Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

To an alarming degree, science is not self-correcting

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 145 posts

Re: To an alarming degree, science is not self-correcting

#51

Post by mnemonicsloth »

timr wrote: post #33
frogpelt wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where did this article mention climate change? If you agree with every fact in the article, why would you look for a hidden agenda? Your comment makes you seem a bit paranoid.

It didn't mention climate change. I know from past experience that this line of argument -- indeed, any that casts doubt on scientific research -- is a favorite of the "climate skeptic" world. Moreover, I know that the Economist has a center-right political bias. Maybe they're advocating for something specific here (it's honestly unclear), but given that the Economist almost never writes anything of substance about s…

Evidently you don't consume the Economist very often.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2013/09/ipcc-climate-...

To put it in the language you seem to prefer, Bill O'Reilly thinks the Economist leans left. I disagree with Mr. O'Reilly's employers and will not send them traffic, but support for this claim is easily googled.

ETA: The link above is more flip than I'd like. Try this:

http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21587224-all-means-que...

Re: To an alarming degree, science is not self-correcting

#52

Post by crassus »

timr wrote: post #50
crassus wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hacker News has climate change "denialists" because climate models are terrible at predicting global temperature[1][2]. Once scientists gain the ability to make accurate predictions, more logic-minded hackers will go along. Hackers like predictive models with a good track record, a la Nate Silver. They dislike emotional bullying. [1] http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/14/90-climate-model-proje... [2] http://www.econo…

It's quite clear that "hackers" don't understand enough about the research to make informed criticisms. Cherry picking two measurements of temperature data does not make for a convincing rebuttal against the overwhelming independent lines of evidence summarized in (among other places), the IPCC reports.

Ah yes. I need to listen to authority and ignore the fact that observed data are falling out the bottom side of their models' 95% confidence intervals. This is how science is done in the modern age.

Re: To an alarming degree, science is not self-correcting

#53

Post by mattdmrs »

crassus wrote: post #42
saraid216 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It sort of amuses me that there are HN climate change denialists, but there aren't really any HN creationists.

Hacker News has climate change "denialists" because climate models are terrible at predicting global temperature[1][2]. Once scientists gain the ability to make accurate predictions, more logic-minded hackers will go along. Hackers like predictive models with a good track record, a la Nate Silver. They dislike emotional bullying. [1] http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/14/90-climate-model-proje... [2] http://www.econo…

One can argue that science will always have a hard time constructing an accurate model for predicting weather, because of its inherent humongous complexity and nonlinear behavior:

> [...] we provide a number of illustrative examples and highlight key mechanisms that give rise to nonlinear behavior, address scale and methodological issues, suggest a robust alternative to prediction that is based on using integrated assessments within the framework of vulnerability studies and, lastly, recommend a number of research priorities and the establishment of education programs in Earth Systems Science.

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/B:CLIM.0000037493.8...

Re: To an alarming degree, science is not self-correcting

#54

Post by Fomite »

TillE wrote: post #43
saraid216 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It sort of amuses me that there are HN climate change denialists, but there aren't really any HN creationists.

It makes sense, though. AGW denialism is very much a part of "pro-business" ideology, because it's uncomfortable to accept things that don't align with your worldview, even when there's a mountain of evidence behind it. HN has no particular attraction for fundamentalist Christians.

Indeed - there's very little money to be made from the Intelligent Designer, so there's little to no appeal. Climate change raises the specter of regulation.

Re: To an alarming degree, science is not self-correcting

#55

Post by jlgreco »

saraid216 wrote: post #37
timr wrote: post #24

What a weird article. I agree with nearly every individual fact within it, but after reading it, I still don't know the point of the piece. I don't want to jump to conclusions, but given that this piece is mostly criticism of science the part of me that associates "conservatives" with "anti-intellectual reactionaries" suspects a hidden agenda to undermine science or give climate change "skeptics" something to point a…

It sort of amuses me that there are HN climate change denialists, but there aren't really any HN creationists.

There are a few, but they tend to keep pretty quite. HN tolerates creationism/evolution denialism far less than it tolerates climate change denialism.

Re: To an alarming degree, science is not self-correcting

#56

Post by guscost »

timr wrote: post #50
crassus wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hacker News has climate change "denialists" because climate models are terrible at predicting global temperature[1][2]. Once scientists gain the ability to make accurate predictions, more logic-minded hackers will go along. Hackers like predictive models with a good track record, a la Nate Silver. They dislike emotional bullying. [1] http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/14/90-climate-model-proje... [2] http://www.econo…

It's quite clear that "hackers" don't understand enough about the research to make informed criticisms. Cherry picking two measurements of temperature data does not make for a convincing rebuttal against the overwhelming independent lines of evidence summarized in (among other places), the IPCC reports.

Argumentum ad verecundiam.

Re: To an alarming degree, science is not self-correcting

#57

Post by ceras »

timr wrote: post #33
frogpelt wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where did this article mention climate change? If you agree with every fact in the article, why would you look for a hidden agenda? Your comment makes you seem a bit paranoid.

It didn't mention climate change. I know from past experience that this line of argument -- indeed, any that casts doubt on scientific research -- is a favorite of the "climate skeptic" world. Moreover, I know that the Economist has a center-right political bias. Maybe they're advocating for something specific here (it's honestly unclear), but given that the Economist almost never writes anything of substance about s…

I am a "liberal" and a huge fan of The Economist. I don't find this to be an accurate assessment. Someone else already linked to their climate change stance, and in my experience their economic stances are generally supported in the academic community.

Re: To an alarming degree, science is not self-correcting

#58

Post by guscost »

timr wrote: post #24

What a weird article. I agree with nearly every individual fact within it, but after reading it, I still don't know the point of the piece. I don't want to jump to conclusions, but given that this piece is mostly criticism of science the part of me that associates "conservatives" with "anti-intellectual reactionaries" suspects a hidden agenda to undermine science or give climate change "skeptics" something to point a…

Thanks for avoiding the strawman "denier" nonsense, but I think you're looking for the phrase "CAGW-informed-legislation critics."

Why would a rational person criticize the assumption that climate changes?

Re: To an alarming degree, science is not self-correcting

#59

Post by [deleted] »

tokenadult wrote: post #14

This is an excellent overview article on an important topic. It mentions many of the most influential authors on the topic of accuracy of scientific publications. Hacker News readers may enjoy "Warning Signs in Experimental Design and Interpretation"[1] by Peter Norvig, a LISP hacker who is now director of research at Google, on how to interpret scientific research. Norvig's essay is my all-time favorite link to shar…

[deleted]

Re: To an alarming degree, science is not self-correcting

#60

Post by saraid216 »

guscost wrote: post #56
timr wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's quite clear that "hackers" don't understand enough about the research to make informed criticisms. Cherry picking two measurements of temperature data does not make for a convincing rebuttal against the overwhelming independent lines of evidence summarized in (among other places), the IPCC reports.

Argumentum ad verecundiam.

Not actually a fallacy, even the informal kind, despite the Latin name.
Post reply on HN