ie, making new predictions in string theory probably requires little more than a pen and paper -- but actually collecting the evidence to prove or disprove those theories still requires complex experiments that are generally out of reach of lone individuals.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 22 2017, @09:17PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 22 2017, @09:17PM (#600353)

      In the past that was often true, however most of the easy discoveries have largely been tapped out. There may be a few remaining ones that can be done by a solitary scientist, but for most interesting research you need a team of people from different fields collaborating.

      The main problem with being a solitary scientist is that it's unlikely you'll be able to see the problem from enough angles in order to produce a breakthrough. You're also at a disadvantage if there's anything wrong with the calculations or experimental design.

  • (Score: 5, Interesting) by mth on Wednesday November 22 2017, @01:30PM (14 children)

    by mth (2848) on Wednesday November 22 2017, @01:30PM (#600161) Homepage

    Everybody is entitled to their own scientific opinion, but everybody is not entitled to their own scientific facts?

    A statement isn't scientific because it is made by a scientist, but because it is proven mathematically or experimentally, or built on solid evidence for sciences where hard proof is not possible (such as history).

    However, the average reader does not have enough knowledge of the field to evaluate the proof or evidence, so they'll accept or reject the statement based on authority instead. And it's tempting to accept someone as an authority if they happen to confirm a pre-existing bias.

    I don't think the myth of the solitary genius is the main issue though. There is so much misinformation being spread, both deliberate and because of incompetence or rushed jobs, that confidence in authories in general has eroded. I don't know if the level of disinformation has actually risen or whether we're just more aware of it, but the effect is the same. If you feel you can't trust the establishment, it becomes easier for any other source to be considered equally authorative. This doesn't just apply to science, but also to for example the media.

    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Virindi on Wednesday November 22 2017, @01:37PM (13 children)

      by Virindi (3484) on Wednesday November 22 2017, @01:37PM (#600163)

      The public is treated more like naive children than ever. In light of that, it is not much surprise that more people mistrust "authorities". Hell, these days conspiracy theorists often give more detailed arguments than scientists when addressing the public!

      A decent percentage of the population does not like being led around like a child.

      • (Score: 0, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 22 2017, @02:06PM (2 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 22 2017, @02:06PM (#600172)

        The public is treated more like naive children than ever. In light of that, it is not much surprise that more people mistrust "authorities". Hell, these days conspiracy theorists often give more detailed arguments than scientists when addressing the public!

        Yeah, right... seems someone is reading too much shit on the Interwebs. If someone is given "2 minutes opposing 'viewpoints'" bullshit that is modern media asshole (be that Fox News, or MSNBC or PBS or BBC), then yeah, you get better arguments from the salesmen, not the scientists. But science requires some ability for abstract thought, not just "truthiness" tests of people that know nothing about the subject except what their colleague at work heard from some hooker on the corner.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 22 2017, @05:03PM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 22 2017, @05:03PM (#600246)

          Virindi isn't that wrong, and that isn't saying that conspiracy theorists are more credible (English. I know its tough). The point was that they give more detailed reports whereas many science stories lack enough detail for the reader to actually judge anything about it.

          • (Score: 3, Funny) by Virindi on Wednesday November 22 2017, @05:31PM

            by Virindi (3484) on Wednesday November 22 2017, @05:31PM (#600265)

            To be fair, I typed "mistrust" when I meant "distrust"....

            English is tough, and the finality of that 'submit' button is oppressive!

      • (Score: 4, Insightful) by mhajicek on Wednesday November 22 2017, @05:12PM (3 children)

        by mhajicek (51) on Wednesday November 22 2017, @05:12PM (#600254)

        No, they used to be treated much more as children. Scientists of the 1800's, 1700's usually wouldn't even try to explain things to the common plebes because they didn't have the basic education required to even begin to comprehend. It's only relatively recently that the common public has the ability to grasp the basics, which is in the territory of "enough knowledge to be dangerous".

        --
        The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
        • (Score: 2) by Virindi on Wednesday November 22 2017, @05:37PM (1 child)

          by Virindi (3484) on Wednesday November 22 2017, @05:37PM (#600268)

          Sure. I was thinking more 20th century, before the days of the interwebs and condensing everything down as much as possible.

          But I'm not going to claim that the public was ever really that smart :)

          • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Arik on Wednesday November 22 2017, @07:30PM

            by Arik (4543) on Wednesday November 22 2017, @07:30PM (#600295) Journal
            Sad and incomprehensible as it may be, it's true that the public used to be smarter. We had a much more literate population, in the US at least, during the 19th century than today.
            --
            If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 22 2017, @08:20PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 22 2017, @08:20PM (#600324)

          Scientists of the 1800's, 1700's usually wouldn't even try to explain things to the common plebes because they didn't have the basic education required to even begin to comprehend.

          They had no need to. Their science was about giving new gadgets to the masses, in contrast to convincing the same masses to give up the gadgets they already have.

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Anal Pumpernickel on Wednesday November 22 2017, @08:33PM

        by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Wednesday November 22 2017, @08:33PM (#600331)

        The public is treated more like naive children than ever.

        But they are, though. For example, it's easy to drum up support for things like mass surveillance after a major terrorist attack, despite it violating fundamental liberties and our constitution. Many voters are mindless partisan hacks as well. So I would say they are treated this way for a reason.

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by c0lo on Wednesday November 22 2017, @09:05PM

        by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday November 22 2017, @09:05PM (#600348) Journal

        A decent percentage of the population does not like being led around like a child.

        True, but this doesn't transform into a duty of the scientists to dumb what they are doing.

        The solution is for that decent amount of population should start putting some effort into catching up. See, flipping burgers over the week and drinking the wage over the weekend doesn't quite prepare someone for science.

        --
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
      • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 22 2017, @09:20PM (2 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 22 2017, @09:20PM (#600355)

        The public behaves more like children than before. Considering that we need laws that tell people they can't text while driving, I'm curious how you come to the conclusion that being treated like children isn't appropriate.

        For those of us that are adults, the government isn't typically treating us like children. It's the many folks that didn't grow up past puberty that wind up feeling like they're being condescended in most cases. I rarely see people complaining about it that aren't adult-children.

        • (Score: 2) by Virindi on Thursday November 23 2017, @01:54AM (1 child)

          by Virindi (3484) on Thursday November 23 2017, @01:54AM (#600461)

          The public behaves more like children than before. Considering that we need laws that tell people they can't text while driving, I'm curious how you come to the conclusion that being treated like children isn't appropriate.

          Dunno, I tend to view it as a feedback loop. Society becomes more nanny -> people grow up to be less competent -> more nanny protection is needed.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 23 2017, @04:54AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 23 2017, @04:54AM (#600522)

            Beyond the absolute basics, I don't believe that's true. In the past the dangers of various mistakes were self-evident and usually in the near future. There was no working 50 years and then finding that the company had stolen the money that you expected to retire on. You knew as you went along roughly how much money you'd need and when you did fall ill you probably died shortly thereafter, no linger for decades in a nursing home.

            People need more government protection because the world is a lot more complicated than it used to be. The fact that many people are also dumbasses about things that ought to be obvious just makes matters worse.

      • (Score: 2) by Joe Desertrat on Thursday November 23 2017, @10:53PM

        by Joe Desertrat (2454) on Thursday November 23 2017, @10:53PM (#600861)

        Hell, these days conspiracy theorists often give more detailed arguments than scientists when addressing the public!

        Well yes, but it is a lot easier to do when your details are based on made up "facts" that get heard simply because they sound good. The facts that scientists could present in support of their theories often appear mind numbingly dull to the layman who might not even understand the greater part if he bothered to wade through them. They are competing for attention with those who sound great and sound authoritative but usually can be debunked by any serious high school science student, if only someone would listen.

(1) 2