A first-hand report on Michael Mann’s disengenuous and unhappy visit to the Happiest Place On Earth.
[Update a while later]
LOL. I just noticed the graphic over there.
7 thoughts on ““The Consensus Is What We Follow In Science””
Comments are closed.
A first-hand report on Michael Mann’s disengenuous and unhappy visit to the Happiest Place On Earth.
[Update a while later]
LOL. I just noticed the graphic over there.
Comments are closed.
This seems to confirm the importance of unbiased peer review. Not that anything can be unbiased. The need to censor critics is a clear indication of a problem.
In music, they sometimes use a blind audition process to hire new orchestra members. The panel listening to each musician can’t see him play. They only judge him by his musical talent, not appearance or any other factor. Perhaps we need to go to a blind peer review process where the reviewer doesn’t know who wrote the paper being evaluated. This might eliminate some of the bias. It isn’t a perfect solution, I know, but it might be better than the current process.
“The Consensus Is What We Follow In Science”
I’ll admit to having been out of school a LOOOONNNNGGG time. But I don’t remember ‘consensus’ being one of the steps of scientific method.
In the new scientific method, the “peer review” step was added right after “experiment” so that “peers” can tell the experimenter what he really saw, get it?
In the normal development of science, other researchers replicate (or not) the results of the discoverers. Based on that, people either come to agree or disagree with a new theory. When a lot of them agree, one might say there’s a consensus. But I haven’t seen a lot of replication goin’ on out there. And the “agreement” seems to be based on intimidation, rather than evaluation of evidence and replication of results. Certainly, Mann et al wish to strong-arm people into belief, rather than convince them with sound data and sound theory.
If climatology, as these buffoons practice it, is allowed to stand as science then playing Sim Ant should qualify someone for a PhD in entymology.
Consensus is useful if you need the work of science outside your own speciality. Go with what the best minds in that field believe and apply them to your own work in a different field. But in your own speciality, shouldn’t your every effort be to challenge the consensus?