31–40 of 58 posts
Data from any one weather station can neither prove nor disprove – well – I would guess pretty much anything climate related. The author doesn’t claim any such thing and the article is actually a quite nice read. The headline here stretches the hyperbole of the original headline quite a bit too much, though.
I liked the article. He used an emotionally-charged topic as a hook, didn't take sides, and instead taught me something about a cool language.
Great HN post.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the voting indicates: data, code => cool => upvote statement by some organization with no data, no analysis => boring => downvote
And given the recent breaches of trust amongst the climatologists, this is exactly what is appropriate. Building up open and transparent datasets and models that anyone can work with (or lacking the domain expertise and technical skill, at least be comfortable that somebody can watch over the scientists' shoulders) is exactly what's needed. Another article that trumpets talking points without mentioning all of the ca…
Or maybe you have fallen for the propaganda of the denialists? Anyway, I think usually the actual scientific papers come with data references (otherwise they are indeed useless), but there is also a place for articles that normal people can understand. Not everybody wants or can code up their own verification program for every scientific article they come across.
Maybe you didn't finish the article: he's performing an incorrect analysis on purpose ! "I've made a number of small mistakes and inappropriate design decisions in this post (some deliberate, or at least, some I'm aware of, others are accidental). But, given the published and freely downloadable weather data, the code listed here, and - of course - the excellent free and open source newLISP language, it should be pos…
Since I'm interested in information design (especially right now) I was quite disappointed with the graph he ultimately produced. I'm hoping someone with a bit more time than me takes up his challenge and goes back to correct some of his mistakes (in both analysis and storytelling). I'd rather like to do it myself but I doubt that's going to happen anytime soon.
Ultimately, a compelling story about how we as humans require stories for understanding, and how important it is to verify the stories that we choose to believe.
What's the point of this? All it shows is that someone without scientific training is incapable of drawing conclusions from data out of context; they can't "check for yourself". I tought the only people that don't know this are journalists, bloggers and politicians.
I was thinking about this particular type of ad hominem argument the other day and decided I loathe it. Imagine if people told Plato he couldn't write about philosophy because he didn't go to harvard and get a degree in philosophy. Or tell galileo that he was wrong because he didn't have a degree in astronomy. Valid scientific investigations don't require scientific training. This person, who wrote some code and plot…
Very interestingly, your examples only add to my point. Plato didn't had a degree in philosophy because philosophy was just being "invented"; Socrates (his master, btw) had just brought rigor to the sophists blabering. And Galileo didn't get a degree in astronomy mostly because it didn't exist by then. He did however get one in mathematics and tought astronomy in a university before he made his observations to support Copernicus' model. You see, both men where very far from amateurs giving opinions in a complex field.
> Valid scientific investigations don't require scientific training.
Bulshit. Most of times it does. Particularly in complex matters. That's why the peer review process matters. Numbers don't "speak for themselves"; that's why we talk about "lies, damned lies and statistics".
As a pratical exercise, I'd suggest you, as a "trained computer engineer", to let your projects to be designed and implemented by a non-trained computer engineer. You'd know what I mean.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And given the recent breaches of trust amongst the climatologists, this is exactly what is appropriate. Building up open and transparent datasets and models that anyone can work with (or lacking the domain expertise and technical skill, at least be comfortable that somebody can watch over the scientists' shoulders) is exactly what's needed. Another article that trumpets talking points without mentioning all of the ca…
You imply that by being a scientist, you are untrustworthy, and that being a layperson without expertise makes you trustworthy. This idea seems quite backwards. A lay person can make any sort of corrupt claim without any repercussions. Meanwhile, if a scientist falsifies data and gets caught, their entire career can be lost. Not to mention that scientists generally have no vested monetary interest in the results, des…
Not at all. Being open with your data and methods make you (more) trustworthy. Stonewalling and avoiding disclosure makes you untrustworthy. It has nothing to do with your role, but with how you play it.
if a scientist falsifies data and gets caught, their entire career can be lost.
Which of the East Anglia scientists lost their careers, or even their job? (I understand that there's no real evidence that they falsified data, just some implication. But they were badly unethical.)
Not to mention that scientists generally have no vested monetary interest in the results, despite what people here seem to think. Grant money can only be used for research, not for personal gain.
The continuation of their research is personal gain. A conclusion of "nothing interesting going on here" means they've got to find a new area of research, find new grant sources, etc. If they happen to find evidence of something scary, that gives them job security. I have no proof that they followed this line of thought, but it is definitely a conflict of interest.
That said, virtually anyone involved in the field is there because they've got some passion for it, so probably everyone has some degree of conflict.
The fact that someone made a choice that leads to a lower pay scale does not make them above corruption. You may as well ask me to believe that the NEA's sole concern is teaching kids, rather than preserving their members' benefits.
Maybe you didn't finish the article: he's performing an incorrect analysis on purpose ! "I've made a number of small mistakes and inappropriate design decisions in this post (some deliberate, or at least, some I'm aware of, others are accidental). But, given the published and freely downloadable weather data, the code listed here, and - of course - the excellent free and open source newLISP language, it should be pos…
Little disappointed so many commenters seemed to miss that. I thought that paragraph was the entire lesson, with the preceding material there so this point would sink in. Since I'm interested in information design (especially right now) I was quite disappointed with the graph he ultimately produced. I'm hoping someone with a bit more time than me takes up his challenge and goes back to correct some of his mistakes (i…
If you're interested, his response is here:
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What did you want to say?
HN is an open prairie where conspiracy theories roam wild, free and careless. People here don't respect science and think they're smarter than they really are.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was thinking about this particular type of ad hominem argument the other day and decided I loathe it. Imagine if people told Plato he couldn't write about philosophy because he didn't go to harvard and get a degree in philosophy. Or tell galileo that he was wrong because he didn't have a degree in astronomy. Valid scientific investigations don't require scientific training. This person, who wrote some code and plot…
> Imagine if people told Plato he couldn't write about philosophy because he didn't go to harvard and get a degree in philosophy. Or tell galileo that he was wrong because he didn't have a degree in astronomy. Very interestingly, your examples only add to my point. Plato didn't had a degree in philosophy because philosophy was just being "invented"; Socrates (his master, btw) had just brought rigor to the sophists bl…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Imagine if people told Plato he couldn't write about philosophy because he didn't go to harvard and get a degree in philosophy. Or tell galileo that he was wrong because he didn't have a degree in astronomy. Very interestingly, your examples only add to my point. Plato didn't had a degree in philosophy because philosophy was just being "invented"; Socrates (his master, btw) had just brought rigor to the sophists bl…
Seems to me an a guy who couldn't get hired as a physicist had a rather large effect on physics in 1905. The hiring process is a form of 'peer review'.