rogman wrote:There was a paper on this subject about 10 years ago with respect to the use of statistics in medical studies. This isn't new; and in light of the intervening years, your apocalyptic vision with respect to all of science seems a tad off the mark.
I made no "apocalyptic" pronouncements. The Ioannidis paper simply laid out very SCIENTIFIC and LOGICAL reasons which why MOST scientific research that uses complex data sets (that would include most research in most scientific fields) is likely to be WRONG. I suppose you didn't read the paper when it came out, I did, nor have you to this day had the COURAGE to consider its import.
The Ioannidis paper does what REAL SCIENTISTS do: construct a testable theory which generates predictions. He made predictions about current research which are SUPPORTED by the data presented in the video.
The video basically follows the theme of the Ioannidis paper and EXPLAINS, in clear terms with many concrete examples, how in FACT it turns out that when we look for capacity to REPLICATE current research...the data is AWFUL, as predicted in the paper.
Did you miss that? (You admit you didn't watch the video)
They claim that efforts to REPLICATE "landmark cancer studies" only succeeded in 6 out of 53 cases!
6 out of 53!
in "landmark" cases.
All I am saying is...just because a published study is peer-reviewed does not mean it is correct. Actual evidence says that assuming the conclusions of a study are robust and reproducible is not merited.
So just slow down when you assume that claims that: a "consensus" exists & "the science is settled"... the
best data shows that you are likely to be making an ass of yourself.
This is not me saying (despite your insistence that it is) that the recent results which undermine the replicability of most research means that therefore ALL science is wrong!
It means that we should withhold our certainty to those instances where conclusions have clear merit with no informed dissent. Like most of the corpus of evolutionary theory (and even that without TOTAL certainty)
Your likely response might be that some problems, like a cancer diagnosis, demand immediate response even in the absence of certainty. In many instances I would agree. We often must respond even in the face of a lack to compelling certainty.
BUT...if the doctors recommendation for treatment were wildly traumatic, like cutting off both your legs, you would have every right to hesitate in accepting the treatment.
If the recommended treatment seemed illogical and other doctors (even 3 out of 100) claimed the treatment was dangerous and useless you would be sensible to ask the recommending doctors to answer those claims. If they were unable or refused or to answer the questions...well... would you still submit to a traumatic treatment?
I do not think that the "climate dilemma" demands we accept the "consensus" solution.
We are actually VERY uncertain of the "diagnosis" of cause in the earth's climate system. The recommended response seems both useless (the USA cutting hydrocarbon use is likely to have almost NO impact on climate) and indeed harmful if not traumatic.
It (sharply cutting hydrocarbon fuel use) will delay the progress of humanity towards a future of greater wealth. . Wealthy cultures are better stewards of their environment and more likely to produce the innovations which will bring us towards a technology where we phase out combustion of hydrocarbons.
So like many of the sane posters on this thread (Bubba, Moose, etc) I support investment incentives into research into alternative energy pathways...but... I personally do not accept CAGW (catastrophic anthropogenic global warming) as a well supported theory and reject I many of the draconian measures currently proposed to solve this non-existent problem.
I suspect most climate bed-wetters are really motivated by a rejection of capitalism and modernity. Destroying modern society to help them sleep better seems like the wrong solution. Maybe we could hire nannies for them? Might be cheaper.
Certainly a Venn diagram of anti-capitalists and climate alarmists would have a massive overlap.
The amazing world we live in is almost entirely contingent on the historical and ongoing use of hydrocarbon fuels as an energy source. Those who choose to ignore this and are attempting to end this benefit endanger us all (especially those in cultures which do not yet have access to the miracle of electricity in their homes.) I hope their plans are thwarted.