Comments on: Consensus in science http://wmbriggs.com/blog/2008/02/15/consensus-in-science/ "All manner of statistical analyses cheerfully undertaken." Fri, 04 Jul 2008 17:10:39 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.2 by: Wade http://wmbriggs.com/blog/2008/02/15/consensus-in-science/#comment-1742 Thu, 27 Mar 2008 18:12:43 +0000 http://wmbriggs.com/blog/2008/02/15/consensus-in-science/#comment-1742 To "wow". The difference being we can put a plane in the air and see for a fact the earth is not flat. However, every day new statistics come out that reinforce that AGW is NOT CONFIRMED. The only difference between the two is, one has factual proof, the other relies on models. If you really believe in computer models that much, then, by all means you take an (or all) IPCC model(s), predict the average earth temperature for 2009 within .01 degrees C (since that's what they report in), and I'll take the field. Put your money where your consensus is. To “wow”.

The difference being we can put a plane in the air and see for a fact the earth is not flat. However, every day new statistics come out that reinforce that AGW is NOT CONFIRMED. The only difference between the two is, one has factual proof, the other relies on models. If you really believe in computer models that much, then, by all means you take an (or all) IPCC model(s), predict the average earth temperature for 2009 within .01 degrees C (since that’s what they report in), and I’ll take the field. Put your money where your consensus is.

]]> by: wow. http://wmbriggs.com/blog/2008/02/15/consensus-in-science/#comment-866 Tue, 26 Feb 2008 18:28:55 +0000 http://wmbriggs.com/blog/2008/02/15/consensus-in-science/#comment-866 Here's a few good ones for you: For most of mankind, folks thought the earth was flat. For most of mankind, folks thought that their emissions did not lead to global warming. Both of these arguments were proven to be incorrect, but not without a great number of naysayers. This argument works both ways. huh. go figure. Here’s a few good ones for you:

For most of mankind, folks thought the earth was flat.

For most of mankind, folks thought that their emissions did not lead to global warming.

Both of these arguments were proven to be incorrect, but not without a great number of naysayers.

This argument works both ways. huh. go figure.

]]> by: Boris http://wmbriggs.com/blog/2008/02/15/consensus-in-science/#comment-800 Sun, 24 Feb 2008 17:55:32 +0000 http://wmbriggs.com/blog/2008/02/15/consensus-in-science/#comment-800 This is pretty cool. You don't have to believe anything anymore, because people were wrong in the past. Awesome! This is pretty cool. You don’t have to believe anything anymore, because people were wrong in the past. Awesome!

]]> by: Joe Guyton http://wmbriggs.com/blog/2008/02/15/consensus-in-science/#comment-744 Fri, 22 Feb 2008 14:28:09 +0000 http://wmbriggs.com/blog/2008/02/15/consensus-in-science/#comment-744 Sorry for mine above, as I had missed #35, which made the same point. Sorry for mine above, as I had missed #35, which made the same point.

]]> by: Joe Guyton http://wmbriggs.com/blog/2008/02/15/consensus-in-science/#comment-742 Fri, 22 Feb 2008 13:35:32 +0000 http://wmbriggs.com/blog/2008/02/15/consensus-in-science/#comment-742 A more contemporary failure of the consensus can be demonstrated by the strange affair of Dr. Robin Warren, the small-town discoverer in 1979 that a particular type of bacteria, called Helicobacter Pylori, caused nearly all stomach ulcers and was easily cured, which the establishment had no interest in accepting for a variety of reason (most financial, other merely scientifically stuck in a rut), and fought strenuously for years insisting stomach acid was the cause, but which turned out to be true. The previous prevailing view was beyond mere consensus being virtually unanimous and was not altered until 1995 despite much evidence and in-fighting after colleagues of Warren were forced to experiment on themselves to prove their theory and disprove the "consensus." The more deadly example can be illustrated by the effective banning of DDT use because of a shameful "consensus", which resulted in the untimely deaths of uncounted millions of mostly women, children and elderly depried of its protection. A more contemporary failure of the consensus can be demonstrated by the strange affair of Dr. Robin Warren, the small-town discoverer in 1979 that a particular type of bacteria, called Helicobacter Pylori, caused nearly all stomach ulcers and was easily cured, which the establishment had no interest in accepting for a variety of reason (most financial, other merely scientifically stuck in a rut), and fought strenuously for years insisting stomach acid was the cause, but which turned out to be true. The previous prevailing view was beyond mere consensus being virtually unanimous and was not altered until 1995 despite much evidence and in-fighting after colleagues of Warren were forced to experiment on themselves to prove their theory and disprove the “consensus.”

The more deadly example can be illustrated by the effective banning of DDT use because of a shameful “consensus”, which resulted in the untimely deaths of uncounted millions of mostly women, children and elderly depried of its protection.

]]> by: Lauren Bailey http://wmbriggs.com/blog/2008/02/15/consensus-in-science/#comment-729 Thu, 21 Feb 2008 22:37:14 +0000 http://wmbriggs.com/blog/2008/02/15/consensus-in-science/#comment-729 WOW! WOW!

]]> by: Scientific consensus through the ages. http://wmbriggs.com/blog/2008/02/15/consensus-in-science/#comment-727 Thu, 21 Feb 2008 21:56:43 +0000 http://wmbriggs.com/blog/2008/02/15/consensus-in-science/#comment-727 [...] Scientific consensus through the ages. William M. Briggs, Statistician » Consensus in science Quote: [...] […] Scientific consensus through the ages. William M. Briggs, Statistician » Consensus in science Quote: […]

]]> by: Charles Vairin http://wmbriggs.com/blog/2008/02/15/consensus-in-science/#comment-725 Thu, 21 Feb 2008 21:46:48 +0000 http://wmbriggs.com/blog/2008/02/15/consensus-in-science/#comment-725 Lisi's "A simple Theroy for Everything" makes string theory obsolete. Lisi’s “A simple Theroy for Everything” makes string theory obsolete.

]]> by: Bernie http://wmbriggs.com/blog/2008/02/15/consensus-in-science/#comment-648 Mon, 18 Feb 2008 13:14:29 +0000 http://wmbriggs.com/blog/2008/02/15/consensus-in-science/#comment-648 Christopher: I agree that any college prep program would be greatly enhanced by ensuring that students know how to think logically and precisely about the world and how really, really smart folks can be all wrong if their fundamental assumptions are not valid, e.g., heliocentric versus geocentric assumption, Pythagorean circlular versus ellipitcal orbits. Of course, this can only be demonstrated in Math and Science classes. The interesting thing is that so many folks today start with the assumption of dominant AGW. Christopher:
I agree that any college prep program would be greatly enhanced by ensuring that students know how to think logically and precisely about the world and how really, really smart folks can be all wrong if their fundamental assumptions are not valid, e.g., heliocentric versus geocentric assumption, Pythagorean circlular versus ellipitcal orbits. Of course, this can only be demonstrated in Math and Science classes.

The interesting thing is that so many folks today start with the assumption of dominant AGW.

]]> by: christopher Hanley http://wmbriggs.com/blog/2008/02/15/consensus-in-science/#comment-641 Mon, 18 Feb 2008 09:07:54 +0000 http://wmbriggs.com/blog/2008/02/15/consensus-in-science/#comment-641 If it isn't covered in secondary school these days, the history and philosophy of science, starting with, say, Aristarchus of Samos, should be a compulsory introductory subject in all tertiary science courses. Although a layman, I feel many graduates lack an appreciation of the 'landscape'. If it isn’t covered in secondary school these days, the history and philosophy of science, starting with, say, Aristarchus of Samos, should be a compulsory introductory subject in all tertiary science courses.

Although a layman, I feel many graduates lack an appreciation of the ‘landscape’.

]]>