4 ms·

Downvoters: I'm curious, what is wrong with this comment?

by MichaelSalib 16y ago

keefe 16y ago
I often wonder this myself, something seems to make people more inclined to disagree than agree.
- ars 16y ago
  It's not people - it's person. There are a lot more readers than modders.
ars 16y ago
I wouldn't downmod you for that, but man I don't agree with that comment. They are fitting data to expectations, and worse you are telling them to conceal the fact that they do so, just so no one can argue with them. That is pretty much as far away as you can possibly get from true science. What they should do is put massive error bars on the numbers and say "We can't." We can't tell you the true number, it's not possible to calculate it.
- MichaelSalib 16y ago
  They are fitting data to expectations Eh? This is a war zone that has seen very intense fighting. It is not unreasonable to assume that data from this one site is unreliable for any of a million different reasons, especially given just how far it was from the other sites. Do you generally insist that scientists must never eliminate any outlier data points, no matter how suspect? you are telling them to conceal the fact that they do so I'm not telling them to conceal anything. I think they did the correct thing: they published all their data, and they disclosed exactly what data points they removed and why they did so. My point is that because they published their data and disclosed what they did and why they did it, they faced criticisms that never would have seen the light of day otherwise. And to me that suggests that it is unreasonable to believe that deniers are going to become less prevalent in a world where more data is published openly. What they should do is put massive error bars on the numbers and say "We can't." We can't tell you the true number, it's not possible to calculate it. I don't understand this at all. "Massive" doesn't mean anything. They calculated appropriate confidence intervals and included them in their analysis. What exactly do you think they did wrong?
  - keefe 16y ago
    >>unreasonable to believe that deniers are going to become less prevalent in a world where more data is published this is almost a tautology. if data isn't published, there's nothing to deny. are you suggesting... everybody just shut the data up behind closed doors so people can say whatever they want and at least none of those pesky dissenters can stir up trouble? If the data is out there, more people will see the truth. You really can't argue with #s - if I include studies X,Y,Z the mean is M and if I exclude Z it's N. You may argue about Z but people should make those decisions for themselves.
    - MichaelSalib 16y ago
      are you suggesting... everybody just shut the data up behind closed doors so people can say whatever they want and at least none of those pesky dissenters can stir up trouble? Absolutely not. And I think you should know that. Do you know why I think you should know that? Because I wrote "I'm not telling them to conceal anything. I think they did the correct thing: they published all their data, and they disclosed exactly what data points they removed and why they did so" in the comment you're replying to. So, why exactly do you think I'm suggesting that any data be hidden? How many times do I have to explicitly write that I think no data should be hidden before you believe me? You really can't argue with #s - if I include studies X,Y,Z the mean is M and if I exclude Z it's N. You may argue about Z but people should make those decisions for themselves. You certainly can argue with numbers. Numbers do not burst forth from the head of Zeus; they are always produced in a particular context and that context provides fertile grounds for argument. Here's an example: is the mean temperature of the earth changing? We have datasets from weather stations all over the globe going back centuries. But there are people who claim that many of these weather stations used to be located in rural areas that have become more developed over time and that this development can introduce heat islands that create the illusion of global warming. This is not an obviously false claim. These people can and do argue with the numbers. Later research by scientists has shown that this claim is wrong anyway, but lay people lack the time and training to figure that out on their own. And it seems bizarre to expect them to. If the data is out there, more people will see the truth. I don't think this is true at all. People do not generally scrutinize raw data. And if they do, they lack the skilled needed to decipher them.

Downvoters: I'm curious, what is wrong with this comment?

keefe 16y ago

I often wonder this myself, something seems to make people more inclined to disagree than agree.

ars 16y ago
It's not people - it's person. There are a lot more readers than modders.

ars 16y ago

I wouldn't downmod you for that, but man I don't agree with that comment. They are fitting data to expectations, and worse you are telling them to conceal the fact that they do so, just so no one can argue with them. That is pretty much as far away as you can possibly get from true science. What they should do is put massive error bars on the numbers and say "We can't." We can't tell you the true number, it's not possible to calculate it.

MichaelSalib 16y ago
They are fitting data to expectations Eh? This is a war zone that has seen very intense fighting. It is not unreasonable to assume that data from this one site is unreliable for any of a million different reasons, especially given just how far it was from the other sites. Do you generally insist that scientists must never eliminate any outlier data points, no matter how suspect? you are telling them to conceal the fact that they do so I'm not telling them to conceal anything. I think they did the correct thing: they published all their data, and they disclosed exactly what data points they removed and why they did so. My point is that because they published their data and disclosed what they did and why they did it, they faced criticisms that never would have seen the light of day otherwise. And to me that suggests that it is unreasonable to believe that deniers are going to become less prevalent in a world where more data is published openly. What they should do is put massive error bars on the numbers and say "We can't." We can't tell you the true number, it's not possible to calculate it. I don't understand this at all. "Massive" doesn't mean anything. They calculated appropriate confidence intervals and included them in their analysis. What exactly do you think they did wrong?
- keefe 16y ago
  >>unreasonable to believe that deniers are going to become less prevalent in a world where more data is published this is almost a tautology. if data isn't published, there's nothing to deny. are you suggesting... everybody just shut the data up behind closed doors so people can say whatever they want and at least none of those pesky dissenters can stir up trouble? If the data is out there, more people will see the truth. You really can't argue with #s - if I include studies X,Y,Z the mean is M and if I exclude Z it's N. You may argue about Z but people should make those decisions for themselves.
  - MichaelSalib 16y ago
    are you suggesting... everybody just shut the data up behind closed doors so people can say whatever they want and at least none of those pesky dissenters can stir up trouble? Absolutely not. And I think you should know that. Do you know why I think you should know that? Because I wrote "I'm not telling them to conceal anything. I think they did the correct thing: they published all their data, and they disclosed exactly what data points they removed and why they did so" in the comment you're replying to. So, why exactly do you think I'm suggesting that any data be hidden? How many times do I have to explicitly write that I think no data should be hidden before you believe me? You really can't argue with #s - if I include studies X,Y,Z the mean is M and if I exclude Z it's N. You may argue about Z but people should make those decisions for themselves. You certainly can argue with numbers. Numbers do not burst forth from the head of Zeus; they are always produced in a particular context and that context provides fertile grounds for argument. Here's an example: is the mean temperature of the earth changing? We have datasets from weather stations all over the globe going back centuries. But there are people who claim that many of these weather stations used to be located in rural areas that have become more developed over time and that this development can introduce heat islands that create the illusion of global warming. This is not an obviously false claim. These people can and do argue with the numbers. Later research by scientists has shown that this claim is wrong anyway, but lay people lack the time and training to figure that out on their own. And it seems bizarre to expect them to. If the data is out there, more people will see the truth. I don't think this is true at all. People do not generally scrutinize raw data. And if they do, they lack the skilled needed to decipher them.