[Vision2020] The green hijack of the Met Office iscripplingBritain

Joe Campbell philosopher.joe at gmail.com
Sat Jan 8 15:50:13 PST 2011 

Oops. I'll stop now!

On Sat, Jan 8, 2011 at 3:47 PM, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Joe Campbell wrote:
>>
>> Unlike logic, on which it depends?
>>
>
> Unlike climate science.
>
> Paul
>
>> 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