Not Josh nor Fenbeagle, but still pretty funny. I think maybe this comic was penned around the time Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth came out, which was enough to make any thinking person start doubting science.
See this and many other funny cartoons about science and academia at: http://tapastic.com/episode/40056
Would be funnier if it was a little less true.
Nice try but the iterative process in the second case is “modify data to fit theory”.
Assign polarity of correlation coefficient to ensure data fits expected result. [Tiljander , cough]
I have to agree with Greg. The original cartoonist probably didn’t think people could / would stoop to simply changing the data to fit the theory.
Select ‘proxies’ that fit preconceived result. Discard others as “unsuitable” . [Gergis]
spetzer86 says:
I have to agree with Greg. The original cartoonist probably didn’t think people could / would stoop to simply changing the data to fit the theory.
===
He’s obviously mocking “real” science, not climatology which, as Spencer pointed out, is beyond parody.
“Lose” original data to prevent third party verification [ CRU ]
In climatology, the Actual Method is to draw logically illicit conclusions from equivocations thus obscuring the fact that the method is not scientific.
“hide behind” intellectual property rights to prevent third party verification [ Phil Jones ]
“In climatology, the Actual Method is to draw logically illicit conclusions from equivocations thus obscuring the fact that the method is not scientific.”
Oh, Terry, you make it sound really complicated. No equivocations, more like cheat and lie for “the cause”.
The box next to “The Actual Method” showing the feedback should read “Modify data to fit theory.”
Deny everything! http://youtu.be/ZzXhLp2wLQo
Last box is wrong too. There is no contrary evidence because you’ve ensured it never got published.
Jorge Cham did this in 2006! He deserves applause. Still, we now know it’s turtles all the way down. We’ve learned a lot about “climate scientists” in 8 years.
@RH
I agree.
Admittedly, the scientific method tends to differ in practice from the ideal. But this comic perpetuates a common myth: That theories are made up “based on what Funding Agency Manager wants to be true.”
I’ve never known this to be true, yet it’s pushed by the loud fringe groups on both the left and the right. The notion is that so-and-so scientist is in the pocket of big pharma or big oil or big green or big tobacco … anything “big.” It’s insulting.
The truth is almost the opposite of this: Scientists with a particular bias or belief or hypothesis seek out funding from agencies that are likely to fund them. If you are a scientist and think that tobacco is beneficial, you probably won’t go to the American Lung Association for funding. You’ll go to Marlboro. If you have a hypothesis that suggests humans are destroying the planet by burning fossil fuels, you won’t go to Exxon-Mobil for funding, you’ll go to an environmental advocacy group or perhaps seek out a NASA grant.
It’s not a matter of being in anyone’s pocket. Scientists don’t change their opinions based on dollars that somebody waves as them: Scientists seek out the dollars that will support their existing opinions, or beliefs, or causes.
So the Scientists are corrupt. All this time I was giving them the Credit of practicing the Scientific Method. Your assertion doesn’t change anything. So I’ll accept it.
In the End, skepticism is sine-qua-non. So let the “so-in-so scientist is in the pocket of Whomever” accusations Fly. There is no downside… unless your ideology relies on blind acceptance.
Nah, the real method is to create fake survey statistics claiming 97% of all scientists support the desired hypothesis then get your University to sue the pants off anybody who asks for proof.
There, fixed it for you………
Actual Method, box 3.
Was “Modify Theory to Fit Data”
Should be: “Statistically Torture Data to Fit Theory. Bury Data that resists Torture.”
“Modify theory to fit data”
This is clearly untrue, what it should say is “Modify Data to fit theory, and, if you can’t, then bury the data so no one can ever find it.”
For accuracy, “modify theory to fit data” should be replaced by “equivocate.”
The BBC wait for a period of unseasonally warm weather and then break some climate story on the news. This is what they were doing towards the end of our winter this year when there was a lot less snow and ice than in previous winters. Last week they did exactly the same thing when we had temperatures up to 22 Celsius and blue skies. Unfortunately for them, the weather changed yesterday and at 18:00 (now) it is currently 8 Celsius and raining.
This is the other irritation I have with the climate zealots, they always confuse weather with climate
Actually, now that I think about it, it should be “Modify Data to fit theory, and, if you can’t, then ignore the data (and hopefully bury it as ‘irrelevant’) and rely on models specifically designed to produce results in line with the theory ”
Reblogged this on makeaneffort and commented:
And this is just how the Left likes it….
Step 2 should probably be “Develop computer model to fit theory”
Forgot the last and most important step. “Conclude ‘More study is required’ and demand more funding.”
When in doubt, study Lysenkoism and do what they did. Make things up out of whole cloth, and couch in sciency-sounding terms. People will fall all over themselves with awe and Belief. Be sure to have lots of pals ready to do pal review, as you will do for them.
Sounds like we need a 5-year plan!