Email Subscribe
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming! Please help with a gift by clicking the button below.
-
Recent Posts
Recent Comments
- Frank on Erasing The 1940s Blip
- conrad ziefle on Erasing The 1940s Blip
- Vegieman on Al Gore’s Nobel Prize
- Disillusioned on Erasing The 1940s Blip
- Greg in NZ on “multiple lines of evidence”
Archives
- November 2022
- October 2022
- September 2022
- August 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- March 2015
- January 2015
Science Is The Belief In The Ignorance Of The Experts
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.
Tony do you have an email address where I can send a question to? Thanks
A Cox by name and by nature. Always be wary of the ‘rock star’ mentality, achieved or thwarted (as in the case of Tony Blair). It isn’t about the science or the politics for these people, it’s just a vehicle for their ego.
For these people it is about ‘to be or not to be’ a celebrity and not about honesty. He has seen what happens to those on the wrong side of the consensus. For this temporary fame he will have no place in history other than a traitor of science.
Not sure if this fits here, but just seen this on Twitter.
If not feel free to delete.
https://twitter.com/Ruptly/status/1212068104601317376
Just wondering if you’ve ever seen this:
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2009/11/crus_source_code_climategate_r.html
Seems to get into what’s been going on for a while now…
Keep up the good work, Tony!
There are some matters of definition.
First, I actually DO trust experts, but I’m sure not going to let others tell me who they are, especially newscasters who claim to be expert at telling us who’s an expert. Someone who has enough expertise to clearly and cogently eplain why they believe something to be true is an expert to me (Lindzen). After all, f I can’t understand their explanation, why would I regard them as expert? The only other way, when the topic becomes too difficult (and climate science hasn’t), is to observe them in debate with someone who believes the opposite (here I put Curry and Happer). Style alone invariably exposes who is reasoning honestly and who is propagandizing and dodging the meat of the issue. NOT Michael Mann, for sure, nor Brian Cox above, who simply argues by assertion.
Second, there’s an attempt to create a consensus that there is even a consensus on climate. To anyone making this claim, I’d ask them exactly what sort of survey backs up this idea. In particular: What questions were asked? Who was queried? Was the ballot secret?
People who take things based on expertise or consensu, without asking why, are easy to fool.
Consensus IS required in science for stability’s sake, but the catch is that they’re continually being replaced. Please read Thomas Kuhn. I also recommend the story of Ignaz Semmelweis, whose historicity was actually a fluke.
But NOT consensus at the point of a sword like we have so often.
When a “theory” becomes a “law,” then it’s time for consensus. We have the “Laws of Thermodynamics,” but I am not familiar with the laws of CC. lol
I agree, Archie, which is I talked about Kuhn’s “paradigm shift”. We gotta find a way to make the contrary evidence known to the world at large.
I *have* read Kuhn’s ‘Structure of Scientific Revolutions’ – and I don’t think much of it.
For a start, it is a jumbled mess of a book and hard-work to read. (Its 200 – 300 pages feel like 2000 by the time you’re through.) One of the few people to ever interview Khun wrote “his speech was as profoundly tangled, as suffused with subjunctives and qualifiers, as his prose”. In my experience, clear prose is a reliable indication of clear thinking; while jumbled unclear prose goes with confused thought processes.
Richard Feynman, by contrast, wrote (in a 4-page address titled “Cargo Cult Science”) a very clear and succinct account of what science ‘is’ and ‘isn’t’; what it ‘should be’ and ‘should not be’; ‘how it should be done’ and ‘how it should not be done’.
Feynman was a real scientist who worked right at the cutting edge of science all his life – at the forefront of a “scientific revolution” even. He knew what it takes to do science properly and successfully – AND he had actual first hand experience of a scientific revolution. In short he knew what he was talking about. Kuhn did not. Instead he relied on four historical case studies; Copernicus, Newton, Lavoisier and Einstein – none of which were typical of post WW2 scientific practice.
Feynman was a top-notch genius. Kuhn was not. (His rich Daddy had bought him a very expensive education and he was going to flaunt it for all it was worth.)
Secondly Kuhn’s study was not done in a scientific way – which is strange in a book that is supposedly all about science. It has a sub-text running through it which indicates that it was motivated and initiated by strong prejudices and “pet-hates”. His pet-hates included: Popper’s “Logic of Scientific Discovery”; anything “Baconian”(I suspect this really means the Scientific Method itself); and a “Whiggish” view of science and history.
Thirdly . . . well that’s enough for now. My “critique” is a bit of an on-going project.
I never knew, Calvert, but you can’t blame him for hating “Whiggish”. It’s a popular tactic for propagandists be they British Whigs or Russian Bolsheviks. I have nothing to discredit your criticism, but I will say this again. Science needs consensus for stability, but it must also always be ready for reformation, but the problem is that climatologists are extinct or at best few and far between. Newspapers are at the bidding of opportunistic politicians and corporates climbing and staying on top of the social ladder.
A book has come out recently titled “The Ashtray” – written by a former student of Kuhn’s who dared to contradict the man and found himself on the receiving end of the titular object.
Just fantastic again Tony!
I’m so pleased you’ve highlighted that ABC ‘Q&A’ session where Brian Cox produced that fraudulently manipulated chart which you have debunked many times, to confront someone who does not claim to be an ‘expert’, but who I know to have the necessary background experience and expertise and to have put in a huge amount of REAL research into the climate SCAM – Australian Senator Malcolm Roberts.
And then we see poor deluded Greta Thunberg, shamelessly manipulated by others who have – quite obviously – criminally taken advantage of her autism to produce a figure to help to manipulate and frighten young people.
Hmmmm ….. I wonder where that has happened comparatively recently? (And look where that got everybody?)
Well, it’s 2020 and I’m still here! No climate change catastrophes to report here in Central Indiana. A happy, healthy, and prosperous New Year to you all.
Thank goodness for low-tax Indiana where Illinoisans and especially Chicagoans can find low cost shopping and minimal taxes.
Bet you buy gas here to. The big truck driver has avoided fueling in IL, PA, or CA for a long time now.
It’s time to re-read Michael Crichton’s excellent book ‘State of Fear’, a novel about climate alarmism way ahead of its time. I’m fortunate to have a copy, because we can’t be sure that it will still be available from the usual sources. Creeping censorship might claim another victim?
The problem in the Q&A episode was that Malcolm Roberts wasn’t prepared. He should have known these alarmists would ambush him and he should have had the same data graphed as the average temperature and not the anomaly. The resulting basically almost flat line would have really blown the minds of the sycophantic idiots !
Malcolm Roberts also put back scepticism in Australia when the evil ABC were able to crow that he had failed to comply with our constitution by renouncing his foreign citizenship and thus he was removed from parliament by a High Court ruling that he was never eligible.
Any sceptic cannot afford to be even 1% as stupid as alarmists – numerous arseholes attack at the slightest provocation.
Agree with your last sentence. Not all of us are physicists, and although sceptics seem to have a better grasp of the general science surrounding climate and climate history, trolls, like a couple on this board, treasure picking at the irrelevant nits and mistakes, whilst ignoring the voluminous mistakes from their own kind, their failed predictions, the moving of goal posts (and the adjusting/changing of datasets over time) – all of which, separately and combined, decimate AGW as a theory and relegate it to the massive trash heap of failed scientific hypotheses.
The link below seems appropriate to remind people of how those “expert” scientists too often get it wrong.
http://skeptopathy.com/wp/?p=611
I liked the one about how Goddard, the rocket scientist, was labelled a nut. And it was only when the Nazis rockets started raining down on London that they all woke up
Thanks Tony for telling who will listen the obvious truth. It’s remarkable how simple it all is once you see all of the historical evidence that you have brought to light. How easy it is to see that main stream academia has always had the same traits that still exist today. If only it could slap them in the face as to how silly they look to so many of us. How obvious it is to many ,despite their education or status, that they hold to such a narrow consciousness.
Despite all of the opinions as to why they continue to be so overly confident in themselves, it continues from generation to generation. So it’s obvious that their lives now and in the past have been a lie. I think of people like them as leeches , hiding and sucking their existence from honest hard working people. Hiding their true nature while flaunting themselves in plain sight.
It’s simple, that’s how they exist, by lying and pretending to be somebody of importance, getting wealthy by joining in a feign deception to fund their useless existence .
Sounds harsh , but it’s true.
Article on Philip E. Tetlock’s 20 years of research expert predictions:
THEATLANTIC.COM — The Peculiar Blindness of Experts — Credentialed authorities are comically bad at predicting the future. But reliable forecasting is possible.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/06/how-to-predict-the-future/588040/
Excerpts:
Philip E. Tetlock decided to put expert political and economic predictions to the test. He collected forecasts from 284 highly educated experts who averaged more than 12 years of experience in their specialties. The project lasted 20 years, with 82,361 probability estimates about the future. The result: The experts were, by and large, horrific forecasters. Their areas of specialty, years of experience, and (for some) access to classified information made no difference. They were bad at short-term forecasting and bad at long-term forecasting. They were bad at forecasting in every domain. Even faced with their results, many experts never admitted systematic flaws in their judgment. One subgroup of scholars, however, did …