4 ms·

Paranoid talks about "well financed groups" have no place in science. Climate science is way more important than astronomy. It should have much higher standard

by jkot 10y ago

Paranoid talks about "well financed groups" have no place in science. Climate science is way more important than astronomy. It should have much higher standards for transparency, not other way around.

XorNot 10y ago
Get rid of copyright law, then everyone can have the data. People keep ignoring the fact that you can't just release data like that all over the place, because researchers often do not have the IP rights to do so in a general way (whereas within the field other researchers probably do have IP rights to use the same data).
- wolfgke 10y ago
  > People keep ignoring the fact that you can't just release data like that all over the place, because researchers often do not have the IP rights to do so in a general way While I agree that this is a problem in the current copyright law, there is still a way for researchers to "circumvent" this copyright restriction without violating the scientific principle of independent verifiability that I outlined in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12099720 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12099720: Let's say that the data is generally distributed by the owner in a standard format, say, a zip archive, which we will name foo.zip here (for simplicity). If you can't distribute the data itself, you write into your research paper a short explanation of the license terms that disallow the distribution of foo.zip. But you also add a notice what the SHA256 sum of foo.zip is. If some person who has also access to the data (say, from another university) has interest that the research result can be checked independently, they will leak foo.zip somewhere (I can imagine that sci-hub would be willing to provide server space for this). This way access for independent verifiers can be "assured" without the original researchers having to violate copyright law.
- dalke 10y ago
  The US[1] doesn't recognized the "sweat of the brow" doctrine for copyright. There is no copyright on a "mere collections of facts", and no IP rights cover collected data. Give that, what role does copyright law play (at least in the US) in preventing data sharing? I thought it was limited based on patient confidentiality, collaborator agreements, end-user agreements, desire to maximize publications from the same data, and other non-copyright issues which were at play. ([1] Other countries are more restrictive than the US in this regard.)
vixen99 10y ago
If astronomy includes the possible detection of previously unknown sizeable objects in space which might put an end to our activities on this planet, then I don't agree. Climate alarmism (that's not intended as a perjorative word: it's sensible to be alarmed if there is something to be alarmed about) is based on the validity or not of statistical conclusions regarding climate data. Objects in space can and do collide with Earth if that's their trajectory. No theory or hypothesis is required - just data.
jackmott 10y ago
> Paranoid talks about "well financed groups" have no place in science. It is not paranoid, it isn't even secret. Koch Brothers Exxon Heritage Foundation are just 3 examples. It is absolutely within the purview of science to consider these things, as is anything. You can't just declare it off limits. We observe and have records of these groups paying people to write fake sciency-sounding reports on climate science constantly.
bertil 10y ago
There is absolutely nothing paranoid about systematic and well documented efforts from the oil industry to discredit scientists. > It should have much higher standards Yes, but for the quality of the result, not intuitions set-up as principles to replace the real pillars of science: experimentation and peer-review. Transparency is only useful if it helps getting peers; in this case, there are well documented reasons to doubt it, and that the people benefiting from that transparency are not just enemies of science, but of humanity.

by jkot 10y ago

XorNot 10y ago

Get rid of copyright law, then everyone can have the data. People keep ignoring the fact that you can't just release data like that all over the place, because researchers often do not have the IP rights to do so in a general way (whereas within the field other researchers probably do have IP rights to use the same data).

wolfgke 10y ago
> People keep ignoring the fact that you can't just release data like that all over the place, because researchers often do not have the IP rights to do so in a general way While I agree that this is a problem in the current copyright law, there is still a way for researchers to "circumvent" this copyright restriction without violating the scientific principle of independent verifiability that I outlined in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12099720 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12099720: Let's say that the data is generally distributed by the owner in a standard format, say, a zip archive, which we will name foo.zip here (for simplicity). If you can't distribute the data itself, you write into your research paper a short explanation of the license terms that disallow the distribution of foo.zip. But you also add a notice what the SHA256 sum of foo.zip is. If some person who has also access to the data (say, from another university) has interest that the research result can be checked independently, they will leak foo.zip somewhere (I can imagine that sci-hub would be willing to provide server space for this). This way access for independent verifiers can be "assured" without the original researchers having to violate copyright law.
dalke 10y ago
The US[1] doesn't recognized the "sweat of the brow" doctrine for copyright. There is no copyright on a "mere collections of facts", and no IP rights cover collected data. Give that, what role does copyright law play (at least in the US) in preventing data sharing? I thought it was limited based on patient confidentiality, collaborator agreements, end-user agreements, desire to maximize publications from the same data, and other non-copyright issues which were at play. ([1] Other countries are more restrictive than the US in this regard.)

vixen99 10y ago

If astronomy includes the possible detection of previously unknown sizeable objects in space which might put an end to our activities on this planet, then I don't agree. Climate alarmism (that's not intended as a perjorative word: it's sensible to be alarmed if there is something to be alarmed about) is based on the validity or not of statistical conclusions regarding climate data. Objects in space can and do collide with Earth if that's their trajectory. No theory or hypothesis is required - just data.

jackmott 10y ago

> Paranoid talks about "well financed groups" have no place in science. It is not paranoid, it isn't even secret. Koch Brothers Exxon Heritage Foundation are just 3 examples. It is absolutely within the purview of science to consider these things, as is anything. You can't just declare it off limits. We observe and have records of these groups paying people to write fake sciency-sounding reports on climate science constantly.

bertil 10y ago

There is absolutely nothing paranoid about systematic and well documented efforts from the oil industry to discredit scientists. > It should have much higher standards Yes, but for the quality of the result, not intuitions set-up as principles to replace the real pillars of science: experimentation and peer-review. Transparency is only useful if it helps getting peers; in this case, there are well documented reasons to doubt it, and that the people benefiting from that transparency are not just enemies of science, but of humanity.