Siteadmin, Check users, nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO, nsTeam1_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
30,650
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 5:
Line 5: + + + + + + + + + Line 13:
Line 22: − − :They're not science until they're widely accepted. This is why Evolution is science while Intelligent Design isn't (one of the major reasons, at least). After something is published, there is still more than oppurtunity to smash it to pieces. In fact, this is a great way of beginning to capture a Ph.D., by refuting something or proving counter-example to something. − :The McIntyre quote doesn't deserve a contradiction. It's laughable. I'd get into an edit war over this with you, but it's not worth my time; you'd just have the page locked and have me banned. [[User:Stryker|Stryker]] 12:36, 3 July 2007 (EDT) − − ==POV?== − I added this: Peer review is no guarantee of "correctness." It simply means that an article has met certain criteria to be published, including a high quality of work, is not plagiarized, and is based on sound science. Science does not quantify "correctness" and does not "prove" anything, given the un-overcomable limitations of our measuring devices and perceptions. What is "correct" today could be shown to be radically different in the future. − − Please explain how this is POV, while your assertion that journals suppress challenges to established science isn't. Have you even read a scientific journal? '''Journals gain their reputation on challenging the established scientific establishment. People win Nobel prizes for challenging the scientific establishment. People become famous for challenging the scientific establishment.''' However, this is only the case when they're based on '''reality''' and can be demonstratively proven. Perhaps the reason that the vast majority of journals refuse to publish studies attemptign to disprove global climate change is because those studies are shallow, pathetic excuses for scientific work? − − I strongly suggest you refrain from promulgating your opinions on the way science is performed until you take part in scientific research. [[User:Stryker|Stryker]] 12:32, 3 July 2007 (EDT)
to Stryker, with apologies for the edit conflict
:This is a straw man. Nothing is ever "correct" in science, in the sense you mean. Everything is limited by the accuracy of our measuring devices and our ability to theorize and conceptual the subjects. Having replicable results is crucial in something becoming widely accepted. If something is not replicable, it would likely be disputed, and the original researchers will be able to improve their work.
:This is a straw man. Nothing is ever "correct" in science, in the sense you mean. Everything is limited by the accuracy of our measuring devices and our ability to theorize and conceptual the subjects. Having replicable results is crucial in something becoming widely accepted. If something is not replicable, it would likely be disputed, and the original researchers will be able to improve their work.
:Ed, I also suggest you remove that quote from Climateaudit. I can't access the page now at work (it's blocked), but from what I recall, it is '''not''' an objective source. [[User:Stryker|Stryker]] 12:27, 3 July 2007 (EDT)
:Ed, I also suggest you remove that quote from Climateaudit. I can't access the page now at work (it's blocked), but from what I recall, it is '''not''' an objective source. [[User:Stryker|Stryker]] 12:27, 3 July 2007 (EDT)
::This is not the place to argue about the [[Philosophy of science]]. I suggest you start that article yourself! :-)
::If you plan to stick around, I suggest you form the habit of ''checking'' what another person means ''before'' attempting to rebut. Your "Nothing is" statement is unrelated to what McIntyre was saying.
::I do agree about having [[replicable results]]. Please write something about the [[Reproducibility of scientific results]]. Don't worry about the fragmentation or scattering of articles. I'll merge them together, if need be.
::If you want the Climateaudit quote removed, please provide a reason other than ''you'' can't access the page now. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 12:37, 3 July 2007 (EDT)
== Sound science ==
== Sound science ==
If anyone has information which contradicts the McIntyre quote, I hope they will provide it. But not as unsourced opinion, because that is not encyclopedic: that's bias. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 12:30, 3 July 2007 (EDT)
If anyone has information which contradicts the McIntyre quote, I hope they will provide it. But not as unsourced opinion, because that is not encyclopedic: that's bias. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 12:30, 3 July 2007 (EDT)