[Vision2020] The green hijack of the Met Office iscripplingBritain

[Art Deco]

Simply having a PhD in any field does not exempt one's work from criticism, even from laypersons.  There are thousands of examples of the works of PhDs in the social sciences whose experimental design errors and misuse of statistical tools is easily apparent to even a moderately sophisticated reader.  Some in the social sciences do not even appear to understand the correct implications of the Central Tendency Theorem, a most basic theorem of statistics, and an indispensable tool for drawing correct conclusions from data sets..

I do not have a PhD in probability, but I have exposed on at least two occasions, serious errors in arguments using probability by such experts.  I have found that such experts do not appreciate such corrections, even though it does advance knowledge in some small way.

Though I do not agree with Rumelhart on his current conclusions about climate change (not only from my reading of the literature, but because of my personal experiences over a life time with ice masses), I do not think his concerns should be dismissed simply because he does not have a PhD in climate science.  Climate science is a relatively new science, or more properly, a combination of several sciences and as such its conclusions/probability statements deserve careful scrutiny, especially since if they are true or highly probable, then serious changes in the way we live on and use the earth seem strongly warranted.

Science progresses in part by discovering errors in previous conclusions/statements of probability.  I do not see Rumelhart as a crackpot, but as one trying to test the truth/probability of statements which have profound implications.  I do think Rumelhart a bit unyielding like some of the rest of use when defending a position that seems less and less tenable as time goes on and more information is gathered.

Time will tell in this dispute who was/is correct, and maybe much sooner than many predict.



Wayne A. Fox
1009 Karen Lane
PO Box 9421
Moscow, ID  83843

waf at moscow.com
208 882-7975




  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Paul Rumelhart 
  To: Joe Campbell 
  Cc: vision2020 at moscow.com 
  Sent: Saturday, January 08, 2011 9:43 AM
  Subject: Re: [Vision2020] The green hijack of the Met Office iscripplingBritain



  Well, I'm glad we've got that all worked out. 

  Paul

  Joe Campbell wrote:
  > Of course he has the right, Tom. Anyone can talk about whatever they
  > wish. I just wouldn't talk about issues of scientific confirmation
  > without a PhD. I'm just expressing my own preference -- what "I
  > wouldn't do."
  >
  > On Sat, Jan 8, 2011 at 9:15 AM, Tom Hansen <thansen at moscow.com> wrote:
  >   
  >> Joe Campbell stated:
  >>
  >> "What I wouldn't do is continue to harp on an area of empirical science
  >> if I lacked a PhD in science, especially if one was available and I
  >> wanted to get a PhD anyway . . . "
  >>
  >> Although I strongly agree with you, Joe, I believe that Mr. Rumelhart has
  >> every right to discuss empirical science.  He simply cannot discuss
  >> empirical science from a position of authority . . . say, like somebody
  >> with a PhD in science can..
  >>
  >> Tom Hansen
  >> Moscow, Idaho
  >>
  >> "The Pessimist complains about the wind, the Optimist expects it to change
  >> and the Realist adjusts his sails."
  >>
  >> - Unknown
  >>
  >>
  >>
  >>     
  >
  >   

  =======================================================
   List services made available by First Step Internet, 
   serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.   
                 http://www.fsr.net                       
            mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
  =======================================================
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20110108/83b34736/attachment.html