<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.18999">
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT size=2>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..</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Time will tell in this dispute who was/is correct, and maybe
much sooner than many predict.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV><FONT size=2>
<DIV><BR>Wayne A. Fox<BR>1009 Karen Lane<BR>PO Box 9421<BR>Moscow, ID
83843</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><A href="mailto:waf@moscow.com">waf@moscow.com</A><BR>208
882-7975<BR></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT: 10pt arial; BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=godshatter@yahoo.com href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com">Paul
Rumelhart</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=philosopher.joe@gmail.com
href="mailto:philosopher.joe@gmail.com">Joe Campbell</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Cc:</B> <A title=vision2020@moscow.com
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Saturday, January 08, 2011 9:43
AM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [Vision2020] The green
hijack of the Met Office iscripplingBritain</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV><BR>Well, I'm glad we've got that all worked out.
<BR><BR>Paul<BR><BR>Joe Campbell wrote:<BR>> Of course he has the right,
Tom. Anyone can talk about whatever they<BR>> wish. I just wouldn't talk
about issues of scientific confirmation<BR>> without a PhD. I'm just
expressing my own preference -- what "I<BR>> wouldn't do."<BR>><BR>>
On Sat, Jan 8, 2011 at 9:15 AM, Tom Hansen <<A
href="mailto:thansen@moscow.com">thansen@moscow.com</A>>
wrote:<BR>> <BR>>> Joe Campbell
stated:<BR>>><BR>>> "What I wouldn't do is continue to harp on an
area of empirical science<BR>>> if I lacked a PhD in science, especially
if one was available and I<BR>>> wanted to get a PhD anyway . . .
"<BR>>><BR>>> Although I strongly agree with you, Joe, I believe
that Mr. Rumelhart has<BR>>> every right to discuss empirical
science. He simply cannot discuss<BR>>> empirical science from a
position of authority . . . say, like somebody<BR>>> with a PhD in
science can..<BR>>><BR>>> Tom Hansen<BR>>> Moscow,
Idaho<BR>>><BR>>> "The Pessimist complains about the wind, the
Optimist expects it to change<BR>>> and the Realist adjusts his
sails."<BR>>><BR>>> -
Unknown<BR>>><BR>>><BR>>><BR>>>
<BR>><BR>>
<BR><BR>=======================================================<BR> List
services made available by First Step Internet, <BR> serving the
communities of the Palouse since 1994.
<BR>
<A
href="http://www.fsr.net">http://www.fsr.net</A>
<BR> <A
href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com</A><BR>=======================================================<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>