The government isn't the injured party here -- that would be AT&T's customers. Why is the government getting $100 million instead of that money going to the customers who didn't get the service they paid for?
Not just biomedical research. There are similar problems in psychology. My impressions are that these kinds of problems are cropping up wherever clean data and large sample sizes are hard to come by.
If most scientists are, in fact, male, then a perception of science as a predominantly male profession is not a bias -- it is simply an accurate perception. A bias would be a perception that was consistently misaligned with the reality.
Seriously? Limited release? I've searched and searched, and nobody in the Salt Lake City / Provo, Utah area is showing this film, nor can I find any hint that anyone in this metro area will ever be showing the film.
Nice theory, but do you know of any study showing that team productivity improves with an open-office layout? Every study I've heard of says that productivity is much higher when developers have doors they can close.
At 35 you're just getting started. I'm 51, and in the past couple of years Google, Amazon, LinkedIn, and other major companies have repeatedly tried to recruit me. Just keep developing your skills.
Successfully surviving the attacks of critics and skeptics is what makes a successful theory. This is science we're talking about, not religion; scientists are supposed to be skeptical, to look for every possible way in which a theory, experiment, or data analysis could be flawed. That's how we weed out false hypotheses. It's only the ones that survive all attempts to disprove them that deserve any belief.
Peer review, vigorous debate, and cat-fights are not the "saving grace" of science. What has made science so effective at finding the truth has been the scientific method: present a hypothesis, derive predictions, and test those predictions versus experimental (or future observational) outcomes. The power of the scientific method is its effectiveness in killing wrong ideas.
The problem with AGW research is that the scientific method seems to have been discarded. It's very heavy on computer modeling, very light on making predictions that actually come true. Past predictions of these climate models have not been born out by subsequent events. Global average temperatures have been flat or declining over the last ten years. Among the CRU emails you see at least one researcher lamenting this failure to predict. Yet there is no sign that AGW researchers are willing to abandon or moderate their hypothesis even though it has now been falsified.
Slashdot Mirror
The government isn't the injured party here -- that would be AT&T's customers. Why is the government getting $100 million instead of that money going to the customers who didn't get the service they paid for?
"I guess this shows you what not to do when geeking out on Star Wars."
No, this shows you what hysterical ninnies the principal and the police were.
Actually, this sounds to me a lot better than what happens in the U.S. -- when does a corrupt U.S. Federal agency ever get cleaned out top to bottom?
Kruschke and Liddell have a preprint out on this topic:
"The Bayesian New Statistics: Two Historical Trends Converge"
Climate scientists have been making predictions for decades. Compare their predictions with what actually happened.
"I agree it's not a problem." Many scientists disagree with you. John Ioannidis and Andrew Gelman come to mind particularly. http://journals.plos.org/plosm... http://andrewgelman.com/
Not just biomedical research. There are similar problems in psychology. My impressions are that these kinds of problems are cropping up wherever clean data and large sample sizes are hard to come by.
If most scientists are, in fact, male, then a perception of science as a predominantly male profession is not a bias -- it is simply an accurate perception. A bias would be a perception that was consistently misaligned with the reality.
Seriously? Limited release? I've searched and searched, and nobody in the Salt Lake City / Provo, Utah area is showing this film, nor can I find any hint that anyone in this metro area will ever be showing the film.
Nice theory, but do you know of any study showing that team productivity improves with an open-office layout? Every study I've heard of says that productivity is much higher when developers have doors they can close.
At 35 you're just getting started. I'm 51, and in the past couple of years Google, Amazon, LinkedIn, and other major companies have repeatedly tried to recruit me. Just keep developing your skills.
Successfully surviving the attacks of critics and skeptics is what makes a successful theory. This is science we're talking about, not religion; scientists are supposed to be skeptical, to look for every possible way in which a theory, experiment, or data analysis could be flawed. That's how we weed out false hypotheses. It's only the ones that survive all attempts to disprove them that deserve any belief.
Peer review, vigorous debate, and cat-fights are not the "saving grace" of science. What has made science so effective at finding the truth has been the scientific method: present a hypothesis, derive predictions, and test those predictions versus experimental (or future observational) outcomes. The power of the scientific method is its effectiveness in killing wrong ideas.
The problem with AGW research is that the scientific method seems to have been discarded. It's very heavy on computer modeling, very light on making predictions that actually come true. Past predictions of these climate models have not been born out by subsequent events. Global average temperatures have been flat or declining over the last ten years. Among the CRU emails you see at least one researcher lamenting this failure to predict. Yet there is no sign that AGW researchers are willing to abandon or moderate their hypothesis even though it has now been falsified.