[Vision2020] The green hijack of the Met Office iscripplingBritain

Joe Campbell philosopher.joe at gmail.com
Sat Jan 8 15:45:59 PST 2011 

Unlike logic, on which it depends?

On Sat, Jan 8, 2011 at 3:42 PM, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Joe Campbell wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>>
>
> Indeed.  Hopefully with coherent, logical arguments describing why you're
> wrong or where you've misunderstood something.  In fact, merely replying
> through email would lend credence to the science of computing devices just
> by itself.  It's a pretty concrete, down-to-earth science.
>
> Paul
>
>> 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
>>>> =======================================================
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

More information about the Vision2020 mailing list