3 ms·

On first glance, it seems pretty bad, but on second thought I read more of a kind of paranoia in it. Almost every set of data can be interpreted in multiple way

On first glance, it seems pretty bad, but on second thought I read more of a kind of paranoia in it. Almost every set of data can be interpreted in multiple ways, depending on the context in which the data is placed. People can twist and subvert data in ways that are very hard to contradict. It's often easier to sell lies than to sell truths and I sense an extreme fear that they have to spend all of their time defending complicated truths against simple falsehoods. Edit: by which I do not mean they are right and the skeptics are the ones subverting the data and convincing others with simple falsehoods. You may fear your opponent doing that while doing it yourself. The above can be read with the sides interchanged. I'm merely pointing out that reality is underdetermined by data, that truths are sometimes hard to sell and that that leads all sides to fear the other side undermining them in ways they consider immoral. Plain human psychology may be enough to explain this, without invoking all kinds of conspiracies. Conspiracies are extremely unlikely, because there will always be someone that blabs. A few people imploring others to do immoral things does not a conspiracy make.

wjy 17y ago
You make a good point. But I wonder, why would the scientists be paranoid? Why aren't they releasing their data and analysis algorithms as part of the package? I mean, shouldn't the process be something like this: 1. Gather data 2. Analyze it 3. Publish results. 4. Make data and analysis methods available for other to scrutinize. 5. Others review data and methods. 6. New insights from others are realized. Carl Sagan, my hero, went on and on science's strength being being that although mistakes are made, they can be corrected through the scrutiny of others, and the picture of truth improves. That process hinges on data and methods being available for others to review. Of course, data will fall into the hands of idiots who will misrepresent, lie, and deceive. Also, your data will fall into the hands of someone who will find an error, or legitimately refute your claims. And that's a good thing. Some years ago, some astronomers who had previously published evidence supporting the existence of a new planet in another solar system, presented at a conference that further analysis of their own data led them to reverse their conclusion. Their presentation was about a minute long. They received a standing ovation. (I believe I saw this on an episode of Nova - I can't cite a source) That's how it's supposed to work.

wjy 17y ago

You make a good point. But I wonder, why would the scientists be paranoid? Why aren't they releasing their data and analysis algorithms as part of the package? I mean, shouldn't the process be something like this: 1. Gather data 2. Analyze it 3. Publish results. 4. Make data and analysis methods available for other to scrutinize. 5. Others review data and methods. 6. New insights from others are realized. Carl Sagan, my hero, went on and on science's strength being being that although mistakes are made, they can be corrected through the scrutiny of others, and the picture of truth improves. That process hinges on data and methods being available for others to review. Of course, data will fall into the hands of idiots who will misrepresent, lie, and deceive. Also, your data will fall into the hands of someone who will find an error, or legitimately refute your claims. And that's a good thing. Some years ago, some astronomers who had previously published evidence supporting the existence of a new planet in another solar system, presented at a conference that further analysis of their own data led them to reverse their conclusion. Their presentation was about a minute long. They received a standing ovation. (I believe I saw this on an episode of Nova - I can't cite a source) That's how it's supposed to work.