"Microsoft made it their problem when they dictated to OEMs what software will and will not be included on shipping computers."
So stop MS dictating what OEM's install alongside windows by making it unprofitable (fines) rather than dictating to MS what options a windows install will and will not offer.
"I'm saying the peer-review system we have in place IS VERY POOR"
I am saying that the fact the modern world exists in all it's technological glory directly contradicts your opinion.
"I swear these days it's like they require you to prove that you're an asshole before they'll activate your slashdot account. You really couldn't find any other way to say you disagree?? Fucking hell."
In my opinon the idea of replacing peer-review with slashdot like moderation is stupid, but yeah I could have said it in another way, I could have said it was moronic, assanine, or even naive. Can you not see the difference between attacking an idea and a personal attack on the arsehole who holds said idea?
Proffessional suicide is not a punishment? What do you suggest, hanging him from a lampost? The rest of your rant is hyperbole driven by an overactive imagination.
"For some reason this article makes me angry. Its been ten months for me and I can't find a job either, but if I was laid off 2 years ago, it would have been alot easier."
When you're in the shit it always looks like everyone else has it "easy", just human nature.
Slightly OT but many people are uneployable and living under bridges because the sex offenders list includes offences such as streaking or urinating in a public place. Why? - Because the peodophile who pushed the list wanted a dragnet that he hoped would trivialise his own behaviour.
"in agreement on Global Warming being caused by humans."
Ditto, and I also recognise that organisations like GreenPeace spew political hyperbole. However I do understand why people get upset when the rantings of ex-tabacoo "scientists" are widely published in the mass media as a credible source for climate science.
"we get told all day long that we are heathens if we don't believe the empirical scientific evidence. In fact if we don't tow the scientific line we must be dolts and shoved to the side as nutcases"
Yes but who is telling us this, scientists or opinion columnists? Same goes for the converse argument, we are told everyday that if we don't belive the opinions of fringe dwellers and indusrty shills who cherry-pick evidence and have been thouroughly debunked time and again then we are religious zealots worshiping at the altar of Al Gore.
As you most likely realise, there is plenty of healthy debate in climate science but it's not about the much maligned "consensus", as a general rule the mass media are not interested in the finer points because nutcasessellpapers.
"No, just that there be a system of rating the quality of the work"
Journals have an academic rating system, the journal of Nature is #1. Publication via peer-review IS the rating system for individual papers.
Is there any discipline where I can pick up a paper and immediately tell the quality of the work when I pick it up (or look it up somewhere without understanding the entire topic?
Of course not. To paraphrase Eienstien, you can't bake a cake without knowing what flour, eggs and milk are. Contrary to what you learnt at HS, science is not in the bussiness of spoon feeding you factoids, it abhores certainty and demands you think for yourself and assign your own quality rating to individual claims.
"Slashdot moderation is probably better, and that's REALLY saying something!"
Well yeah, it's saying something REALLY stupid, especially when you consider the fact that industrialised world around you came from science.
I understand what you are saying and I think your strawberry example is great becaause it highlights the problem - many negative results are obvious and paying attention to them is a waste of time. If however there was a prevailing view that strawberries did cause cancer then a negative result would be interesting enough to publish. An good example is vaccines and autisim.
Your CO2 example is not so good, you are forgetting that the "model" part of the term "computer model" has nothing to do with software. I don't think it's an exageragion to say that if you had a convincing model that showed where Tyndal and/or Fourier fucked up then people would be throwing money at you.
"I'd file that 33.7% under "maybe questionable, but not malicious". Scientist tend to be overly critical of themselves. I personally could not state that my research was alway impeccable and perfect with a straight face. Who could? We are humans, too."
Spot on, it's up to others to judge your work once you have satisfied yourself that it's "good enough". If you have a low bar for yourself then it's unlikely your work will be "good enough" for others.
Way back in the early seventies our class took an anonomous poll on alcohol/drug use, I doubt the result was published since 100% of 12 year old boys claimed to be alcoholic junkies.
Self skepticisim is essential for a scientist. Most HS science teachers are not scientists and only rarely do they touch on the underlying philosophy this science educator was always screwing up his demonstrations and was more than happy to admit his failability.
His usual reaction to a screw up was to exclaim; "Experiments never fail, its is I who failed to set the right conditions for nature to cooperate".
If a student fails to set the right conditions then he has failed the practical component, bonus points if he recognises this and attempts to explain why he failed.
"What makes scientists so much better than the average person that they don't have to accountable like everyone else?"
Not accountable? The fake stem cell guy has lost his carreer and will never get another research job.
"Who is regulating scientists?"
When talking about known hazzards it's usually other scientists working for government regulators (eg:FDA,EPA,etc). What standards do you suggest for monitoring/regulating the unknown? Besides TFA is talking about fraud, there is no central authority to monitor fraud in science because adding one will break it.
"Our scientific systems and institutions should have better checks and balances. Many jobs/professions including monitoring and auditing to prevent corruption as standard."
"Why do politicians do anything? Political reasons"
I agree with the OP, the reason was the missle crisis but I'm 50 and I'm still too young to remember the missle crisis first hand, to an non-american it looks petty and childish. I mean why is the US speaking to Germany and Japan, WW2 was a much bigger shit fight and was only 15-20yrs before the bay of pigs? Seems to me the reasons to hold a formalised grudge against Cuba dissapeared long ago. The sanctions obviously didn't work since Castro remained in power until old age put him out of action, the only direct affect they had on him was to restrict his travel.
"The recent Iraq War only brought sharply into focus and issue which has been building for many years. Newspapers, TV, Radio, indeed all mainstream sources of news are heavily biased, grossly inaccurate and sloppily researched and presented. The news industry has been slowly bleeding itself to death by producing naught but tripe and nonsense over the last two decades or more."
Two decades? - NEWS has always required the application of critical thinking, the reporting on the Vietnam was far worse than Iraq. The internet allows easy access to every nations propoganda and that's a GoodThing(TM) because the truth is often somewhere in the middle.
Do you "love" your family? Is there anything you consider "wrong" or "unjust"?
Like it or not we athiests behave as if free will and some sort of universal morality exists. In fact our most pointed criticisim of religion is that it often does not practise the basic morals the vast majority of people belive in regardless of religion. Sure you can rationalise the belief and behaviour with evolutionary theory but that's not how you think when you catch your wife bonking the local football team.
"If we don't believe in freedom of expression for all people we despise, we don't believe in it at all." -- Noam Chomsky
I don't think Chomsky was suggesting we allow vandals to "freely expressing" themselves with spray cans, simarly we should not allow CO$ to vandalise WP with astroturf.
Slashdot Mirror
"Microsoft made it their problem when they dictated to OEMs what software will and will not be included on shipping computers."
So stop MS dictating what OEM's install alongside windows by making it unprofitable (fines) rather than dictating to MS what options a windows install will and will not offer.
"Nature/reality is fantastic. Unfortunately most of us don't have the time or money to do every experiment for ourselves"
Whoosh
"I'm saying the peer-review system we have in place IS VERY POOR"
I am saying that the fact the modern world exists in all it's technological glory directly contradicts your opinion.
"I swear these days it's like they require you to prove that you're an asshole before they'll activate your slashdot account. You really couldn't find any other way to say you disagree?? Fucking hell."
In my opinon the idea of replacing peer-review with slashdot like moderation is stupid, but yeah I could have said it in another way, I could have said it was moronic, assanine, or even naive. Can you not see the difference between attacking an idea and a personal attack on the arsehole who holds said idea?
Proffessional suicide is not a punishment? What do you suggest, hanging him from a lampost? The rest of your rant is hyperbole driven by an overactive imagination.
""Science" does not have one system."
Yes, I think a common mistake people make is that they confuse implementation with philosophy.
Did I say something politically incorrect? - How about if I changed "lying troll" to "willfully ignorant troll"?
BTW: Calling someone out for what they are is not predjudice, it's "postjudice".
"For some reason this article makes me angry. Its been ten months for me and I can't find a job either, but if I was laid off 2 years ago, it would have been alot easier."
When you're in the shit it always looks like everyone else has it "easy", just human nature.
Slightly OT but many people are uneployable and living under bridges because the sex offenders list includes offences such as streaking or urinating in a public place. Why? - Because the peodophile who pushed the list wanted a dragnet that he hoped would trivialise his own behaviour.
Good point, except Emporer Hirohito got to keep his job until he died in 1989.
"in agreement on Global Warming being caused by humans."
Ditto, and I also recognise that organisations like GreenPeace spew political hyperbole. However I do understand why people get upset when the rantings of ex-tabacoo "scientists" are widely published in the mass media as a credible source for climate science.
"we get told all day long that we are heathens if we don't believe the empirical scientific evidence. In fact if we don't tow the scientific line we must be dolts and shoved to the side as nutcases"
Yes but who is telling us this, scientists or opinion columnists? Same goes for the converse argument, we are told everyday that if we don't belive the opinions of fringe dwellers and indusrty shills who cherry-pick evidence and have been thouroughly debunked time and again then we are religious zealots worshiping at the altar of Al Gore.
As you most likely realise, there is plenty of healthy debate in climate science but it's not about the much maligned "consensus", as a general rule the mass media are not interested in the finer points because nutcases sell papers.
"No, just that there be a system of rating the quality of the work"
Journals have an academic rating system, the journal of Nature is #1. Publication via peer-review IS the rating system for individual papers.
Is there any discipline where I can pick up a paper and immediately tell the quality of the work when I pick it up (or look it up somewhere without understanding the entire topic?
Of course not. To paraphrase Eienstien, you can't bake a cake without knowing what flour, eggs and milk are. Contrary to what you learnt at HS, science is not in the bussiness of spoon feeding you factoids, it abhores certainty and demands you think for yourself and assign your own quality rating to individual claims.
"Slashdot moderation is probably better, and that's REALLY saying something!"
Well yeah, it's saying something REALLY stupid, especially when you consider the fact that industrialised world around you came from science.
I understand what you are saying and I think your strawberry example is great becaause it highlights the problem - many negative results are obvious and paying attention to them is a waste of time. If however there was a prevailing view that strawberries did cause cancer then a negative result would be interesting enough to publish. An good example is vaccines and autisim.
Your CO2 example is not so good, you are forgetting that the "model" part of the term "computer model" has nothing to do with software. I don't think it's an exageragion to say that if you had a convincing model that showed where Tyndal and/or Fourier fucked up then people would be throwing money at you.
"I'd file that 33.7% under "maybe questionable, but not malicious". Scientist tend to be overly critical of themselves. I personally could not state that my research was alway impeccable and perfect with a straight face. Who could? We are humans, too."
Spot on, it's up to others to judge your work once you have satisfied yourself that it's "good enough". If you have a low bar for yourself then it's unlikely your work will be "good enough" for others.
Way back in the early seventies our class took an anonomous poll on alcohol/drug use, I doubt the result was published since 100% of 12 year old boys claimed to be alcoholic junkies.
HTML never fails, it is I who failed to set the right conditions for HTML to cooperate. ;)
Self skepticisim is essential for a scientist. Most HS science teachers are not scientists and only rarely do they touch on the underlying philosophy this science educator was always screwing up his demonstrations and was more than happy to admit his failability.
His usual reaction to a screw up was to exclaim; "Experiments never fail, its is I who failed to set the right conditions for nature to cooperate".
If a student fails to set the right conditions then he has failed the practical component, bonus points if he recognises this and attempts to explain why he failed.
"What makes scientists so much better than the average person that they don't have to accountable like everyone else?"
Not accountable? The fake stem cell guy has lost his carreer and will never get another research job.
"Who is regulating scientists?"
When talking about known hazzards it's usually other scientists working for government regulators (eg:FDA,EPA,etc). What standards do you suggest for monitoring/regulating the unknown? Besides TFA is talking about fraud, there is no central authority to monitor fraud in science because adding one will break it.
"Our scientific systems and institutions should have better checks and balances. Many jobs/professions including monitoring and auditing to prevent corruption as standard."
checks = independent repeatability
balance = independent peer review
"We can do better!"
If any anyone has a more robust system with a better track record than science, I'm all ears.
Yeah your right, can you give the lying troll a big wet kiss from me and tell him I'm sorry for spitting on him.
"Why do politicians do anything? Political reasons"
I agree with the OP, the reason was the missle crisis but I'm 50 and I'm still too young to remember the missle crisis first hand, to an non-american it looks petty and childish. I mean why is the US speaking to Germany and Japan, WW2 was a much bigger shit fight and was only 15-20yrs before the bay of pigs? Seems to me the reasons to hold a formalised grudge against Cuba dissapeared long ago. The sanctions obviously didn't work since Castro remained in power until old age put him out of action, the only direct affect they had on him was to restrict his travel.
Glad you enjoyed it, a more well known piece from the same author is The Monkeysphere
"Whenever you read a story about a shortage of something, 9 times out of 10 it's bull."
I don't believe there's ever been a shortage of bull.
"The recent Iraq War only brought sharply into focus and issue which has been building for many years. Newspapers, TV, Radio, indeed all mainstream sources of news are heavily biased, grossly inaccurate and sloppily researched and presented. The news industry has been slowly bleeding itself to death by producing naught but tripe and nonsense over the last two decades or more."
Two decades? - NEWS has always required the application of critical thinking, the reporting on the Vietnam was far worse than Iraq. The internet allows easy access to every nations propoganda and that's a GoodThing(TM) because the truth is often somewhere in the middle.
Do you "love" your family? Is there anything you consider "wrong" or "unjust"?
Like it or not we athiests behave as if free will and some sort of universal morality exists. In fact our most pointed criticisim of religion is that it often does not practise the basic morals the vast majority of people belive in regardless of religion. Sure you can rationalise the belief and behaviour with evolutionary theory but that's not how you think when you catch your wife bonking the local football team.
Calling sumdumass a nutter is not a troll, it's informative.
Ten things atheists and christians can agree on.
"If we don't believe in freedom of expression for all people we despise, we don't believe in it at all." -- Noam Chomsky
I don't think Chomsky was suggesting we allow vandals to "freely expressing" themselves with spray cans, simarly we should not allow CO$ to vandalise WP with astroturf.