[Lex Computer & Tech Group/LCTG] science

Thu Jul 21 12:47:32 PDT 2022

In my post I hope that I didn’t suggest that ANYBODY is entitled to their own facts.  Yikes!  As far as I can figure, in the context of science a “fact" is something we measure or observe.  We can question how it was done, whether or not it was relevant, what it meant and so on, but we cannot simply ignore evidence that contradicts theory or models we construct, no matter how “compelling” the narrative.  Scientists are not ignoring “alternative” datasets.

I’m also very clear in my writing that “science” is never “settled.”  Hope I didn’t suggest otherwise.

The more important point I’m making is very specific and very narrow:  this PARTICULAR dataset is not “alternative” but, in fact, part of the evidence that must be part of any good-faith effort to understand what is happening to our planet and why.  It is part of the record, part of the peer-reviewed literature on the subject.  This is easy enough to verify.

SQ

> On Jul 21, 2022, at 2:44 PM, Ted Kochanski <tedpkphd at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Stephen -- to be fair to all you are not entitled to your own set of facts
> 
> That said --"established facts" do change as new "facts" supercede old established facts all of the time
> 
> One of the phrases which I find  most offensive -- and a manifestation of a knowledge-base which is ignorant of the process of science itself is: 
> "The Science is settled"
> 
> My response is that the "science is never settled" ==> although from time to time "it rests for a while on the side of the road before advancing again"
> 
> many times the burst of new "science" comes from the implementation or "commissioning" of new instrumentation
> A  a personal example my Ph.D. Dissertation "Characteristics of Low Frequency MHD Fluctuations in the PRETEXT Tokamak" -- followed directly in the footsteps of Soviet Academician Sergei Mirnov for example
> A probe method for measuring the displacement of the current channel in cylindrical and toroidal discharge vessels
> Citation S V Mirnov 1965 J. Nucl. Energy, Part C Plasma Phys. 7 325
> Mironv identified "Mirnov Oscillations" using his "Home -brew" Mironov Coils -- but he was collecting his data using  multiple oscilloscopes each equipped with a 35 mm camera and with analog filters and was limited to magnetic signals.  I had the "Newtonian stands on the shoulders of Giants advantage" of a multichannel digital data acquisition system and recently developed non-stationary Fourier Analysis based on Digital Complex Demodulation and my "home-brew" extreme UV / soft x-ray detectors -- the result was that I saw things which he didn't particularly a thin fuzz superimposed on a generally rising and falling signal in the soft x-ray.
> 
> I've no doubt at all that in the near future -- information obtained from the James Webb Space telescope will overturn things which we have considered "facts"
> 
> Ted
> 
> PS: there is a lot of of uncertainty in the data which we use to "characterize the temperature of the earth" and also in the composition of the atmosphere -- these are not easy things to measure and record over long time periods without extensive planning for the collection of the data -- none of which was instituted at the point of origin of the data sets in question
> 
> On Thu, Jul 21, 2022 at 1:34 PM Stephen Quatrano <stefanoq at gmail.com <mailto:stefanoq at gmail.com>> wrote:
> Jerry, 
> 
> I get what you are saying.  Theories that explain the evidence are absolutely a matter of debate in the scientific community.  And it’s certainly true about what should be DONE about climate change, which is not a scientific question at all.  But with respect to the evidence itself, especially in a case like this, I think there is still a LOT we can say in order to push back on a post-modern kind of view where everyone is entitled to their own facts as well as their own opinions.  Furthermore, in this case, I think there’s evidence that this data set in particular is being used in bad faith — abused in other words — to undermine public confidence in science.
> 
> This satellite data is not a set of “alternative facts” that are ignored by the scientific community.  It doesn’t even contradict warming that has been observed unless you cherry pick the data.  (Why are we looking at the last 18 years?)  On the contrary, the overall dataset confirms the fact that the planet is warming, first of all.  And second, this data set is PART of the empirical data we use to understand what is happening to our planet.  And finally, on its own, it does not falsify an overwhelming, global consensus on the fact of climate change and attribution models that can ONLY account for observed changes when we consider the effects of human activity.
> 
> All you need to do to verify these three claims is search the scientific record for the dataset.  Voila!  You find it!!  Someone more skilled than I am with familiarity and access to original scientific research can do it even better than I have, no doubt.  I’d love to see and learn more about this dataset!
> 
> This is pretty far from my own expertise but I have invested quite a bit of time into both the history and philosophy of science in order to understand “how we know what we know”.  I’ve learned to take a deep breath and ask some important questions before engaging in unproductive debate on science and pseudoscience.  
> 
> For example, my first question is:  “What exactly is this data set?”  I try hard to actually be interested in the data and interested in learning.  Why not?  It’s cool.
> 
> And my second question is:  “If it is legit, and if it does contradict other data, is it actually being ignored by scientists (which is what is being implied by the controversy)?  Is it being hidden or covered up?  Or perhaps it’s actually being used in their models?” 
> 
> Does anyone else notice that these questions are not asked by those who are sowing doubt?  And they surely don’t make explicit claims that scientists have ignored or tried to cover up the contradictory data.  Why not?  Because they can be investigated pretty easily.  And if you look, you’ll find out that ALL of the legitimate data is being used by the community, not just those “convenient” datapoints that support some kind of bogus theory.
> 
> I used Google for literally 5 minutes and found these pretty interesting looking arguments that engage with the data, the actual data, NOT ALTERNATIVE FACTS, and explain that it IS being used and HOW it’s being used and WHY.
> 
> https://skepticalscience.com/Response-Data-or-Dogma-hearing.html <https://skepticalscience.com/Response-Data-or-Dogma-hearing.html>
> 
> https://skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=466 <https://skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=466>
> 
> “What-about-ism” is a plague on our open society and rational public discourse.  It’s a problem that all you need to do to cast doubt on hard won consensus after years of debate and vital institutions, is to throw data that seems to contradict conventional wisdom and ask questions like these:  “What about the 'Latest Global Average Tropospheric Temperatures’ data set from satellites?”
> 
> Even I experience a kind of knee-jerk, visceral response to this question.  I feel myself asking, “Yeah!  What ABOUT that contradictory data?”  Dang!
> 
> You see, it’s just too easy to cast doubt and undermine confidence like this.  And it’s really, freakin hard to build trust.
> 
> Stepping back, I notice that the record of scientific literature DOES consider these measurements, dare I call them “facts."  There are no alternative facts.  The prevailing models MUST account for all observations, including these.  And sure enough, these very datasets are clearly referenced in the literature.
> 
> Meanwhile, notice that the opposite does NOT happen.  In other words, nowhere in the “alternative” or “pseudoscience” world are the real academic debates on these supposedly “alternative facts” actually referenced.  It’s a one-sided argument where science engages it’s critics but it’s critics then ignore those legitimate responses to their attacks.  They repeat themselves.  Or they move on.  They don’t actually debate the issue:  they just cast doubt on the entire endeavor.
> 
> I call this “bad faith” or pseudo-discourse.  It’s not, in fact, a conversation at all.
> 
> Unfortunately, this creates a lot of collateral damage as well.  It affects our confidence and public trust in EVERYTHING.
> 
> SQ
> 
>> On Jul 21, 2022, at 12:15 PM, Jerry Harris <jerryharri at gmail.com <mailto:jerryharri at gmail.com>> wrote:
>> 
>> Peter, 
>> I disagree. The climate change debate shows us that alternative facts have been created and used to support pre-determined conclusions. The latest example recently shared on this list was that global warming is on "pause" and CO2 increase is not the cause of climate change. (https://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/ <https://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/>)
>> 
>> Even in situations where the facts are agreed upon by all parties, there can be plenty of alternative conclusions. Sometimes these are positive and progressive, eg, the scientific method where a new theory is proposed based on existing data. Sometimes there is incorrect or flawed reasoning (e.g., stupidity) that is used to reach a different conclusion. And sometimes, there are belief- or ideologically-driven conclusions where the data and reasoning chain only serves as means to an end. 
>> 
>> This gets me back to conspiracy theorists. Dismissing them as either "stupid" or "fact-deprived" ignores the harm they can cause through disinformation amplification and brainwashing. 
>> 
>> I know this is typical over-thinking of a simple cartoon, but this is why I feel the cartoon is timelessly funny, IMO. 
>> 
>> Jerry
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Thu, Jul 21, 2022 at 11:21 AM <palbin24 at yahoo.com <mailto:palbin24 at yahoo.com>> wrote:
>> Fortunately in science “alternate facts” do not exist.
>> 
>> Peter
>> 
>>> On Jul 21, 2022, at 11:11 AM, carllazarus at comcast.net <mailto:carllazarus at comcast.net> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Facts don’t matter to conspiracy theorists.
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> From: LCTG <lctg-bounces+carllazarus=comcast.net at lists.toku.us <mailto:comcast.net at lists.toku.us>> On Behalf Of Jerry Harris
>>> Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2022 8:30 AM
>>> To: john rudy <jjrudy1 at comcast.net <mailto:jjrudy1 at comcast.net>>
>>> Cc: Lex Computer Group <LCTG at lists.toku.us <mailto:LCTG at lists.toku.us>>
>>> Subject: Re: [Lex Computer & Tech Group/LCTG] science
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> If only conspiracy theories or disinformation campaigns could be so easily refuted with facts. 
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> On Wed, Jul 20, 2022 at 10:58 AM john rudy <jjrudy1 at comcast.net <mailto:jjrudy1 at comcast.net>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> <image001.png>
>>> 
>>> ===============================================
>>> ::The Lexington Computer and Technology Group Mailing List::
>>> Reply goes to sender only; Reply All to send to list.
>>> Send to the list: LCTG at lists.toku.us <mailto:LCTG at lists.toku.us>      Message archives: http://lists.toku.us/private.cgi/lctg-toku.us <http://lists.toku.us/private.cgi/lctg-toku.us>
>>> To subscribe: email lctg-subscribe at toku.us <mailto:lctg-subscribe at toku.us>  To unsubscribe: email lctg-unsubscribe at toku.us <mailto:lctg-unsubscribe at toku.us>
>>> Future and Past meeting information: http://LCTG.toku.us <http://lctg.toku.us/>
>>> List information: http://lists.toku.us/listinfo.cgi/lctg-toku.us <http://lists.toku.us/listinfo.cgi/lctg-toku.us>
>>> This message was sent to jerryharri at gmail.com <mailto:jerryharri at gmail.com>.
>>> Set your list options: http://lists.toku.us/options.cgi/lctg-toku.us/jerryharri@gmail.com <http://lists.toku.us/options.cgi/lctg-toku.us/jerryharri@gmail.com>===============================================
>>> ::The Lexington Computer and Technology Group Mailing List::
>>> Reply goes to sender only; Reply All to send to list.
>>> Send to the list: LCTG at lists.toku.us <mailto:LCTG at lists.toku.us>      Message archives: http://lists.toku.us/private.cgi/lctg-toku.us <http://lists.toku.us/private.cgi/lctg-toku.us>
>>> To subscribe: email lctg-subscribe at toku.us <mailto:lctg-subscribe at toku.us>  To unsubscribe: email lctg-unsubscribe at toku.us <mailto:lctg-unsubscribe at toku.us>
>>> Future and Past meeting information: http://LCTG.toku.us <http://lctg.toku.us/>
>>> List information: http://lists.toku.us/listinfo.cgi/lctg-toku.us <http://lists.toku.us/listinfo.cgi/lctg-toku.us>
>>> This message was sent to palbin24 at yahoo.com <mailto:palbin24 at yahoo.com>.
>>> Set your list options: http://lists.toku.us/options.cgi/lctg-toku.us/palbin24@yahoo.com <http://lists.toku.us/options.cgi/lctg-toku.us/palbin24@yahoo.com>===============================================
>> ::The Lexington Computer and Technology Group Mailing List::
>> Reply goes to sender only; Reply All to send to list.
>> Send to the list: LCTG at lists.toku.us <mailto:LCTG at lists.toku.us>      Message archives: http://lists.toku.us/private.cgi/lctg-toku.us <http://lists.toku.us/private.cgi/lctg-toku.us>
>> To subscribe: email lctg-subscribe at toku.us <mailto:lctg-subscribe at toku.us>  To unsubscribe: email lctg-unsubscribe at toku.us <mailto:lctg-unsubscribe at toku.us>
>> Future and Past meeting information: http://LCTG.toku.us <http://lctg.toku.us/>
>> List information: http://lists.toku.us/listinfo.cgi/lctg-toku.us <http://lists.toku.us/listinfo.cgi/lctg-toku.us>
>> This message was sent to jerryharri at gmail.com <mailto:jerryharri at gmail.com>.
>> Set your list options: http://lists.toku.us/options.cgi/lctg-toku.us/jerryharri@gmail.com <http://lists.toku.us/options.cgi/lctg-toku.us/jerryharri@gmail.com>===============================================
>> ::The Lexington Computer and Technology Group Mailing List::
>> Reply goes to sender only; Reply All to send to list.
>> Send to the list: LCTG at lists.toku.us <mailto:LCTG at lists.toku.us>      Message archives: http://lists.toku.us/private.cgi/lctg-toku.us <http://lists.toku.us/private.cgi/lctg-toku.us>
>> To subscribe: email lctg-subscribe at toku.us <mailto:lctg-subscribe at toku.us>  To unsubscribe: email lctg-unsubscribe at toku.us <mailto:lctg-unsubscribe at toku.us>
>> Future and Past meeting information: http://LCTG.toku.us <http://lctg.toku.us/>
>> List information: http://lists.toku.us/listinfo.cgi/lctg-toku.us <http://lists.toku.us/listinfo.cgi/lctg-toku.us>
>> This message was sent to stefanoq at gmail.com <mailto:stefanoq at gmail.com>.
>> Set your list options: http://lists.toku.us/options.cgi/lctg-toku.us/stefanoq@gmail.com <http://lists.toku.us/options.cgi/lctg-toku.us/stefanoq@gmail.com>
> ===============================================
> ::The Lexington Computer and Technology Group Mailing List::
> Reply goes to sender only; Reply All to send to list.
> Send to the list: LCTG at lists.toku.us <mailto:LCTG at lists.toku.us>      Message archives: http://lists.toku.us/private.cgi/lctg-toku.us <http://lists.toku.us/private.cgi/lctg-toku.us>
> To subscribe: email lctg-subscribe at toku.us <mailto:lctg-subscribe at toku.us>  To unsubscribe: email lctg-unsubscribe at toku.us <mailto:lctg-unsubscribe at toku.us>
> Future and Past meeting information: http://LCTG.toku.us <http://lctg.toku.us/>
> List information: http://lists.toku.us/listinfo.cgi/lctg-toku.us <http://lists.toku.us/listinfo.cgi/lctg-toku.us>
> This message was sent to tedpkphd at gmail.com <mailto:tedpkphd at gmail.com>.
> Set your list options: http://lists.toku.us/options.cgi/lctg-toku.us/tedpkphd@gmail.com <http://lists.toku.us/options.cgi/lctg-toku.us/tedpkphd@gmail.com>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.toku.us/pipermail/lctg-toku.us/attachments/20220721/af76657b/attachment.html>