[Vision2020] The green hijack of the Met Office iscripplingBritain

[Joe Campbell]

I hope you're not responding to my post. I didn't say anything close
to the point you're responding to. I criticize PhDs for a living. In
fact, MOST PhDs criticize other PhDs for a living. So of course having
a PhD cannot exempt one from criticism. And of course you don't need a
PhD to criticize someone who has one (see my recent post to get
clearer about what I actually said wrt this issue).

I do think that some of Paul's claims are at least close to being
crackpot claims. He is dismissing the prevailing view amongst
scientists in the know and in the process more or less dismissing an
entire field of study, and related fields as well. I'll repeat what I
said before: you would need to do more than read a few journal
articles, read a lot of blogs, and refute a handful of studies to
support the claims he makes. That is just a fact of logic.

I agree with your last few points. I'd even go so far as to say that
the kind of skepticism about this "new field" is healthy. But someone
needs to point out that his claims are radically unsupported by his
arguments.

On Sat, Jan 8, 2011 at 1:14 PM, Art Deco <deco at moscow.com> wrote:
> 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
> =======================================================
>
> =======================================================
>  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
> =======================================================
>