[Vision2020] The green hijack of the Met Office iscripplingBritain

Sat Jan 8 15:27:27 PST 2011

Yes. I'm evaluating your ARGUMENTS. I have a BA in Mathematics and a
PhD in philosophy. My areas of specialization are philosophical logic
and epistemology (the theory of knowledge). I took 5 logic courses
getting my BA and another 3 getting my PhD, which I received from the
University of Arizona. At the time it had the best epistemology
program in the country. I've been teaching logic and related subjects
for over 20 years.

So yes I'm qualified to say that your over the top, over general
arguments are full of crap. I don't need a PhD in climate science to
know that you could not possibly support your wild claims with the
scant evidence you've offered. I just need to know a bit about logic
and in fact I know a lot.

Sorry but if I were to make the kinds of wild claims about computer
science that you make about climate science, you'd be all over my ass
as well.

On Sat, Jan 8, 2011 at 3:12 PM, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Do you have the qualifications necessary to evaluate my claims?  Do you have
> a PhD in climate science or a related field?
>
> ;)
>
> Paul
>
> Joe Campbell wrote:
>>
>> 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
>>> =======================================================
>>>
>>>
>>
>> =======================================================
>>  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
>> =======================================================
>>
>>
>
>