Comments on: The Big O writes on Scientific Error, Bias, and Self-(peer)-review.

By: hundalhh

hundalhh — Thu, 21 Nov 2013 19:54:44 +0000

The scientific computing community is trying to help the peer review and audience review process through reproducible computing. See e.g. 15 Years of Reproducible Research in Computational Harmonic Analysis A Year in Reproducible Research in Compressive Sensing, Advanced Matrix Factorization and more http://blog.reproducibleresearch.org/

By: ThePig

ThePig — Thu, 21 Nov 2013 17:07:12 +0000

It does look as though something is being done about the replicability problem in Biology.

http://www.nature.com/news/reproducibility-the-risks-of-the-replication-drive-1.14184

Though I must say I found the comments (by William) more encouraging than the actual author.

As for The Big O’s essay, I’d say Richard Feymann said it much better in “Cargo Cult Science.”

By: carl

carl — Wed, 20 Nov 2013 05:32:21 +0000

Oh, I was referring to the actual global warming science/scientists.

If you think global warming is bad, just wait till you see what global cooling looks like! LOL!

By: ThePig

ThePig — Tue, 19 Nov 2013 20:17:02 +0000

I agreed about the global warming science/scientists, Carl. There are some egregious examples in this article:

http://www.kcet.org/news/rewire/commentary/the-well-next-door/frackademia-climate-science-for-sale.html

Many of the ones denying global warming these days are direct descendants of the medical scientists (bankrolled by big tobacco) saying that smoking is safe.

By: carl

carl — Tue, 19 Nov 2013 03:10:50 +0000

I agree strongly with the thrust of this. Whenever people, or a group
of people, argue from authority instead of the facts, and have their
own reputations and livelihoods at stake, then they are almost by
definition untrustworthy, at least in the sense that everything they
say should be independently verified. To cite one example that is
germane, I have real doubts about global warming science/scientists
for exactly these kinds of reasons.