3 ms·

> You do realize that's what "literature survey" means, right? You know, the thing the researchers already did? The very point I was making is you should do it

> You do realize that's what "literature survey" means, right? You know, the thing the researchers already did? The very point I was making is you should do it yourself. Good job ignoring it. > Do you insist on personally replicating every research paper you read, or just the ones that don't fit your world view? You're mistaken, this paper fits my world view perfectly. It's saying climate science is mostly accurate, if you look at a set of accurate models. This is obviously sound reasoning. It's just not saying anything.

pmiller2 6y ago
You're really saying that anyone who reads a scientific paper should replicate it themselves? Really? As far as fitting your worldview, you contradict yourself here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25540504 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25540504 So, which is it? Do you believe climate change is an existential threat to humanity in the near term, as the models predict, and as climate science predicts, or no?
- read_if_gay_ 6y ago
  > You're really saying that anyone who reads a scientific paper should replicate it themselves? Really? Stop strawmanning me. You're doing it so poorly I'm wondering whether you actually understood my comments. Same with contradicting myself, you'll have to point me to exactly where you think I do that, because I don't see it. But because you're asking so incredulously: Math papers always require proofs, and if you agree the proofs are correct you've basically replicated the result. So there's actually an entire field of rather smart people who think you should always replicate the results. For fields without this built-in replication, there's such a thing as the replication crisis, which means scientists probably aren't infallible (duh), and you probably should verify results before you rely on them being correct (duh). For climate science, add the fact that as soon as you can verify the results, they're useless.

pmiller2 6y ago

You're really saying that anyone who reads a scientific paper should replicate it themselves? Really? As far as fitting your worldview, you contradict yourself here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25540504 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25540504 So, which is it? Do you believe climate change is an existential threat to humanity in the near term, as the models predict, and as climate science predicts, or no?

read_if_gay_ 6y ago
> You're really saying that anyone who reads a scientific paper should replicate it themselves? Really? Stop strawmanning me. You're doing it so poorly I'm wondering whether you actually understood my comments. Same with contradicting myself, you'll have to point me to exactly where you think I do that, because I don't see it. But because you're asking so incredulously: Math papers always require proofs, and if you agree the proofs are correct you've basically replicated the result. So there's actually an entire field of rather smart people who think you should always replicate the results. For fields without this built-in replication, there's such a thing as the replication crisis, which means scientists probably aren't infallible (duh), and you probably should verify results before you rely on them being correct (duh). For climate science, add the fact that as soon as you can verify the results, they're useless.