tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9093436161326155359.post255423318985263928..comments2024-03-28T06:43:02.954+00:00Comments on Variable Variability: Climatology is a mature fieldVictor Venemahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02842816166712285801noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9093436161326155359.post-44197827011587447662015-06-26T18:13:59.626+01:002015-06-26T18:13:59.626+01:00This is a beautiful example of a strawman. First e...<a href="https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman" rel="nofollow">This is a beautiful example of a strawman.</a> First exaggerate someone's claim and then attack that exaggeration, which is much easier. <br /><br /><i>Not only is climatology not a mature science, I believe no field is.</i><br /><br />So how would you describe the difference in maturity of scientific fields? Or do you see no difference whatsoever between classical mechanics and climatology? I would argue that classical mechanics is even more mature and think it would be nice to have a word for that. <br /><br /><i>You then go on and make this article about how it's a really good thing to be a mature field</i><br /><br />I am claiming that the basis <b>is</b> mature. Where did I write that it is a good thing? It just is.<br /><br /><i>Who is to say that there will be no revolutions in a certain field?</i><br /><br />Did you read the piece? <br /><br />"There are plenty of new discoveries, even in mature fields."<br /><br />"Calling a field mature does not mean that no discoveries will be made any more, it also does not mean that predictions are perfect and confidence levels are zero. Science is not religion, if you cannot handle uncertainty, you should not be debating science."<br /><br />"That does not mean that no new discoveries are made."<br /><br />Classical mechanics was quite mature before quantum mechanics and relativity came by.Victor Venemahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02842816166712285801noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9093436161326155359.post-29671343482197058302015-06-26T09:13:38.230+01:002015-06-26T09:13:38.230+01:00Despite the awesome chart of misinterpreted scient...Despite the awesome chart of misinterpreted scientific words by the public, there seems to be big another big misunderstanding you glossed over. That would be the phrase "Mature Science/Field", and what it means among scientists.<br /><br />When I hear people speak of a Mature Field they often mean that there is little to be discovered left, it has become very niche, or funding has dried up somehow; not a very positive word to say the least. This seems to be not to far from your own opinion of the word in your original statement, "Climatology is a mature field and new findings will more likely change the complete picture only little". Hard to image getting funding if your not going to change much about our understanding of the complete picture... <br /><br />You then go on and make this article about how it's a really good thing to be a mature field, and great things are happening, and never address this obvious stigma and real debate about mature fields.<br /><br />Besides you're glossing over of the debate, can we really say we understand the whole picture of climatology? Can we really say whether the North Atlantic Circulation will shut off, where the next drought will occur, where the next forest will turn into a desert, what will be the strength and timing of the next El Nino, when the next ice age will occur? Not with much certainty at all, and the idea that the impacts of climate science are the only uncertainties is ambiguous and misleading. <br /><br />Not only is climatology not a mature science, I believe no field is. I think the term is used by scientists to refer to fields that are not there own as being inferior because they can't see the use in discovering any more; which is kind of naive. Who is to say that there will be no revolutions in a certain field? Only someone who knows everything there is to know about that field; I think few would be so confident to say that they had even close to that knowledge about any field.Richard Standsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9093436161326155359.post-73718271410147539222014-05-19T17:34:04.834+01:002014-05-19T17:34:04.834+01:00I would guess that claiming "gate keeping&quo...I would guess that claiming "gate keeping" is a forced move for the climate "sceptics". Once you claim that mainstream science is wrong and you have the better explanations, you have to explain why your "better" "science" is not in the scientific literature.<br /><br />Up to now I have not seem convincing evidence of gate keeping. There is a stupid stolen email in "Climategate" about keeping an article from the scientific literature (gate keeping did not work :-) ) out of the IPCC report (but in was in the report).<br /><br />And now we have Bengtssongate (let's keep on deflating the term gate :-) ) with the claim of a suppressed manuscript. Not only is this not supported by the two published reviews, which give <a href="http://ioppublishing.org/newsDetails/statement-from-iop-publishing-on-story-in-the-times" rel="nofollow">many scientific reasons why the manuscript is flawed</a>, now also <a href="http://desmogblog.com/2014/05/18/climate-journal-chief-editor-responds-bengtsson" rel="nofollow">Bengtsson himself admits that this is not a sign of gate keeping</a>, but completely normal scientific practise. Some selective journals only publish a few percent of the submitted manuscripts, then you move on an go to the next one if the reviews were not too damning. <br /><br />Two small corrections: <i>"First, the point you have often made, that there is a hierarchy of knowledge in science. Older, established ideas cannot simply be overturned in the way new theories or findings can."</i><br /><br />Older ideas (hypothesis, theories) can be simply overturned, even if it becomes less likely with time. My main argument was that this does not mean that much of our understanding of the study topic is suddenly wrong. A new theory more typically adds to our understanding rather than destroy previous understanding (completely).<br /><br /><i>Second, that a person must demonstrate they understand the fundamentals, before they can expect equal time from people who have already put in that work. </i><br /><br /><a href="http://variable-variability.blogspot.com/2014/04/debatable-scientific-questions-climate-debate.html" rel="nofollow">It is good scientific practise to do so</a>. And it surely helps an idea gain credibility and it thus helps credible people investing their time to study the idea. It also makes it much more likely for you to see the strengths and weaknesses of your idea and to present it better. However, I would not go as far as to say that it is mandatory. It is helpful. Victor Venemahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02842816166712285801noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9093436161326155359.post-17021067127448406122014-05-12T03:28:24.115+01:002014-05-12T03:28:24.115+01:00Victor, thanks for another interesting post. I thi...Victor, thanks for another interesting post. I think your explanation of why Judith Curry likes the word 'uncertainty' so much is right on the money, and kudos to Dan for the Asimov link -it's a beauty.<br /><br />For me, the most striking feature of the discussions between you and those at Climate Etc. is the strong theme of 'gatekeeping', with you perceived as putting up the gate around science, and the bloggers perceiving themselves as demanding entry. <br /><br />It seems to me this rests on certain ideas of how much work a person should do in order to earn entitlement to participate in the debate. Your exchanges with Steven and Burl really illustrate this:<br /><br />Steven and Burl seem to think they have already done enough work, that their viewpoints deserve due respect -and you of course, imply "no, you guys haven't done enough work, so taking you seriously is giving you too much credit"<br /><br />There are two themes here, that I suspect are equally distasteful to the denizens of Climate Etc, and the other crowd science blogs:<br /><br />First, the point you have often made, that there is a hierarchy of knowledge in science. Older, established ideas cannot simply be overturned in the way new theories or findings can. <br /><br />Second, that a person must demonstrate they understand the fundamentals, before they can expect equal time from people who have already put in that work. <br /><br />Neither of these are 'democratic' in the naive 'you don't have a right to refuse me a seat at your table' way that we endlessly see on the net nowadays. But both of these are surely preconditions for any serious and reliable science to be possible. At the end of the day, it is the difference between citizenship as a claim of entitlement (as though citizenship were a consumable), and citizenship as a responsibility to contribute. <br /><br /><br /><br /> Mark Ryannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9093436161326155359.post-85880647978885981512014-05-06T21:22:48.749+01:002014-05-06T21:22:48.749+01:00Nevertheless, it's good to rattle folks once i...Nevertheless, it's good to rattle folks once in a while, just to check if they are awake.<br /><br />Keep up the good work Victor.<br /><br />citizenschallengehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04559990934735912814noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9093436161326155359.post-23108801072475983322014-05-06T13:44:22.860+01:002014-05-06T13:44:22.860+01:00Victor, I suggest you put the word "manure&qu...Victor, I suggest you put the word "manure" in ironic quotation marks.Lars Karlssonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06158469980966810882noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9093436161326155359.post-52603514363169839582014-05-06T13:23:42.658+01:002014-05-06T13:23:42.658+01:00Thanks Dan, that is a beautiful text by Asimov. Go...Thanks Dan, that is a <a href="http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm" rel="nofollow">beautiful text by Asimov</a>. Good to hear it from someone outside of the climate "debate": <i>Copernicus switched from an earth-centered planetary system to a sun-centered one. In doing so, he switched from something that was obvious to something that was apparently ridiculous. However, it was a matter of finding better ways of calculating the motion of the planets in the sky, and eventually the geocentric theory was just left behind. It was precisely because the old theory gave results that were fairly good by the measurement standards of the time that kept it in being so long. ...<br />Naturally, the theories we now have might be considered wrong in the simplistic sense of my English Lit correspondent, but in a much truer and subtler sense, they need only be considered incomplete.</i><br /><br />Lars, that is a small pun on the quality of the comments at Climate Etc. I will reduce the number of instances to make the post a bit more readable.Victor Venemahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02842816166712285801noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9093436161326155359.post-54366414367948271142014-05-06T10:21:04.800+01:002014-05-06T10:21:04.800+01:00I suspect that you in a number of places write &qu...I suspect that you in a number of places write "manure" when you mean "mature", like in "What makes a scientific field manure?" Maybe its on purpose, but it gets a bit confusing.Lars Karlssonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06158469980966810882noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9093436161326155359.post-25805925511951628932014-05-06T10:07:12.357+01:002014-05-06T10:07:12.357+01:00Seems a good time to point to Asimov's Great e...Seems a good time to point to Asimov's Great essay on the relativity of wrong<br />http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htmScruffyDanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16713742939840041196noreply@blogger.com