tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5337555368793819627.post5506655904936970514..comments2023-06-07T09:04:36.390-04:00Comments on More Grumbine Science: Nonscience and pseudoscienceRobert Grumbinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10783453972811796911noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5337555368793819627.post-68445962700493521482009-03-11T11:34:00.000-04:002009-03-11T11:34:00.000-04:00If your interest, and claim, is about what science...If your interest, and claim, is about what science had to say, you back that with observations of the science -- scientific publications, as the Peterson, Connolley, and Fleck article did, and Connolley's web pages have. And as Will did not. You further don't lie about what a source said, as Will did, for example about the <A HREF="http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/2009/02/28/ice-ice-baby-when-fact-checking-is-not-fact-checking/" REL="nofollow">1975 New York Times article</A>.<BR/><BR/>You also talk of press releases. You should read the articles, even the media articles. All or nearly all are media reporters looking for a quote from a scientist -- not the scientist looking for media. Given that I didn't, even 35 years ago, believe that all reporters quoted all scientists (or anyone else) accurately at all times, the media reports never impressed me as saying much of substance.<BR/><BR/>Time has passed and even people who don't have local public libraries that carry Science and Nature can still get, by way of blogs from scientists, answers direct from scientists. But 35 years ago, I did ok with Science, Nature, Science Digest, Scientific American. These days, Discover.Robert Grumbinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10783453972811796911noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5337555368793819627.post-63760594186619358502009-03-10T18:05:00.000-04:002009-03-10T18:05:00.000-04:00Bob, I readily admit if there is no evidence for s...Bob, I readily admit if there is no evidence for something then the concept is unscientific. But if there is evidence, that does not make it scientific. There is some evidence for biorythms, and a flat earth but they are both unscientific. The existence of evidence on its own is not sufficient.<BR/><BR/>Will is using the correct definition. The scientists are charged with telling the public that an ice age was imminent. Some did. As you say, I have a lot of company on that issue. <BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1175%2F2008BAMS2370.1" REL="nofollow">Peterson <I>et al.</I></A> say "An enduring popular myth suggests that in the 1970s the climate science community was predicting “global cooling” and an “imminent” ice age, an observation frequently used by those who would undermine what climate scientists say today about the prospect of global warming." It was no myth. It is documented by Wiiliam Connolley <A HREF="http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/" REL="nofollow">here</A>. But he moves the goal posts by adding "in scientific journals." The general public do not read scientific journals. They read newspapers, and if the scientist were issuing press releases then they were guilty. <BR/><BR/>George Will presented evidence of newspaper and magazine articles. Are you claiming the journalists made that up? <BR/><BR/>It is easy to see in the excerpt above from the abstract of Peterson <I>et al.</I> the motive for their paper is to counter "those who would undermine what climate scientists say today about the prospect of global warming." But they are doing quite the opposite by presenting sceptics, like Will, with an obvious case of a scientific paper with a political spin.<BR/><BR/>It may be worth pointing out that not everything in the scientific cannon is true. For me, science is what has been proved to be true, not whether it has been written by scientists.Alastairhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15152292130415788120noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5337555368793819627.post-72063899621771025092009-03-10T07:46:00.000-04:002009-03-10T07:46:00.000-04:00Alastair: If there is no evidence in favor of some...Alastair: If there is no evidence in favor of something, and you believe it anyhow, then it isn't science. That's the 'sharable evidence' part of my definition.<BR/><BR/>You're also falling for Will's misdirection. You have a lot of company. The thing is, the claim is about what scientists believed and were saying. But his evidence, like yours, is popular media, not scientists. The research I linked to gave the summary of what was actually in the science at the time. What was in the media was rather different. But Will's claim was about science, not media.Robert Grumbinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10783453972811796911noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5337555368793819627.post-83585588350515620922009-03-09T19:57:00.000-04:002009-03-09T19:57:00.000-04:00Bob,I know little about biorhythms, and never both...Bob,<BR/>I know little about biorhythms, and never bothered to find out more because they always seemed a load of pseudo-science to me. My point is that it is not possible to use lack of evidence to dismiss them because evidence does exist. <BR/><BR/>I have a <A HREF="http://complexclimate.blogspot.com/2009/03/i-placed-long-comment-on-bob-grumbines.html" REL="nofollow">longer criticism</A> on my blog.<BR/><BR/>I started going backwards in time through your "weeding sources" and the first that seemed relevant was on George Will. But you picked the wrong culprit for pseudo-science. The authors of the paper which "proved" that there had not been an ice age scare are the real culprits. I lived through that time, and a friend of mine in Scotland moved house to a lower altitude as a result of it. As I wrote in my blog, the problem is that mathematicians cannot believe that scientists can make mistakes. <BR/><BR/>Cheers, Alastair.Alastairhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15152292130415788120noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5337555368793819627.post-74752565535094321122009-03-08T21:10:00.000-04:002009-03-08T21:10:00.000-04:00Think more on the split. It comes from studying a...Think more on the split. It comes from studying a lot of pseudoscience also, reading Randi, etc. I just observe a strong difference between:<BR/><BR/>1) I have an idea B, and as a side-effect, it invalidates well-established theory A.<BR/><BR/>and<BR/><BR/>2) Theory A *cannot* be right, will not be right no matter what data there is, and here are 5 different (often conflicting) pseudo-science ideas (B, C, D, E, F) also, and besides A is a conspiracy, and anyway, we have a Googol signatures saying A is wrong, etc, etc.<BR/><BR/>Of course there is some overlap, but tactics for dealing with them can be fairly different.John Masheyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17786354229618237133noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5337555368793819627.post-66984846380973164722009-03-08T16:42:00.000-04:002009-03-08T16:42:00.000-04:00Alastair: the cycles you refer to are known, and n...Alastair: the cycles you refer to are known, and not nearly as precise as you seem to think. But the key for the ones I'm referring to is that they were <I>exactly</I> on some specified periods (23, 28, 31 days), accurate to better than 1 day per 70 years. The 28 day cycle of women's you mention is often not 28 days, often not regular, and often can be shut down entirely (say by illness or excessive exercise), none of which are properties claimed for the biorhythm business (vs. real rhythms such as studied by <A HREF="http://scienceblogs.com/clock" REL="nofollow">coturnix</A> and others).<BR/><BR/>For some links to pseudoscience on climate, check out the 'weeding sources' keyword on the right hand side and the sources being discussed there.<BR/><BR/>John: Hmm. In terms of classifications, I'm a lumper rather than splitter. That is, I try to keep minimal numbers of categories. I'm not sure that we really need a 4th for the anti-science group you're discussing. I think they fall perfectly well into pseudoscience. Your examples remind us that pseudoscience can be committed by scientists. But I do like the <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnotology" REL="nofollow">agnotology</A> term and its write up on wikipedia. Have to think about it some more.Robert Grumbinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10783453972811796911noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5337555368793819627.post-61711106422333602132009-03-07T22:23:00.000-05:002009-03-07T22:23:00.000-05:00Actually, I think there's one category missing, I'...Actually, I think there's one category missing, I'd add d) to your three.<BR/><BR/>a) Science<BR/>b) Non-Science<BR/>c) Pseudo-science<BR/>d) Anti-science (whose study is sometimes called agnotology)<BR/><BR/>The distinction, to me, is that people engaged in pseudo-science think they have an explanation for something, and it doesn't work, and data doesn't support it, and for it to be true may well requires overturning big chunks of well-established science.<BR/><BR/>Anti-science tries to make some elements of science just disappear, typically by creating doubt, and sometimes by employing the results of pseudo-science. The latter is especially amusing when someone doing anti-science points at several mutually-contradictory pseudo-science efforts to cause confusion about real science.<BR/><BR/>Hence, in climate, I think Svensmark's ideas on cosmic rays might have been non-science, but have more likely moved into pseudo-science. Likewise Abdusamatov on solar causes, and I think Jaworowski on CO2, and a few others.<BR/><BR/>These might be called "scientist with an idea that just doesn't make it", but they stick to it long after the evidence against it is overpowering."<BR/><BR/>I'd say that in climate, anti-science is much more prevalent, and sometimes use pseudo-science arguments as well, or point at them.John Masheyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17786354229618237133noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5337555368793819627.post-14385181363625751502009-03-07T08:04:00.000-05:002009-03-07T08:04:00.000-05:00It is not the amount or even the existence of evid...It is not the amount or even the existence of evidence that produces a scientific idea. For instance, the average man is presented with overwhelming evidence daily to support the thesis that the Earth is flat. It is only when he goes to the sea shore, and can see the masts of distant ships but not their hulls that there is any direct evidence for the curvature of the surface of the Earth. How often does anyone do that?<BR/><BR/>Of course there is other evidence that the Earth is spherical. For instance, it is possible to sail or fly around the Earth. Only a very small percentage of my aquaintances have done that. Or it is possible to look down from a satellite and see that the Earth is a globe. Neither I, nor anyone I know has done that. <BR/><BR/>Over 99% of the evidence that I have points to the Earth being flat. It is only from indirect evidence that I have learnt from others, such as stories of Copernicus, which persuades me otherwise. <BR/><BR/>Biorythms are a scientific fact. Our mood changes on a daily basis, with a feeling of tiredness every late evening. Women have a 28 day mood swing which we men tend to not to discuss. But mood is not only affected by time. These cycles can be disturbed by events such as imbibing of too much alchohol, news of an unfaithful lover, or jet lag from a long air flight. But the diurnal biorythm still exists. It is just that it has been perturbed. <BR/><BR/>The apparent flatness of the Earth, and biorythms are just casualties of our modern frenetic life styles.<BR/><BR/>You wrote "Pseudoscience is unfortunately common when you start looking for information about climate." A few examples please. I tend to accept evidence, whether it comes from sceptics or believers. Evidence is evidence. I am sure you agree :-)<BR/><BR/>Cheers, Alastair.Alastairhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15152292130415788120noreply@blogger.com