The Scientific Process

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

13 Responses to The Scientific Process

  1. arn says:

    Funny when you call yourself the conversation and then sabotage conversation by any means with some shallow arguements.

    Where exactly are climate deniers dangerous?
    Only the truth is dangerous for parasites who make a living with the climate scam.

    And what’s with those who are not climate change deniers?
    People like me who do not believe in the man made global warming lie but still believe in the mother of all lies =the global cooling lie.
    Are those allowed to post.

    • spike55 says:

      I still can’t get an answer from any AGW shill, what it is that we actually “deny”, that they are able to produce solid scientific evidence for.

      I’ve ask, over and over again…. but they continue to come up with a total blank.

  2. Anon says:

    I really think this is a valid comparison: The “new scientific process” resembles an auto body shop more than a traditional laboratory of old.

    First you come up with an attractive theory that you prefer, for whatever reason, and then you spend the rest of your career banging out and bondo-ing the data to conform to your theory. The advantage of that is that you will never be wrong or ever have to face periods of career stagnancy as you wrestle with complex scientific problems.

    And this is not just a scientific problem but also is present in progressive narratives from RussiaGate to Kyle Rittenhouse.

    ———-

    In addition to the destruction of the “scientific method ” that took centuries to develop, it is also destroying our once respected institutions:

    Rhodes Scholarship Becomes Laughingstock After Embracing the Left’s “Woke Culture”

    Twitter user David Burge provided one of the finest, and most succinct, descriptions of modern leftism in a brief tweet back in 2015:

    1. Identify a respected institution.
    2. kill it.
    3. gut it.
    4. wear its carcass as a skin suit, while demanding respect.

    Burge’s observation has been vindicated over and over again, in one once-useful institution after another. From Harvard University to the FBI, from The New York Times to the Boy Scouts of America, America is littered with organizations that may have deserved respect fifty or one hundred years ago, but are now destructive, parasitic entities sucking the lifeblood of America.

    https://www.revolver.news/2020/12/rhodes-scholarship-becomes-farce/

  3. C. Nerell says:

    I’d say this to the editors of the “Conversation”: When you have nothing to say, don’t say it.
    They have been promoting bad science and fraud for many years, and now, when we know for a fact that CO2 does not drive our planet’s climate, and we also know what actually does, they keep propagating their disinformation, while avoiding a conversation about the latest findings: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-99033-1

  4. gregole says:

    Excellent comments arn and Anon. I’d like to address Anon. Yes. This “new science” phenomena is quite different from science I know and practice. I’ve been an engineer and sometimes an entrepreneur for over forty years. Currently I do testing. We’ll have to leave it at that.

    What I find endlessly interesting after all these years, is that after a test, the data has to be analyzed and tests… well, things almost never come out quite as expected. Something acts funny or maybe even fails. Sensors drift over time. How much? To what effect? Components act funny, or fail. Why? What happened?

    Preconceived notions, even highly likely guesses based on experience, all have to be mercilessly rebranded as “probable hypotheses” and there’s that probability word again. If it is probable, it means by definition that it is uncertain. Implicit to probability is lack of certainty. Something probable, in plain language is saying it might be true. But. It also might not be true. So what is it?

    Now we need careful analysis. For sure, at this point, it is paramount that the data be preserved in it’s untreated, raw state, and any modeling, averaging. elimination of outliers, and so forth is meticulously tracked and documented. Then the careful analysis begins.

    I go from the raw data to my math and modeling programs and hunt for root causes which by and large are entirely deterministic and physical. Perhaps non-intuitive, but physical and evaluated with physics and mathematics. And practically in every case, we figure it out.

    Personally I find the work amazingly fulfilling and downright fun. I don’t know if you have ever been hunting, but it’s like that. It is very exciting to “hunt” down anomalies and problems using mathematical tools, logic, reasoning, outside expert help…I really love it. And then the writing and the presentations. I like that too.

    People want to know why something didn’t work. You better have a good story; the people you are addressing are sharp, and not afraid to cut right thru anything that smacks of opinion. Better be facts, data, logic, facts, research, argument, conclusion, facts, facts, facts. Or it’s your ass.

    I love it. What’s really cool, is that you are constantly finding out new things – useful things people have a focused interest in – there’s a lot of money and even human life at stake. It’s not a joke.

    Then there’s this other kind of knowledge or science what have you. Step 1 is precisely as you stated:

    “First you come up with an attractive theory that you prefer, for whatever reason, and then you spend the rest of your career banging out and bondo-ing the data to conform to your theory…”

    And yes, then you go out and simply find factoids and words that back up what is inside your head. These sorts come armed with argument after argument; some of the arguments from a purely rhetorical stand point are simply breathtakingly brilliant…but none of it is like test engineering. Which I believe is akin to the old-fashioned science of yore.

    But hey, as Tony points out, there’s a ton of money to be made spinning tales and spewing BS. Just gotta be the rightly sponsored BS. And spinning BS may not be as soulfully fulfilling as discovering truth, it does make lots of money and although as the song goes “money can’t buy me love”, it will buy private jets.

    • Anon says:

      gregole

      I think what you describe is what makes Tony such a formidable skeptic. From my understanding his background is in electrical/hardware engineering and he has spent many years uncovering bugs in silicon chips.

      You can’t cheat in engineering:

      Ever see a 12 story building just fall over?

      https://www.engineering.com/Library/ArticlesPage/tabid/85/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/410/Ever-see-a-12-story-building-just-fall-over.aspx

      What I find interesting is that for many years engineering was considered by high academia as an “applied science” not meant for so called “higher intellectuals” but now it is the last bastion of the “scientific method” and scientific rigor. If there ever is to be a revival of rigorous science, I think it will come from the engineering and I now tell students to dismiss the derogatory “applied science” label and go into engineering, for their own sanity. My guess is that engineering schools will develop their own fundamental research departments as the traditional sciences can no longer be relied upon to build or construct anything.

      Great comment!!!

      • arn says:

        engineering is directly related to real life.
        No farting unicorns like virtual gravitons or dark energy possible possible to keep your theories and world views alive.
        Either it works and if it doesn’t.
        No hiding behind good intentions and data adjustments possible.
        Either your project works or you won’t work any longer.

  5. GWS says:

    Well, there’s the modern scientific process in a nutshell.s Second opinions are not allowed

  6. Gerald Machnee says:

    Anyone who is correct and honest is dangerous today. Just ask the social media.

  7. Lex says:

    There are two hurricanes that I wish you would discuss in your videos.

    First, the Great Colonial Hurricane of 1635, 14 years after the first Thanksgiving, which is believed to be a high category 3 when it struck Rhode Island and Massachusetts. John Winthrop wrote about Native Americans “flying from their wigwams”. Amongst many internet sources: https://www.fishermensvoice.com/archives/201710TheGreatColonialHurricaneOf1635.html

    Second, Hurricane Agnes of 1972 specifically the flooding of Elmira, NY, which permanently devastated the downtown business district that has still never recovered. Vice President Spiro Agnew toured the area passing the message that “he’s from the government and he’s here to help”. http://chemungcountyhistoricalsociety.blogspot.com/2017/06/the-second-flood-of-1972.html

  8. arn says:

    On a funny note.
    The famous destroyer of SF and California Nancy Poolosy
    bought a 25 million dollar mansion,
    not in California but in it-may-drown-any -second Florida ( The parasite is leaving the deprived host for a healthy one with no mask&vaccine mandates or supply issue ).

    Now the 1 million dollar question about a 25 mio dollar house :
    Is the new house a front beach property.

  9. Stuart Hamish says:

    Climate Model Fictions for the Greater Good.
    “The models are convenient fictions that provide something very useful ”
    Professor Chris Folland , Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research

    ” The data doesn’t matter . We’re not basing our recommendations on the data . We’re basing them on the climate models ”
    Dr David Frame , climate modeler , Oxford University .

    You can read more here Tony . Quadrant is a great resource . You and Kirye should produce content on the parallels between the pseudoscience of Lysenkoism , global warming alarmist policies and radical environmentalism
    : ” “Trofim Lysenko Looks Down and Smiles ” Alastair Crooks , Quadrant 23 January ,2021 …
    .Millions perished from malnourishment and starvation as a consequence of Trofim Lysenko’s bizarre, pernicious ideas applied to agriculture in the Soviet Union and Maoist China ….Millions of people died needlessly from malaria as a result of the demonization of DDT by the influential philosopher Rachel Carson and lobbying Green NGO’s .. When DDT Anopheles mosquito controls were re- introduced this century , malaria mortality declined ..[ See , Andy May Petrophysicist , Greenpeace Crimes and Lies 2 and the FEE essay ” Millions Died Thanks to the Mother of Environmentalism “] .Hundreds of thousands died annually in cold weather from energy poverty and indoor biomass combustion. Projects like the Green New Deal and Net Zero will impoverish, harm and lead to the deaths of untold millions more. Climate skeptics are not the ones who are selfish and dangerous

Leave a Reply to Gerald Machnee Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published.