Slashdot Mirror
Forging a Head: The Upside of Scientific Hoaxes
An anonymous reader writes "In a very funny piece over at Science Careers (published by the journal Science), scientist-comedian Adam Ruben suggests that a lot of good can come from a well-intentioned hoax. 'Hoaxes have infiltrated science for centuries,' Ruben writes, 'from fake fossils (Piltdown Man, archaeoraptor, Calaveras skull) to fake medical conditions (cello scrotum, the disappearing blonde gene) to fake animals (Ompax spatuloides, Pacific Northwest tree octopus, Labradoodle).' In contrast to fraud, Ruben argues, such hoaxes do a great service to science by illustrating 'failures of our most important tool: our skepticism.'"
So I get you are still an ape? Fortunately I evolved away from that. :-)
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
In contrast to fraud, Ruben argues, such hoaxes do a great service to science by illustrating 'failures of our most important tool: our skepticism.'"
But... was this peer-reviewed?
Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
Wait...
Labradoodle's are fake? I bet all the Labradoodle owners would be shocked to learn their dogs are not real.
Maybe the author should research before he declares what's real and what isn't. I mean, his bad science isn't actually helping here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labradoodle
Well, "Climategate" gave ammo for global warming deniers within their own echo chamber. The whole shit was made up from out-of-context quotes making up about 1 ppm of the stolen mails they scanned for it. Nothing a rational man would consider harmful. That's playing in a completely different league than the piltdown man, which was made up from beginning to end.
Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
Most skeptics reject everything outright
Those people are not skeptics.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
There is more evidence in Creationism - as well as it making more sense.
But if we take Bronze Age myths as evidence, then there's much more evidence for theories other than Judeo-Christian creationism. There are hundreds, thousands of different creationist myths out there.
If you think an old book is evidence enough you have to consider all other old books as equally valid, don't you?
"Most skeptics reject everything outright" This may very well be true of most skeptics you know, but my definition of skeptics is different. My definition, and the skeptics I know, more closely align with the definition of skepticism associated with philosophy (second definition here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skepticism#Definition) or the one just following for scientific skepticism (here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skepticism#Scientific_skepticism). They tend not to reject everything outright, but to suspend judgement until sufficient evidence is in place to make a judgement.
There are relatively few scientists in the field of climate science that question global warming. There are certainly not 'thousands'.
Science is about focused skepticism, not general skepticism. It is very difficult to successfully peer review a paper that is deliberately attempting to decieve. Those usually need to wait until the experiments are repeated and fail to produce the expected results. Politics is a bitter, poisonous soup of lies and disingenuous spins where accurate models do not trump clever rhetoric and trolls will attempt to strike you down not in the search for truth, but just to see if they can do it. Science is hard enough to do without people deliberately attempting to set you up for failure.
Neither the tornado season nor any floodings are outside of historial norms. Don't let mass media educate you on science.
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-04-tornadoes-climate.html
There are relatively few jobs in the field of climate science that allow questioning global warming. Practically all of the funding for it now derives from global warming alarmism. The people paying for it always want to know, "What are you doing about global warming?" and the answer "Taking a serious skeptical look at whether it actually exists." consistently results in pulled funding.
The field ballooned tremendously with external support and funding, almost all feeding the side that says "the sky is falling", because the people outside of the field inclined to believe it unquestioningly see it as important enough to throw huge amounts of money at, while those who are skeptical or outright disbelieving see it as a rather low spending priority.
It's a very good example of why you can't find truth by a vote of the people in a field: sometimes the vast majority are hired directly into one side of the argument.
That's not the point, whether they question global warming or not. the point is "There are thousands of scientists who question the methodologies and conclusions of the CRU". That junk science by them is being the basis for a planned multi-trillion dollar parasitic system on the most developed countries.
"There are thousands of scientists who question the methodologies and conclusions of the CRU".
Every scientific paper I read has a section on the limitations of the methodologies and conclusions of the study. That's standard thoughtful academic writing. Scientists question *everything*. That doesn't mean their conclusions are wrong. It just means they've carefully considered alternative explanations.
For global warming, the overwhelming consensus makes it unlikely their conclusions are wrong.
It's possible they could be wrong. Anything is possible. But when we're faced with an imminent danger, we have to stop arguing over hypotheticals created by coal and gas industry think tanks and come to a plan of action.
Deniers have a lot more to gain in the short term than believers, and based on that alone, I find the believers more believable.
"Believers":
For business, we are talking about trillions of dollars in government investment and laws that will favor your bottom line if you play ball. GE, for example made billions in profits and paid zero in taxes. Carbon credit trading companies stand to be the next Enron, except they will be trading government mandated nothings in exchange for real cash.
Government stand to gain unlimited power. They will gain the power to tell citizens what to eat, here to go, what to drive, where to work, what they will do, where to live and what temperature to keep that house at. They will literally be able to control EVERY SINGLE ASPECT of the lives of citizens. This may also go beyond borders as well. A "world eco government" could be set up to set international rules. Of course, companies that play ball will receive government help, so the system is pre set up for corruption.
Scientists can gain because there is so much money and power to be gained, scientists and universities seeking grants will have better luck proposing a study that will "prove that stricter government control is required to prevent global catastrophe" will more likely get a grant than one that will "prove that global warming is not a problem and regulation is not needed".
"Deniers":
Scientist deniers are going nowhere. They do not get grants and get shunned by their peers.
Politicians are being compared to flat earthers and ridiculed by the main stream media. NBC and MSNBC were owned by GE, btw, who made billions in profits, yet paid no taxes.
Businesses gain nothing by being a global warming denier. They lose any "green cred" which would run off an environmentally conscious customers. Oil companies are about to have their taxes raised (or tax brakes taken away, same thing) while gas prices are at a all time high.
So, it appears that "believers" have unlimited power and money to gain. The absolute best anyone can hope for by being a "denier" is the status quo, so absolutely nothing to gain, but everything to lose.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
Until th deniers can put up peer reviewed research to discredit the current scientific consensus, then they are just part of the FUD.
Wait a minute. Wasn't that whole climate-gate email scandal because scientists were trying to keep scientists who might disagree with them from getting their word out? Won't you simply accuse any scientist that shows that GW is not a problem or is not happening of spreading FUD and/or working for big oil or (insert evil company here)? So they prevent those that may disprove their work from getting published, attack and credibility and ridicule any who might get the word out otherwise and then use the fact that no published or credible work disagrees with them as proof that their work is correct.
Of course, anyone who disagrees is immediately discredited simply by the very fact that they disagree. Here is a quote that proves it:
However, you miss the fact that most deniers are also attacking science in general.
See, those that disagree are labeled "deniers", as in they are denying the facts. And of course, simply by the fact that they question GW, they are "attacking science in general". In other words, they have no credibility as scientists because a real scientist wouldn't dare go against the "consensus".
Also, "consensus" means nothing in science. Everything that science has proved wrong was once supported by a consensus. Science is not a democracy.
Oil companies will lose their subsidies and tax breaks. Boo hoo. Perhaps then we will finally get a real sustainable energy policy and ditch oil crack habit.that will eventually drive us into the ditch. The longer we wait, the worse it will be.
You do know that companies don't pay taxes, right? Companies, including oil companies, pass any increase in cost directly to their customers.
Your post is a fine example of what I like to call environmental hypocrisy. You will fight tooth and nail to not do so much as take your shoes off to get on airplane. You will fight to the death for the right to not carry an ID card. However, because you believe that there will be an energy shortage one day, you want government to create an artificial shortage today. It doesn't matter that we have enough energy to last us for hundreds of years, you wish to create an artificial shortage by limiting the amount of energy we may produce domestically and you actually believe that it will somehow make us import less. People like you are so happy to punish those who use more than you that you lose your ability to think logically. You really don't care that you have to pay more for food and transportation as long as you know that the rich guy in the SUV has to pay more also. You are happy to make someone else suffer for their lifestyle, simply because you don't like it. And when you see that mother of two have to tell her kids that they can't afford to go to Grandma's house because gas is too expensive, you comfort yourself by saying, “we all have to make sacrifices in order to create the world that I want to live in. Besides, they can see Grandma on Facetime.”
The best part? You accuse others of using fear to force the people to change the way they do things and then turn around use fear to force others to change the way they live their lives. It means nothing to you that real people have really died due to terrorism, and that terrorists really do want to kill more people, you see climate change as a bigger threat even though exactly zero people have died due to global warming, and that climate change has happened since the beginning of time. You want government to force me to live my life the way YOU think I should live it, even though, and I use your words, “There aren't any scientists out there saying we can stop climate change. We passed that point a long time ago. We can only reduce the impact and prepare.”
You won't remove your shoes to stop terrorists from killing the innocent, but you will gladly pay more for your life just to keep me from taking my little girl away from the city lights to see the rings of Saturn through her new telescope.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.