RE: Climate Change

RE: Climate Change (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Tkman117 -> RE: Climate Change (3/20/2015 6:40:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey so what you are saying is that if the guy initially reading the article doesn't like what he sees he can keep it from being published. Therefore, that invalidates the research that was done because it wasn't agreed to by the guy reading to it. Talk about a lot of money being wasted on research. Just have the guy develop the conclusion and go from there. Oh wait that isn't scientific is it. You can't prove a conclusion until you get the data. Appears the articles you have are slanted toward whatever one guy says is right. No, a single person doesn't peer review an article, it's typically 5 different people who are experts in this field of research that look at the research in each 2-3 rounds of peer review, usually making the total number of reviewers somewhere between 10-20 by the time the research is ready to be published. They read the research, make their recommendations and send it back. It's not about the content of the research unless the content makes no sense and isn't scientific in nature. Science can only be considered valid if it follows the scientific method, otherwise it's not science. Often times the peer reviewing provides advice on the formatting and structure of the article itself, and requests the authors clarify certain things. Other time they completely deny a piece of research because it's unscientific and doesn follow the scientific method, but this is rare among the scientific community. The odd time a piece of research which isn't valid can slip through peer review, but it's not entirely common. It's not a perfect system but it's better than anything else out there.

Tkman117 -> RE: Climate Change (3/20/2015 6:41:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey Seems you set your standards on what one guy in a publishing house says. At least to me Then maybe you should look up exactly what peer review is instead of spouting ignorance, it doesn't make your POV any more intelligent. In any case I discussed it in my reply just above^^

KenDckey -> RE: Climate Change (3/20/2015 6:44:56 AM)
OK A team of a few people. All experts. Who were these experts when the first article was published? How did they become experts? Once the first article was published then they could stretch the concept of being experts because it was science, right? And as you said, they make mistakes. How often? Isn't a mistake a point of view? How could the experts make a mistake? Were they punished for it? They discredited all science didn't they?

Tkman117 -> RE: Climate Change (3/20/2015 6:54:37 AM)
This "Team" of experts dont have contact with each other, they dont collaborate. It's called schooling and education, they usually always have a PhD in their field, which typically means they're experts in it. And before they were experts they were students, because to become an expert you need to learn about your field of study. And there was no such thing as a first article, science is cumulative, we have been building our knowledge off what past research or knowledge humanity has gained. I mean, there is no scientific research explaining how effective using the wheel on a cart is, right? They don't make mistakes often, but no, a mistake isn't a point of view. A good example is progression in nature, that nature is progressing from a certain point (a pond) and eventually progresses over time to become something else (a forest). This was a concept which was popular in the 20th century, because humans thought forests were the final progression for an ecosystem. But further research proved this was wrong. It always takes more research to determine what is true and what isn't. That early research on progressions was limited in scope, but they utilized good science. Darwin and evolution is another example, while not proven wrong, it was found that there was more to his research than what was initially assumed. Experts are human too, dont forget that. And why would they be punished? At the time they were doing good science, but when their research was refuted, it simply meant that better science replaced it. So in the case of progression, the science was discredited. But in all your criticism of peer review, whats the alternative? Our understanding of the world has grown and grown thanks to research such as this, thanks to peer review. There is no other method in existence which makes conducting science as bias free as this. Or would you prefer we just make assumptions based on faith?

KenDckey -> RE: Climate Change (3/20/2015 7:00:46 AM)
Make 100%, not 99, not a summary, but 100% of all studies available for all to review and include them in a registry at the UN. And having a PhD doesn't make a person smart. It helps, but I have known many PhD's. Some couldn't heat the greasy c-rations in the snow (Professor of Chemistry). One had no clue about some religions (PhD in theology). There are others. It just means that they can pass tests and write papers.

Tkman117 -> RE: Climate Change (3/20/2015 7:02:37 AM)
Jesus, it's ALL available on Google fucking scholar, I've said it 3 times already. Well that's your opinion on the matter then. If you can find someone who's a better expert than someone who dedicates their life to a single field of study, then go ahead. Also who's doing the reviewing with the research on this UN registry? Everyone? People who dont understand the research and aren't versed in scientific literature? Do they have to have a minimum understanding of science? Would they be paid for reviewing it? And if so, by whom? What if people dont like a piece of science because they disagree with it politically? Will the rich and powerful who benefit from discrediting research be able to discredit it by paying thousands to millions to have everyone refute it? If that's your genius solution then man, it's a poorly conceived one [8\|]. The purpose of peer review is to prevent bias, and then it's released publicly for all to read in scientific journals and linked to online in places like Google scholar. Your solution is redundant because 1) repositories for research are already available, and 2) it opens the research up to unneeded bias and turns it into a popularity contest.

KenDckey -> RE: Climate Change (3/20/2015 7:11:48 AM)
I never said I was a scholar. Said I was a HS graduate with some college classes taught by idiots who failed me because I didn't share their opinion. I mean who the hell cares if shakespheare is a good writer. I don't think so and when asked my opinion and express it, I get failed for having a wrong opinion. Problem, this PhD couldn't prove my opinion was wrong. Only that a lot of others agreed with him. My opinion, they were wrong too. So if you assert that only science can solve the issue, becasue a bunch of people agree because they have PhDs, and anyone else, regardless of their credentials, must therefore be wrong, how do you prove it?

Tkman117 -> RE: Climate Change (3/20/2015 7:20:54 AM)
Did you even read what I wrote? [8\|] I said that almost every piece of peer review and published research is on *Google Scholar*. And good news, shakespeare isn't science. Shakespeare is much more open to interpretation than science, it's english, not evidence or fact based. You're essentially comparing a grape to a massive pumpkin. You can't compare the two because they're two drastically different realms of study. And being an expert means these people have much more credibility than someone who isn't, but if someone stepped forward and provided revolutionary research which followed the scientific method then why wouldn't they consider or accept its validity? Science isn't black and white, it's always adapting and changing to reflect the information we've accumulated about the world. The fact is, someone who isn't an expert has a higher chance of being wrong than someone who is. I mean, you got a white belt vs a black belt, who is more likely to get to win the world championship in karate? The white belt may have trained in secret and be more knowledgable than the black belt, but unless the white belt PROVES that they are more skilled or have something the black belt doesnt, then it is assumed that the black belt is more skilled. If someone who isn't an expert can provide the evidence in a way which is accepted by peer review, then it could be considered legitimate research. Simple as that.

KenDckey -> RE: Climate Change (3/20/2015 7:32:14 AM)
So then you admit that science is flawed because it adapts and changes. I do believe that is what we have been getting to. Hence contrary opinions based upon science. BTW I don't use google. Personal opinion of google is less than optiminal.

Tkman117 -> RE: Climate Change (3/20/2015 7:40:56 AM)
No, I admit science is perfect because it adapts and changes and doesn't stay static like religion. When humans see something that disproves a previously accepted fact, then why shouldn't we change our understanding of the world to reflect that? If we had it your way we'd still think earth was the centre of the universe, that the planet was flat, that there was an opposing force to gravity called the aether, that alchemy could actually change lead into gold. We wouldn't have computers, space shuttles & rockets, cars, planes, or anything else technological today if science DIDN'T adapt and change. We wouldn't understand how clouds form, how beaches move, how hurricanes form, where meteorites come from, and so much, much, much, much, much more. We didn't get where we are today based on contrary opinions, we got here based on better observations and better data collecting methods that let us understand our world on scales we wouldn't be able to observe other wise. Today thanks to scientific advancement, we can see atoms, look out into the farthest reaches of space, observe long term changes in our climate, grow organs, create nano-bots, cure disease. That is what science is; not opinion, just better evidence gathering and better understanding of how our world works. You...you really dont understand what google scholar is do you...why not actually go look at it instead of being willfully ignorant.

KenDckey -> RE: Climate Change (3/20/2015 7:45:00 AM)
If science were perfect it wouldn't need to adapt and change. It would be perfect. Conclusions based upon observations are opinions. Others look at the same conclusions and determine different things. Sometimes they agree (or close enough) and sometimes they don't. Even when the same datum set was used.

Tkman117 -> RE: Climate Change (3/20/2015 7:52:19 AM)
If science was perfect we would already understand everything in the universe, but we don't. We are not arrogant enough to do so as we once did. In the past, it was heresy to assume that the earth wasn't the centre of the universe, now it is accepted that it isn't. Conclusions based on observations are not just based on the observations alone, but also other established research. If you go to google scholar and find a piece of peer reviewed research, you will see they reference other research in their writings, drawing from their observations and evidence. When 1+2 = 3 there is no room for opinion, and that's the way it is with science. If you have the 1 and another piece of research has the 2, then you can conclude that the answer is 3. Like I said, science builds off itself, and denier "science" isn't science because it doesn't do this. And if others conclude different things, then it is up to them to verify their conclusions are correct by doing further research. This is how science adapts and evolves to establish better understandings. Sometimes their findings are correct, but other times their findings simply back up the research they were inspired from. Thats science; testing and retesting to determine validity. So far, deniers have yet to provide peer reviewed evidence to suggest that their conclusions are more valid than the other 97% of research.

KenDckey -> RE: Climate Change (3/20/2015 8:04:33 AM)
You mean like the EPA saying that there is a need to prove the President's Climate Action Plan, which is already being implemented (early stages I believe) before 4/1/16. http://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_pra_view.cfm?dirEntryID=291975

joether -> RE: Climate Change (3/20/2015 8:08:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey If science were perfect it wouldn't need to adapt and change. It would be perfect. Conclusions based upon observations are opinions. Others look at the same conclusions and determine different things. Sometimes they agree (or close enough) and sometimes they don't. Even when the same datum set was used. If the universe was perfect, would we need to understand it? If it was perfect, would we need a being like God? If it was perfect, would we need government at all? Yes, we dont live in a perfect world. Science does not seek perfection, but religion depends upon it. Science seeks to understand that which is there to understand. A body of evidence, collected by researchers is usually followed by a conclusion. Not really an opinion as the purpose is to explain the data in the most simply manner possible. An opinion, would generally not take the most simple understanding, but one that reinforces one's views and beliefs on the universe. Which is why Creationists get in all sorts of trouble with peer reviewed papers. They insert that the Holy Bible is infallible, so therefore, any evidence that contradicts it, must not be right and therefore thrown out. The sort of conclusions that come from white papers in regards to one scientific theory or another generally have long conclusions. That is because the thought process is usually not a simple one. Often they leave information out, believing the reader has obtain a certain level of experience and knowledge prior to its reading (i.e. a Bachelors of Science or higher). Its not that the papers used unfamiliar words or those not found in a dictionary; its....HOW....they are using those words. A scientific theory is not 'just a guess like a layman's guess', but a well defined explanation of phenomenon that has been observed.

Tkman117 -> RE: Climate Change (3/20/2015 8:09:30 AM)
Hell yes, I mean if the effort is half assed and doesn't actually fix anything while causing harm to the economy for example, then of course it should undergo peer review, and even if it does do good things it still should have undergone an Assessment BEFORE going forward. I really do dislike when projects go ahead before Impact Assessments are implemented to examine the project itself. Regardless of where the goal is to protect the environment or even to build a mine and encourage economic growth, I feel they are both wrong. They need to wait for an Impact/Scientific Assessment like the EPA's before going forward. Jumping the gun is never a good idea.

KenDckey -> RE: Climate Change (3/20/2015 8:14:09 AM)
So what I think you are saying is that a Politician, Making a Political decision, must be peer rewarded by science as good work at his direction. And since the scientists work for him, technically (see Truman - The buck stops here) they must comply.

Tkman117 -> RE: Climate Change (3/20/2015 8:20:40 AM)
No, the project itself needs to be assessed, not the politician (you dont see the researcher being peer reviewed, it's their research). Not to mention such a project would be advised upon by those who work in this field, but thats a discussion for another time. An impact/scientific assessment is meant to determine what kind of outcomes a project would have both on the economy and environment. What a politician foresees as the outcome is not necessarily what the outcome will be, because politicians aren't scientists, and without peer review the government scientists advising the politicians could be wrong or blind to certain outcomes too. I'm not sure how the process works in the states, but in Canada the proponents submit an Environmental Impact statement which is examined both by the government and the public, both are incorporated to make potential changes to the project which prevent potential damages to the local environment while maximizing economic benefits. Again, I don't know enough about this project, but it should have been assessed before going forward, period.

KenDckey -> RE: Climate Change (3/20/2015 8:27:48 AM)
And if they fail to come to the Presidents conclusion they can be fired for insubordinating his directives

Tkman117 -> RE: Climate Change (3/20/2015 8:33:17 AM)
No, if the projects prove significantly damaging to the economy and do not significantly reduce environmental damages (which I assume is the point of the project we're discussing), then the EPA should have the right to tell them to go back to the drawing table, or suggest changes to make the project better. Again, I don't know how the EPA works with relation to the US government, but firing people for not supporting a project like this is nothing less than a conspiracy theory. It's not an all or nothing situation, and claiming it is is just plain ignorance on the matter. From what I do understand, the EPA is a watchdog like our Ministry of the Environment. Although if legislation is put in place weakening the powers of those watchdog ministries (just like our Con PM harper did to some of our legislation), then it may make it more difficult for these government departments to do their job properly, which may be the case here. Again, I'm no genius on US infrastructure, so I'm the wrong guy to ask about this stuff. I know how it should work in Canada, but we're very different countries in terms of infrastructure.

KenDckey -> RE: Climate Change (3/20/2015 8:38:01 AM)
Actually it is a simple equation You have a boss You have a subordinate You have a directive for the subordinate to do from the boss. The math is pretty simple to me.

Page: << < prev 11 12 13 [14] 15 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875