10 ms·

>>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 pub

by 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.
- keefe 16y ago
  The point was that if the data is public, more independent observers can perform experiments (as in your other example, taking their own arsenic levels). This may be funded corporations or citizen watchdog groups or whatever. You're talking about arguing about whether certain experiments were valid and you can do that. Once you agree on a dataset, the mean is the mean and that's it. My point is that if ALL the data is released then some group will analyze it with all the outliers in and publish that.

by keefe 16y ago

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.

keefe 16y ago
The point was that if the data is public, more independent observers can perform experiments (as in your other example, taking their own arsenic levels). This may be funded corporations or citizen watchdog groups or whatever. You're talking about arguing about whether certain experiments were valid and you can do that. Once you agree on a dataset, the mean is the mean and that's it. My point is that if ALL the data is released then some group will analyze it with all the outliers in and publish that.