Quote of the week – solving the peer review integrity issue


A poll follows.

Over at Bishop Hill, he’s listed some quotes from Geoffry Boulton on scientific integrity that I found interesting. He writes (with apologies for posting in full, I couldn’t see any way to excerpt this short article):


Geoffrey Boulton is giving a speech to JISC, the goverment body which “inspires UK colleges and universities in the innovative use of digital technologies, helping to maintain the UK’s position as a global leader in education”. (Austerity, what austerity?). His comments are being widely tweeted under the hashtag #jiscmrd. Here are a few interesting ones: 

Bolton from Royal Society saying that its “malpractice” to not publish underlying data to research at same time as paper published

@ScienceBL: Boulton says publishing of data should be concurrent with the paper. #jiscmrd #datacite” <- very much agreed.

Boulton: cures for scientific fraud: open data for replication, transparent peer review, personal and system integrity #jiscmrd

#jiscmrd Geoffrey Boulton: open data is our responsibility to citizen science.

It’s funny to see Boulton calling for transparent peer review after failing to investigate allegations of journal nobbling – probably the single most important issue to have emerged from Climategate – during the Russell inquiry.


The idea of having all the data and methods up front ahead of time make a lot of sense. In my view, this is central to effective peer review. Without it, it boils down to a “trust us” situation with the authors of the paper. Given all of the mess surrounding Marcott et al and the failures of peer review to catch its problems, and the uptrend in paper retraction in science in general, I thought it might be a good time to ask this question.

UPDATE: Some people wondered about whether they could join such a professional organization or not if it existed, not being accredited in the field. It should be noted organizations like the AGU and the AMS accept “associate members” i.e. people that have an interest in the science but who may not be accredited in the field. There’s no reason to consider why that could not be the case for a new organization. – Anthony

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
March 26, 2013 8:17 am

Boulton is to scientific integrity what Charles Manson is to happy families.

March 26, 2013 8:26 am

“Western populations would accept serfdom if it is packaged as saving the Earth”…Bertram Russell
Reject the hypothesis that humans CAN save the Earth and you are on your way to avoiding serfdom….meanwhile we CAN reduce our minor negative impacts. Thinking humans make lousy slaves.

March 26, 2013 8:32 am

Well, this is truly rich. These statements may set a new standard in “hubris”.
McIntyre, rightly admired for his considerable restraint in dealing with pompous buffoons, must be experiencing a rise in his annoy-o-meter.
This must be the face of post-normal science – where facts, truth, integrity, and logic “don’t really matter anymore” (TM – Climate Science)

Owen in GA
March 26, 2013 8:33 am

My specialty isn’t atmospheric sciences, so I am not sure I could check “Yes” on the poll. Replace that with RF Propagation and I’d definitely join. The problem is that while I follow this issue and it impacts tangentially on my main research in RF propagation, it is the politics of it that inspired me to look into it farther. When someone claims that we all have to live as cavemen to save the planet, I want to check their data. When the data (when one can get it) and procedures (again if one can get it) appears to not support their conclusions I get curious and start digging. When the further I dig the less supported the position appears, I tend to get angry at those who are muddying up the reputations of all scientists.

March 26, 2013 8:35 am

Is the poll for people working in the sciences only? I’m not in that group, so rather than skew the results by voting “no,” I’ll refrain from voting. If I were a scientist, yes, I would join.
REPLY: actually, organizations like the AGU and the AMS accept “associate members” i.e. people that have an interest in the science but who may not be accredited in the field. There’s no reason to consider why that could not be the case for a new organization – Anthony

Gary Pearse
March 26, 2013 8:40 am

Engineers generally have high integrity because the proof of their good or bad work is in the product. You can’t get away with cooking a design for a bridge or airplane, nor would one want to. It also helps that they belong to associations created by statutes that require a license to practice which requires certification, passage of an ethics examination and which has the power to discipline up to and including loss of license, remedial education and supervised re-entry into practice. I think the time is ripe, in an era of moral laxity, to require similar statutes for scientists. In Canada, we have already included geologists and geophysicists in these associations. Re Boulton and posting data. Lets hope its ‘data, the whole data and nothing but the data’. We have seen posting of data in the Shakun paper that is tailor made for it and different from that of his just completed thesis on the subject with no additional research done. Boulton would (from his past partisan position with climate felons) have been a candidate for re-education if he were an engineer.

Doug Huffman
March 26, 2013 8:52 am

Come on, you yes-voters, what does the quibble “professional” mean but authoritarianism and credentialism? How many vote is not so significant as who counts the enfranchised-votes. Professional democracy is not different from professional mob-rule. The Ancient Greeks mooted elitism through Sortition.

March 26, 2013 8:53 am

If I voted Yes it would really indicate something between “Confirmation bias” and “Conventional Wisdom”. If I voted No it would not mean I didn’t want more transparency but simply that I didn’t have the interest or knowledge to contribute.
Then again, like one of the Marx Bros said, it might indicate that I wouldn’t want to join any club that would accept me.

Josh C
March 26, 2013 8:55 am

I would welcome any scientific journal that had that requirement – I would humbly suggest it would make a great standard for a scientific magazine, online or otherwise. In time I would think it would be far more popular due to a history of integrity that some would say is lacking in the current offerings.

March 26, 2013 9:02 am

I think his suggestion is a start. But it does not deal with one of the erroneous methods used by the warmist lobby which now seems to regard the number of “peer reviewed” papers as being critical to an author’s credentials and correctness. This has been taken a step further by suggesting that because a large number of such papers support the AGW view it naturally follows that there is a consensus that the AGW belief is right and that there are only a few cranks, who should be disregarded, who disagree.
A peer review by somebody who agrees with your point of view is unlikely to advance things very much. It is a bit like asking a group of church ministers to review papers on the existence of god and concluding, because they give favorable reviews, that god therefore exists. Then, because only true believers are likely to publish such papers, you say that the overwhelming number of papers support the existence of god, therefore there is a consensus that he exists.

March 26, 2013 9:16 am

Boulton is an international expert on ethics. Here, for example:
…where Boulton discusses the importance of acting with “honesty and care, not committing plagiarism and declaring conflicts of interest” (much like when Boulton was presented as an IPCC author in his resume, as the UK Government’s Chief Advisor on Climate Change (http://youtu.be/2VFWYfBEtJ8) (which he was not), and when he neglected to mention his time at the UEA when serving as a lead in the Muir Russell ‘independent’ inquiry into the CRU. Who better to comment on matters relating to honest peer review? (ho ho)

michael hart
March 26, 2013 9:21 am

If a professional atmospheric sciences organization existed that didn’t enforce it’s declared standards, would you resign?

John Whitman
March 26, 2013 9:25 am

I strongly recommend the process of open and transparent peer review as I describe in the following (in the case of publicaly funded research).
Peer review should be performed as it is currently done in a private environment but then the proceeding of the peer review should be made accessible to the public when the paper is published. The reviewers should also be identified as a mandatory part of the public access to the peer review proceedings.
I would not consider incremental cost to do that as a a negative attribute.

March 26, 2013 9:26 am

It’s been noted in previous posts, but I will repeat it. Geoffrey Boulton has absolutely no credibility with regards to ethics and integrity. The Muir Russell inquiry proves that. Requiring the publishing of data with the research paper to facilitate replication and open peer review is a great idea, but Boulton is absolutely the wrong messenger.

David Schofield
March 26, 2013 9:28 am

I don’t twit myself, but is anyone going to do the Phil Jones quote about ‘you will only try to find fault with my data so you aren’t having it..’

March 26, 2013 9:31 am

I would go so far as to say that “fake” should be the default assumption for any paper that does NOT publish its data when it publishes its conclusions.

March 26, 2013 9:40 am

A case of ” Why do you see the splinter in your brother’s eye but not notice the log in your own eye?”, even though the splinter is a very real problem here.

March 26, 2013 9:42 am

John Whitman says:
March 26, 2013 at 9:25 am
Peer review should be performed as it is currently done in a private environment but then the proceeding of the peer review should be made accessible to the public when the paper is published. The reviewers should also be identified as a mandatory part of the public access to the peer review proceedings.
If the journal will not cooperate in this regard, the author can simply put the review on his/hers website. Examples here: http://www.leif.org/research/

March 26, 2013 9:44 am

Reblogged this on Climate Ponderings and commented:

March 26, 2013 9:47 am

John Whitman says:
March 26, 2013 at 9:25 am

I think that no review or evaluation should be anonymous. Not infrequently, applying for a grant, even a very small one, for instance to cover costs of radiocarbon dating, can meet with a completely opaque “not recommended” or similar response with no explanation why. Without an explanation, there can be no path forward if the researcher cannot fund the work. Not infrequently, back stories and grapevine information will often indicate that “x” review the application. He/she – hates the committee chair of that student/automatically – rejects research without an inherent touchy-feely/component – wants the project and has in fact already hijacked the idea. Requiring a clear justification for why a proposal is reject and that the individual objecting put their name on the line seems to be a clear method of forcing a more objective review process.

Jeff L
March 26, 2013 9:52 am

This approach should be expanded to all peer reviewed science. Although readers here known & are focused on atmospheric science , similar issues exist in other sciences as well. Are more open process would be beneficial to all science.
Then the next big problem to tackle would be grant funding – needs to be double blind. We do these 2 things & we’ll be a long ways toward more credible science.

March 26, 2013 9:54 am

Given that I already belong to an organization (contract engineering for mining firms) that requires this by law, I have voted yes. I’ve said this before. If climate scientists had to publish under the same laws that geologists do (hmm I can think of one of those!) they would panic. Indeed, if Mann “hid the decline” in a NI-43-101 report he would be subject to prosecution. A geologist would be required to highlight the decline and explain why it wasn’t important rather than hiding it.

March 26, 2013 9:57 am

In some cases I run through hundreds of GB of raw data before I come to a simple final plot. I actually don’t store the raw data many times, since it would take too much space to store it in the first place. This would also be the case for DNA studies. While raw data publication should be encouraged, it should not be required.

John Billot
March 26, 2013 10:02 am

Anthony, how do we know this is not another “Lewcook” production? 😉

Milwaukee Bob
March 26, 2013 10:04 am

… JISC, the goverment body which ”inspires UK colleges and universities in the innovative use of digital technologies, helping to maintain the UK’s position as a global leader in education”
With all due respect AND apologies to my English friends, especially those in Hartlepool, the UK “needs” a government body to inspire the use of digital technologies in higher education? And IF the UK IS a global leader in education, why are so many Brits coming over to the US to finish their education? Part of being a GREAT, LEADING education system is having the capacity, in space, cost AND imagination, to “educate” a vast number people to whatever level they so desire and can achieve. Secondly, education is NOT just about scoring high on paper tests, in school. THE REAL test is what you are capable of accomplishing (and do accomplish) in THE REAL world once you are out of school, that of course is IF you ever leave school.
And “JUST” publishing the (some) data with/when a paper is submitted is not going to solve the inherent problems with the cloistered per-review system.

March 26, 2013 10:08 am

The UK is absolutely the best at self aggrandizing propaganda.

March 26, 2013 10:18 am

Perhaps Geoffrey Boulton has experienced a conversion on the road to Damascus.
As a parent of two and grandparent of five I can attest that the best way to reinforce positive behavior is to reward it.

March 26, 2013 10:21 am

Anthony an equally important questions is “Would you see an organization or science journal providing replicable papers up front as better than those that don’t?”

March 26, 2013 10:39 am

Another “quote of the Climate Gate Cult’s elite:
March 25, 2013 ” Natural Gas Rocks The Energy World”
David Crane , NDG (Natural Gas Producer)
Tim Rosenzweig (Goldwind Inc.) must be wind energy guy.
Michael Brune (Sierria Club)
Best quote ” by the Sierria Club guy,,
“why spend hundreds of billions of dollars in a “fossil-fuel” infrastructure when
He better check things out, he be % carbon too.
Carbon feeds corn , corn feeds him.

March 26, 2013 10:47 am

Science is about replicability, not hubristic assertion. If it’s not replicable, it’s not science, and no amount of statistical mummery will make it so. It may be religion or politics or pandering, but not science of any sort.

March 26, 2013 11:02 am

To appreciate the importance of JISC to this story it important to remember that CAGW is relying on a modelling, constructivist, social inquiry approach to education replacing the historical transmission of a body of knowledge approach. Then you simply make catastrophe due to . . . as politically desired part of the software. Visually the student keeps hearing and seeing that there will be a catastrophe and enough repetitions make it a believed “fact.” remember false beliefs are still consequential in altering future behavior.
The Frankfurt School in their Radio Project research in the 30s established that useful fact. It’s in the Primer for all aspiring Statists I believe. Much of the push in digital learning is really to make education vocational. Use of a tool that does the mental work. So a computer as the center of education is a cognitive tool that is actually weakening most students who simply treat the interaction as visual and interactive, not mental as a book or a lecture.
That’s also in the Primer. Use education practices that take away the masses ability to think accurately and abstractly. Seriously. It comes from Soviet psychologists Vygotsky and Luria and especially Leontiev. I actually explained symbolic cultural tools here months ago http://www.invisibleserfscollar.com/creating-new-minds-different-values-equity-in-credentials-can-this-really-lead-us-to-prosperity/ .
Plus there is the fact that to a committed Marxist (and they do exist and they are getting bolder in saying so), ICT is the dream transformative technology that Marx and Engels always dreamed of in their vision of history. The idea that consciousness changes to reflect the dominant technology.
So if education is the vehicle for transformation and CAGW is the excuse as I have been arguing, the Digital Learning push is another vehicle for massive noetic change. At the individual and then society levels. This is not just another speaking engagement. Digital learning and cyberlearning are very connected to CAGW as a means of sociocultural change. CAGW is the reason for the accompanying economic change. Together you get the Total Transformation or an Administered State. Every bureaucrat’s and their cronies dream.

March 26, 2013 11:18 am

Ten Commandments of the Climate Cult.
1. Thou shall be cold if the cult says so.
2. Thou shall be hot if the cult says so.
3. Thou shall not eat any thing on our no eat list. (We make the list)
4. Thou shall walk or ride a donkey or horse to work and play.
5. Thous shall live in a small hut and be grateful for that to the Climate Gods.
6. Thou shall not take Michael Manns name in vain.
7. Thou shall not praise the use the Carbon Energy of Mother earth.
8. Thou shall not demand proven facts from the climate gods just obey.
9. Thou shall not do unto the climate gods as they do unto you.

Theo Goodwin
March 26, 2013 11:25 am

Gary Pearse says:
March 26, 2013 at 8:40 am
“Engineers generally have high integrity because the proof of their good or bad work is in the product.”
Also, many engineers belong to professional organizations of engineers that teach ethics, have ethics boards, and have something to say about licensing. The standards for Civil Engineers, Materials Engineers, and quite a few others are very high. Most important of all, these engineers are quite comfortable talking to one another about ethics.

March 26, 2013 11:29 am

Re Joseph Oulson: “Thinking humans make lousy slaves”
Not if the Ottoman empire was anything to go by. Their entire state beurocracy was administered by slaves, up to and including the status of regional governor. These were very educated , thinking slaves. Most were raised from childhood for their roles having been taken as human tax tribute from East European states defeated in slave yielding military campaigns. Those campaigns in turn waged by slave armies, most notably the elite Janisserie and the Horsemen of The Porch.
Chattel slavery continued in Turkey until the 20th Century. The last slave market in Istanbul was in 1904.
The vision of slavery that guilt-whipped Westerners are perpetually fed is very, very distorted.

March 26, 2013 11:33 am

The thought has just occurred to me that more people read this blog than anything Boulton writes.
Indeed, after thinking: “they will soon start coming to you begging to be allowed to speak”.
I began wondering just how much commercial value there is in WUWT.

March 26, 2013 11:58 am

The climate waterheads have turned “peer review” into “pal review”.
The pretense of impartiality still exists, for some unfathomable reason. It doesn’t make bloody sense.
It’s like catching your child with his hand stuck in the cookie jar, chocolate cookie well in hand, wrist stuck in the bottleneck; yet, the child insists that what you’re seeing ISN’T what you’re seeing.
Guys caught in the family bed banging away at a chick have more credibility than Albert “Global warming’s gonna make me rich, beyotch!” Gore.

March 26, 2013 12:13 pm

Boulton is to scientific integrity as Gliek is to ethics…

March 26, 2013 12:26 pm

Geoffrey Boulton, the poster-child for post-normal science and the Theory of Inverse Reality. Invert what he says and then discern the truth of whatever matter.

Stephen Richards
March 26, 2013 12:29 pm

I wouldn’t join but I would buy their journal. I buy none now. Stopped physics, SCIAM, Nature, New scientist. Had them all at one time.

john robertson
March 26, 2013 12:33 pm

Boulton speaking on ethics and science is like Al Gorical speaking about energy conservations and honesty.

John Whitman
March 26, 2013 12:39 pm

lsvalgaard on March 26, 2013 at 9:42 am
If the journal will not cooperate in this regard, the author can simply put the review on his/hers website. Examples here: http://www.leif.org/research/
– – – – – – –
Thanks for your comment.
I noticed your “320 Dikpati Referee Report.pdf (My Referee’s Report on Dikpati et al., GRL 2006) “.
As a referee (reviewer) option, publishing their reviews on a website does look like it contributes toward opening up the journal (peer) review process.

March 26, 2013 12:40 pm

Milwaukee Bob…all accepted and with no offence taken.
That thing about British education is one of a number of articles of faith that form unexamined wallpaper to life in Britain. Its an identity narrative.
What I really find questionable is the assumption that encouraging the use of digital technology in education is necessarily a good thing.
I very much disagree.

March 26, 2013 12:54 pm

“data for replication”
Why couldn’t he say “Preservation of original data is supposed to be one of the highest priorities for scientists. Preserving data allows others to replicate results, and it also allows for the possibility that in the future scientists and interested people may make observations from that data that are not anticipated by today’s limited understanding. Preservation of unaltered data is a safeguard against many scientific mistakes and abuses, such as carefully selecting only certain data points and signals, while excluding others which would not confirm the the theory of the scientists.” Probably because it was just too long for a Tweet. (:

John Whitman
March 26, 2013 12:55 pm

Duster on March 26, 2013 at 9:47 am

John Whitman says:
March 26, 2013 at 9:25 am

I think that no review or evaluation should be anonymous. Not infrequently, applying for a grant, even a very small one, for instance to cover costs of radiocarbon dating, can meet with a completely opaque “not recommended” or similar response with no explanation why. Without an explanation, there can be no path forward if the researcher cannot fund the work. Not infrequently, back stories and grapevine information will often indicate that “x” review the application. He/she – hates the committee chair of that student/automatically – rejects research without an inherent touchy-feely/component – wants the project and has in fact already hijacked the idea. Requiring a clear justification for why a proposal is reject and that the individual objecting put their name on the line seems to be a clear method of forcing a more objective review process.

– – – – – – –
Thanks for your comment.
I think you are suggesting that at a the request of the funding applicant any decision not to fund by the funding body should be explained in at an accessible public link.
It would tend to contribute toward integrity auditing of the funding body.

March 26, 2013 12:56 pm

Milwaukee Bob says:
March 26, 2013 at 10:04 am
And IF the UK IS a global leader in education, why are so many Brits coming over to the US to finish their education?
For much the same reason as American students go to universities in Britain and other countries.

Theo Goodwin
March 26, 2013 1:27 pm

Doug Huffman says:
March 26, 2013 at 8:52 am
Please do not panic. Lots of ideas are floating around here. The idea that data must be published along with the publication of a peer reviewed article does not threaten the liberties of anyone.
As regards professional associations, they are found at various places along a spectrum. An association that teaches ethics and encourages its members to become comfortable discussing ethical issues does not threaten the liberties of anyone.
Keep in mind the context. The so-called “investigations” that white washed the Climategaters could achieve their end only because there were no widely accepted standards that could be applied to their work. In effect, the investigators made up their standards or non-standards during their investigations. That cannot be allowed to stand. The behavior of the Climategaters and those who exonerated them raised the questions that we are discussing.

March 26, 2013 1:38 pm

The AGU and AMS “may” be ‘professional’ organizations but THEY ARE THE CENTAL PROBLEM with “peer-review”, including their pay-to-play systems and ‘buddy-check’ reviewers.

March 26, 2013 1:44 pm

Certainly the situation as it stands has to turn around or all of science loses out.
I find it personally interesting that while I know it is the scientists amongst us who are doing some heavy duty work to turn this scam around, and it is scientists who really will save this world from mad green policy – I nevertheless have a default reaction of mistrust whenever I hear “science says” now.
I hate that I feel that way. It surprised me that I should have that initial reaction to reject something outright simply because “science says”. It doesn’t matter what the field is. On some kind of subconscious level “Science = Dodgy” and that is just SO WRONG.
I’ve been coming in here daily for quite some time now – I’m addicted to this place. I love what I learn here, I love reading the comments and interacting with you all. I know that we will win out through using real science and the scientific method. You are all doing exactly what’s needed.
Yet there is a huge percentage of the population that does not come in here and does not know the good work being carried out to stop the madness that’s going on in the world. When this is all done and finished, it will be the “skeptical” aspect that will be remembered. “Science” will be remembered as being on the Bad Guy side.
So, if I’m feeling “science = dodgy” and “don’t trust ‘science says’,” and I KNOW that real science is winning – what the heck are THEY going to think? Especially when the only science that’s been rammed down their throats for 30 years has been the FALSE sort.
So, yes, this situation has to be turned around to keep ALL of science going down the toilet completely for the next hudred years.
After my initial mistrust when I hear “science says,” I have only one question and that is, “Where’s the data?”
Data and methods ALWAYS supplied up front is the way to go. It is the vital step. That, I would always trust.

Ray Donahue
March 26, 2013 2:33 pm

Hi Warmron, RE: Slavery
Absolutely correct. A very (!) complicated and embarassing subject (not just to the Western World

March 26, 2013 2:33 pm

Pressure of work prevents me from reading previous posts, so I may be repeating points already made.
The questions being asked in this poll makes it irrelevant for me to respond, but it raises issues that I have a strong opinion on. The problem is the phrasing of the question:
1. I’m an Electronic Engineer, so I would never be likely to join an atmospheric sciences organization.
2. Even if it was an engineering organization, I would not be likely to join either way. After more than 30 years in practice, I’ve not joined one yet.
However I do read papers from these organizations and I need to trust what I read.
What is perhaps more relevant to this poll is if it had asked whether I would give credence to a paper published by an organization that only published papers that were replicable up front.
Then my answer would be a definite “Yes”! As it stands, I can’t even say “Maybe”.

john robertson
March 26, 2013 2:42 pm

@AD Everard, my sentiments exactly, without a society grounded in the scientific method,we are going to suffer.
However science is going to get pounded in the backlash that this fraud is generating.
The fall of the NGOs, enviro empires will give me great pleasure, however the loss of credibility the real sciences are suffering is sad.

March 26, 2013 2:43 pm

Gary Pearse says:
March 26, 2013 at 8:40 am
“Engineers generally have high integrity because the proof of their good or bad work is in the product. You can’t get away with cooking a design for a bridge or airplane, nor would one want to.”
Having worked for the government, I can’t say that about military contracts. As you are usually punished for making a design error by being paid even more money to correct it. Even belonging to a professional organization would have little effect in these cases as the government contractors are almost always sheltered from lawsuits. Me thinks that this is probably the major issue with the climatologists, too much grant & contract dollars from government sources. Now providing the data requirements along with the research paper (and any other requirement to try to ensure integrity) could easily be made a legal requirement in the grants/contracts. Interesting that this is not so.

March 26, 2013 3:15 pm

I am just a Simple Red Neck. A highly technical journal would be wasted on me. However, if the journal was of the character of the OLD Scientific American i.e. a detailed synopsis written for a more general audience but now with links added to access the body of the work, I’d be interested.
Steamboat Jack (Jon Jewett’s evil twin)

Doug Huffman
March 26, 2013 3:16 pm

Theo Goodwin says: March 26, 2013 at 1:27 pm “Please do not panic.” Thanks Theo, but my “panic” goes further back and deeper than this post-modern kerfuffle. Once upon a long long time ago and in a far away place, there were about 200 of us with my job description. After Admiral H. G. Rickover called us his “evil necessities”, we sought professional status for a big pay raise. Professional is to US FedGov quite arbitrary so we didn’t get it. I am jaded to claims of professionalism as political correctness.
The Real Problem is that there is never time enough to do it right the first time, but always money to do it over. N. N. Taleb suggests Hammurabi’s (“an eye for an eye”) bridge building engineers had the proper doxastic committment, they died if their bridge collapsed.

March 26, 2013 3:17 pm

@ wamron &ray , Although you are correct about some of your info and conclusions (but not all), that does not take away that slavery is alive and well today. (that is why the statements are incorrect)
And the slavers play (and pay) on that guilt. Even today what people would consider highly paid and respected positions they are much the same as what you describe.

March 26, 2013 3:25 pm

Re AD Everard…all of science going down the pan.
This has recently become a recurring and very pertinent theme on this and other web forums.
What I have not often seen mentioned is that there is actually an agenda among so-called “Post Modernist” science academics to actively pursue the destruction of what has been known as “science”.
They do not balk at refuting the very existence of objective reality. It is actually taught now that the “discovery” of facts is an out-moded paradigm and that “science” is in future to be regarded as the “creation of knowledge” and implicitly, a cultural practice indistinuishable from argumentation about belief, based in ideology.
This is of course principally a disease of the Social Sciences. We see it in Lewandowsky. But it has metastised into forms now migrating into all other areas of activity. For example, via the generation of particular concepts and interpretations of “ethics” that will circumscribe the pursuit of knowledge even in engineering. More and more often we will discover that certain discoveries (or lines of development) have not been pursued because their implications have been deemed liable to”unethical” effect. “Ethics” is in my opinion purely ideological.
No amount of concern for the continued practice of science will avert the disaster this is going to bring upon Western societies. Its like worrying about decorating the facade of a building from which the internal structure is being quietly removed out the back door, beam by beam.
As I have said before, in my opinion Western culture is in its declining phase, but we can hope that the good it produced will be inherited by its successors in the East.

March 26, 2013 3:37 pm

Having worked in the Nuclear Industry (power plants). Having submitted testing DATA to the NRC.
Having supplied QA Records to the NRC. Having marginal association with a case where an “low level” engineer, submitted a document which because of LAZINESS had an “incorrect answer” to an NRC inquiry Bulletin (high level, requiring documented response). Also having helped narrowly avoid a charge of “deliberate false information” (punishable by fines and imprisonment).for said lazy work: My sympathies are ZERO for the data with-holders.

March 26, 2013 3:38 pm

PS: NRC = Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Theo Goodwin
March 26, 2013 3:53 pm

Doug Huffman says:
March 26, 2013 at 3:16 pm
Now that I know about your experience, I see that you have more complicated issues that you might want to address later on. .

Steve Garcia
March 26, 2013 3:53 pm

If a professional atmospheric sciences organization existed that only published papers that were replicable up front, would you join?

WOW, that is a huge onus on the researchers, to have someone ELSE replicate before they even publish.
At the same time, WTF are they publishing for, if they themselves have not replicated the results? A one off result isn’t anything to hang one’s hat on.
O/T but maybe not: On another controversial subject, the Carolina bays, there is an oft-cited study – Kaczorowski 1977 – that purportedly shows that wind blowing across a circular shallow depression, and switching directions in an oscillatory manner, will tend to make the circle elliptical – and elongated CROSSWAYS to the wind (not exactly intuitive).
Unfortunately, Kaczorowski never got his study published ANYWHERE, much less a peer-reviewed journal. And to boot, he only reversed the wind every 15 minutes and only ran the experiment for FOUR hours (16 reversals, or equivalent to only 4 years). The Carolina bays have existed for no less than 13,000 years, so wind reversals equivalent to 4 years is utterly and abysmally insufficient. Running the experiments for, say, 2,000 reversals (=1,000 years) would certainly give more definitive results. Since there were 4 reversals per hour, 13,000 years would take all of 3,250 hours, or ~135 days. No extrapolation would even be necessary.
My point here is that half-assed experiments DO get accepted, especially if their results reflect kindly on the existing paradigm. Certainly ones that contradict the current paradigm would not be accepted after such a pathetically low number of cycles.
ALSO: NO ONE has ever even bothered to replicate his work, as sophomoric as it is. That it is widely cited and STILL not replicated – all you can do is shake your head.
Steve Garcia
p.s. The elongated circles did not even look anything like Carolina bays, being pointed nearly like the corners of the eye. It might be a shame, because K’s experiment MIGHT have shown bay-like elliptical shapes, had he let it go on longer.

Steve Garcia
March 26, 2013 3:55 pm

Goofed on one math thing: 13,000 years would be 26,000 reversals, so double the 135 days…

March 26, 2013 4:16 pm

“This poll did not load properly”
When clicking “Vote”

Chris Edwards
March 26, 2013 4:29 pm

The UK has had a crap education system since the 1970s before that it was a world leader, we gave you the industrial revolution and we got socialism in exchange and that screwed the schools!

March 26, 2013 4:32 pm

Maybe I am going against the grain here, but I do not think that being able to replicate the results from the published source code and data is not the most important aspect to improve. Most people – even scientists in the field – cannot spend time to replicate all but the most important papers. This includes the peer reviewers. Most people will just look at the conclusions.
There are three other ways that are much easier to understand.
Firstly is making novel statements – predictions about the world. This means making the hypotheses vulnerable to refutation.
Secondly is encouraging diverse approaches and different hypotheses to explain the same phenomena. Competition should lead to higher standards, including clearer presentation of results.
Thirdly is encouraging more “literature” reviews on the state of a particular topic. In economics there were a number of journals that did just that – The Journal of Economic Literature being one of the most prominent. This encourages comparing and contrasting different papers, making the subject more accessible, and also pointing to gaps in the knowledge. The UNIPCC reporting every seven years from a particular perspective is a much inferior outlet to many diversified approaches.
In summary there should be competition and pluralism – a reversal of the trend to block out contrary views and get scientific organisations to promote unitary views.

March 26, 2013 4:58 pm

i will repeat a suggestion made long ago.
wuwt can lead by having data amd code for all posts. willis does this. its a good example.
i would brand it as well.

March 26, 2013 5:19 pm

RE feet2thefire:
I don’t believe a Journal should limit itself to only replicated papers. A Journal exists to give desemination to observations and theories for which other people can replicate and build upon.
That said, I would certainly applaud an editorial / peer review comment about the reliability of each paper. In fact, Add it as a standard clause to the abstract. It can be a set of standard clauses such as
“This paper describes a one-time event or observation that cannot be replicated”
“Models from top to bottom. No raw data. Models not reviewable.”
“Raw data is not publically available”
“Raw data is provided. Process is not in public domain”
“Raw data and Processing code provided”
“Raw data and Processing code provided, results replicated by reviewers”
Remember the quote from Asimov: ”
The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not “Eureka” but “That’s funny…” There needs to be a place to publish “something weird just happened. Any of you seen it, too?” The issue is that the paper needs to be clearly identified as to how established, how well founded, how well checked, or how one-off-weird is the phenomenon about to be described in the paper.

March 26, 2013 7:02 pm

Some thoughts on peer review by an editor of an engineering journal.

Bill Illis
March 26, 2013 7:36 pm

To be honest, I would prefer if they skipped the study/publication step and just gave us the raw data.
The study always has to say “global warming” while the processed data and the raw data that comes along with.the study says the opposite. So, I’d rather not have to read the same garbage over and over again only to find out that the data says the opposite.
The science does not allow the scientists to be objective. But the numbers are objective entities in and of themselves.

David Jojnes
March 26, 2013 7:41 pm

Chris Edwards says:
March 26, 2013 at 4:29 pm
“The UK has had a crap education system since the 1970s before that it was a world leader, we gave you the industrial revolution and we got socialism in exchange and that screwed the schools!”
Now ain’t that the truth! Joint blame holders Wilson and Heath!

March 26, 2013 7:51 pm

Tobias..your comment makes no sense; neither of us said anything about modern slavery.
On the contrary, the continued large scale practice of slavery throughout large parts of Africa, the Middle East and Asia is one more reason why the perpetual harping on about the relatively short-lived trans-Atlantic slave trade is a sick joke. Why the hell arent those people,instead of ranting about crimes of two centuries past applying their attention to the current practice of slavery?
Partly for the same reason that we have had slavery being practiced in Britain for more than the past decade with thousands of teenage girls being passed about as chattels without the authorities, until recently, doing a damn thing about it. That shibboleth has now been broken and without identifying the community responsible for sexual slavery in Modern Britain members solely of that community (whose victims came solely fromthe host community) have nonetheless been convicted of the crime in droves.
It is very useful for certain parties toharangue us continually with the historicalguilt about long ended versions of slavery. It would be very unhelpful to the agenda of those parties, on the other hand, to shine a spotlight on the current practice of slavery and invariable identity of those responsible.
One point in that regards: Saudi Arabia refuses to sign the relevant UN declarations on ending slavery.

March 26, 2013 8:40 pm

The full frontal assault has begun. It’s a mop-up operation from here out.

March 26, 2013 9:20 pm

wamron, sorry I expressed myself poorly, what I meant was that educated slaves years ago did a lot of the work as you mentioned, what I was (poorly) trying to say that currently today’s educated workforce is in much the same situation. They are slaves to their jobs and the companies they work for, trapped in circumstances that may have looked within their control as they started out with high hopes and ideals but soon are bound by forces beyond their control just a few years later, I am sorry but that is the best way I can describe it.

March 26, 2013 9:36 pm

The Hansen’s, Trendberth’s and Mann’s have ruined the AGU and AMS … irrevocably.
What were institutions of Science, Geophysics, and Integrity have been reduced in less that 30 years to extremists, Evangelical, Anti-Evolution, Anti-Science tribes lurking the back streets of Washington, D.C. (K Street) seeking to prey upon the citizens and promote their bigotry, perversions, sexisms, to anoint an ‘Age Of The Central Man’ the Anthropocene Reich of Creationism upon all.
The AGU and AMS must be destroyed.

March 26, 2013 10:34 pm

RE: Dan Hughes – “some thoughts” link to Rajagopal editorial
WHEW! That was tough sledding!
And for the most part…. Doubletalk!… Hiding behind words like “autoschediastically”, “ephectic”, “sagacious”, and “tyranny of consuetude” (for which Google could find usage only if transposed)
For the most part, he was complaining that there are commonly used metrics that purport to give an importance to papers, authors, and journals by their citations and linkages. By these very metrics, the University of Alexandria, Egypt is the 4th most important research university in the world. The citation metric system is being gamed.
His fourth paragraph is a beaut of obfustication. I distill it down to: We need metrics to rate things. So we have to quantify the unquantifiable. He conflates mathematical proof, established fact in science, with these heuristic ephemeral metrics so subject to gaming.

In the hands of a person of good judgment, even these seemingly unreliable metrics can prove to be of some use.
[his last sentence:] We should subject our subjectivity to face the light of objective metrics while tempering supposedly objective metrics by appealing to well-reasoned personal judgment.

And this guy is editor of an Engineering Science journal?
The famous speech from “I, Claudius” came to my mind. Citation metrics fail because all papers are not created equal. One perceptive paper is worth ten good papers and far better than a hundreds of junk papers.

Claudius: Senators, it is true I’m hard of hearing, but you will find it’s not for want of listening.
As for speaking, again it’s true I have an impediment. But isn’t what a man has to say more important than how long he takes to say it?
It’s true again I have little experience of government, but then have you more? I at least have lived with the imperial family who have ruled this empire, ever since you so spinelessly handed it over to us! I have observed it working more closely than any of you. Is your experience better than that?
As for being half-witted, well, what can I say? … Except that I have SURVIVED to middle age with half my wits while thousands have died with all of theirs intact! Evidently quality of wits is more important than quantity!

March 27, 2013 12:47 am

While we are on the subject of double speak and integrity, NatGeo posted this article:

March 27, 2013 3:22 am

By now the question of peer review is almost obsolete. The areas of science that have ACTUAL UTILITY for humans have been operating outside the system of Publish Or Perish for a long time.
Medicine has its own clinical trial rules; engineering depends on acceptance by the customer; materials science is the same; agricultural research has close contact with farmers.
All other branches of science are basically forms of mental masturbation, and their little games are irrelevant to human progress.

March 27, 2013 4:07 am

Wamron says:
March 26, 2013 at 3:25 pm
March 26, 2013 at 7:51 pm
Wamrom you are 100 percent correct in both postings. Most readers here see science from the perspective I would call “hard science” based on modern physics and mathematics. Then there’s the “soft science” based on nothing more then pure conjecture, intellectual sophistry and well let’s mop it all up as “postmodern science”, a disingenuous coined term to cloak pseudo- and anti-science. Here we find all of sociology and big parts of psychology, working very hard – in the process trashing taxpayers money – to further the cause of the “Cargo Cult Sciences” as only the genius of Richard Feynman so wonderful accurate and sardonically could expose.
Apart from the unnecessary financial burden they place on societies around the world to fund their “scientific” work, there is real harm done to people on a massive scale. All this because they are allowed to experiment with and implement results of their contrived and twisted theories that – according to their research – explain and constitute what makes humans tick and how society should work. Lets have a look at a few examples and remember this is also a global issue:
– repressed memories, false accusations of sexual child abuse got parents and people working with children locked up in jail for years and created deeply divided and traumatized communities;
– autism spectrum, a neurological condition, attributed to mothers as a consequence of being emotionally frigid and cold (imagine the pain, self-doubt and guilt of these mothers);
– Freud and his ilk who still terrorize people in endless therapies with concepts sprouted from their own sexual frustration and vivid imagination;
– all other psychological therapies that are not scientifically controlled and monitored for results and efficiency; to my knowledge the only therapies that really work are based on conditioning and incremental exposure to a fear stimulus (spiders, elevators, flying, etc);
– the nearly four decades long sociological experiment on the Norwegian population, acclaimed to be the most gender-equal society in the world. They got stuck in the feminist-paradox and a police-force so inadequate staffed, organized and trained that Breivik had ample time to kill over 70 people before he was finally stopped; Here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hjernevask a 7 part Norwegian shocking documentary exposing (Norsk?) sociology for what it really is, a degrading, patronizing and inhumane rabble of would be scientists;
– Diederik Stapel, professor of social psychology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diederik_Stapel)
who nearly two decades was fabricating and manipulating data for his peer reviewed “scientific” papers; his ultimate goal was to produce evidence in support of left and socialist societies. One of his remarkable papers and a sent from heaven for his left/socialist (climate) clientèle: “Meat eaters more selfish than vegetarians”;
– multiculturalism, social benefits and a sub-par enforcement of regulations created parallel societies of Muslims immigrants all over Europe which are social time-bombs with a big potential for inter-ethnic violence;
Add new age, homeopathy, second hand smoke, immunization, all the scares on food and health and the subsidized NGO’s telling their version of the truth. Now we begin to see the true dimensions and scale, the real big problem that only science can and must address. It is an moral obligation to the taxpayers, to get us all back to a normal society based on real science and truth. For Joe the plumber and Beth the hairdresser all this is science, a big maelstrom of confusing messages with no authority to decide for them, to help and guide.
Morality, Integrity, Honesty will bring back Respect and Authority but only if scientists and institutions decide that there is Valor and Honor in an official and public ousting, dishonoring, revoking of titles and permissions to teach, for those who are found guilty of repeated and/or grave transgress or digress from truth and real science.
In my view on science you are in or out, welcome or banned from academic institutions and allowed or not allowed to teach and do science. Then there can’t be a Dr. med. who also is practicing homeopathy as that is clearly against the rules. In order to maintain Respect and Authority there can’t be any contamination from pseudo-science. Psychology as part of real science would have to go trough a thorough and in depth process of re-evaluation to weed out the pseudo-science. As in Terry Pratchett’s disc-world, wizardry, HEM (High Energy Magic) and from now sociology and some climatology can be studied at the Unseen University.

March 27, 2013 4:09 am

Second try….I deal a lot with peer review and would warn aganst rating it too highly. It improves papers and may encourage debate, but really new ideas cannot be peer reviewed. I am worried what more emphasis on peer review (as promising more ‘truth’) would mean for the social sciences. Providing all evidence would require opening a ‘brain’ – all thougth processes – and a great deal of human thought would be dismissed altogether (see Polistra above). Instead patience is needed, natural science will win out in the end, but this may take a long time. Re CAGW, one hint….this is best explained as a social science phenomena , a part of history when solutions were looking for a problem. Here social sciences , especially interest analysis, provide better insights into what went on and who drove the AGW ‘scare’. But this is another story……its summary is that while the science debate keeps many people engaged and funded, no decison will be possible for a long time .If the ‘sceptics’ want to win the argument now, they must venture into the social sciences and analyse ‘science’ as a part of market-forces, selected and funded to support other groups. Big research science is in need of political support and this will only be ‘delivered’ if solutions are offered as well as the problem. Why was there so little response to the threat of global cooling, in the late 1980s, while that of global warming was welcomed with open arms by assorted bureuacracies?

March 27, 2013 5:35 am

I have to add one point in response to Burger above…too much about guilt and others being able to find out in time to punish…. While he lists a lot of scientific ‘errors’ or wider misuses, it is easier to know with hindsight, and I notice a right–wing bias. What about eugenics, so beloved and acted upon until failry recently in the West and by no means fully discredited. At the extreme, the results. But the belief that nobler and cleverer people are ‘bred’ is was and remains to some degree beloved of the Right, and even some socialists in past, on scientific ground..genetics and experience. If humans could be breed ‘better’ dogs and horses…why not humans? A master race of leaders might result, thanks to genetics. Is this idea dead? Is it ‘science’?

March 27, 2013 6:50 am

Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen says:
March 27, 2013 at 4:09 am
I hope you will watch all http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hjernevask and please read Richard Feynman’s original adress http://www.lhup.edu/~DSIMANEK/cargocul.htm. You will understand why I am so harsh on social science.

March 27, 2013 7:29 am

Tobias…Thanks for the clarification. As I thought, we are on the same wavelength. I too have thought of dependence and exploitation as comparable to slavery. However, I have to remind myself that it is not the same as being held captive by force and sold for cash or barter like a used car. Hundreds of thousands of people are in that situation. Some of them in Western Europe (eg as proven in court cases inthe UK) and the USA.

March 27, 2013 7:39 am

Sonja-B.C….how does it escape your attention that the Eugenics era culminated in the National SOCIALIST Party?
Why do you presuppose that rigour is necessarily “righ wing”?
Indeed, what do you even mean by “the Right”.Who, specificallyare these “Right” people who believe the things you say?
I think your comments only illustrate the problem in Social Science that the “correct” view / result / belief / finding is only ever to be those which are thought “better” or “preferable” for “ethical” reasons.

March 27, 2013 8:19 am

Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen says:
March 27, 2013 at 5:35 am
“… errors’ or wider misuses, it is easier to know with hindsight…..”
RULE 1: If you don’t know whats going on, be creative put forward hypotheses that are testable with relevant experiments. Wait until you know something for real but DO NOT TRY to mind-read, you can’t. You can study behavior, sensory perception and information processing some really good work has and is done there.
RULE 2: If there is hard evidence in other fields, as is shown in the documentary Hjernevask that trashes your conjectures don’t be arrogant, you better start doing real science before your field loses all credibility and will become obsolete in the future.
RULE 3: As climate science has shown, if Marxists ideology and postmodern science is driving research most probably there is no scientific truth to be found but a fantasy in need of some defense.
Expensive Freudian depth and other bizarre therapies are still going strong, there is no science there, the field should be deeply ashamed for still condoning black magic and wizardry.
“…. and I notice a right–wing bias ….”
Well, if common sense, searching for truth, supporting real science and looking open-minded, without ideological bias, into problems of society then you can call me anything you want.
And yes genetics is back with a vengeance, to trash all those silly equality and blank slate ideas in social science, with hard evidence as Hjernevask so clearly shows. It will be a lot more difficult to harass people in the future with nonsense ideas to create an “ideal equal marxist society”. And finally genetics shows also new paths to effective methodologies for learning and raising children with respect for their individual genetic makeup and inherited capabilities.

Reply to  BezorgdeBurger
March 27, 2013 8:45 am

Hardly worth replying to. This rule-bound chap BB is too self-assured and certain of his views, to invite intellectual engagement. I just wonder what al this has to do with Karl Marx or even Freud, all have been built upon – science has many meanings.and even hard science is less hard when you look more closely. I am sure common sense is more widely distributed than he assumed…but I am wasting my time.
By the way, there wasn’t much that was socialist about the Nazi party, the term was atrtractive in those days. I woudl rather see right and left in US terms, or in UK terms. How strongly you believe that the ‘market ‘ can solve all problems, apart from military ones of course. Obviously, not all ideas and beliefs are confiend to Right or Left, simply defined as those who want to preserve andthose who want to improve, changethe world. We need both but that might be too much for this group to accept. The climate sceptics IMHO have little change of sucess in the policy arena until and unless they broaden their political basis This should be easy enough but not with the excessively self-righteous.

March 27, 2013 10:05 am

Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen says:
March 27, 2013 at 8:45 am
We can have an intellectual engagement and muse about life and the universe with all due respect and freedom until hell freezes over. Where science is concerned there has to be a common ground, understanding and acceptance of principles with no freedom at all. If you do science you play by the rules if you don’t well that isn’t science.
“…. even Freud, all have been built upon – science has many meanings.and even hard science is less hard when you look more closely”
If you built on Freud you built on trash, the only thing you will end up with is a lot more trash. One of the tenets of postmodern science, with many meanings, is that you can muse until hell freezes over and that is not science; there is always another path or back-door so there is no end. And if you look hard into the principles of hard science you will conclude that it gets harder than you ever imagined especially so for researchers in the social sciences.
As is stated before there is no politics in science, no consensus and no predefined target. But when science shows there is no such thing as CAGW or man made climate change or whatever then politics play a role. If there are very expensive policies based on wrong assumptions they have to abandoned and I would fight for that. Lets start doing science on preservation and see where we get there, seems to be a very nice topic. Willis Eschenbach did already some work on that I guess, lets go over there and see.

Reply to  BezorgdeBurger
March 27, 2013 11:12 am

Reply to W as well:
I AM SHOCKED BY THE LOW QUALITY of debates here and may well stop wasting my time after making 3 points . 1) Science is a product of the human mind/brain emerging over time and tested by many othet minds..against reality (if there is such a thing…here we get inti philosophy, not wanted here I imagine). My example as a science here is geology, but I lived for many years with people working in the world of physics and astronomy. Climate science may not be that different from geology, it relies more on deduction from evidence than tests in labs, and models are best understood as experiments….Science as a product is indeed apolitical, butas a process and in its use and fundning is certainly IS NOT. (I was once a senior researcher on science policy and I know only too well that a huge amount of politics goes into research.) Modern Big research is best understood as an enterprise or business – getting research grants, framing projects and research questions selling its ‘products’ to ‘users’, persuading the media…. Governments are often the ‘users’ of research finding (‘science’) as well as the funders, and certainly are for climate/energy policy and its ‘underpinning’ IPCC science. Increasingly, ‘actors’ in the market, especially investors, also want research to advance their policy ambitions. Technology projects have a more direct link to science and engineering than energy policy of course, but bureaucratic ambitions are everywhere Both bureaucracy and government – the state – tend to reflect ‘vlues’, in our case green values that may well clasj with science, but in the real world values/fears /promises will be more powerful than science. You surely do not claim that the global warmingf debate is primarily about science? Science is used and abused to justify policy….)
By the way, in German, policy and politics are the same word and science embraces all forms of knowledge sought with an opemn mind (without belief or practice, in theory) and witout prior commitment to outcome. You have science of religion or art….when you you study it.
2. I am pleased to state that I do not understand your last comment. My birthcertificate still shows the Hakenkreuz, in case that helps. I suspect you are MUCH older than me, hence thanks for the compliment. I claim to be neutral in current ideological battles so ridiculourly revealed inthe USA…surely climate science here is used in power battles.
3. The solution of the energy issues related to or making use of the global warming threat, have a great deal to do with free markets and/ or government policies , whatever you claim. Just look at who prefers whay ‘hypothesis’.

March 27, 2013 10:12 am

Sonja B.C: “This rule-bound chap BB is too self-assured and certain of his views, to invite intellectual engagement.”
BUT, that is EXACTLY how your comments read.
For a start, you see the world in a rigid Left / Right narrative, you say so yourself: “I woudl rather see right and left in US terms, or in UK terms.”
Now do you not agree sterotypes are a bad thing? They limit your perception to preconceived notions. Well a “stereotype” literally means two dimensions. But Left / Right…which you have justsaid is how you see the world, is ONE dimension, its a far, far more limited and blinkered, or as you put it, “rule-bound” way of perceiving the world than even the most bigoted racist stereotyping.
Its something you not only do by example but, as Ive quoted, you actually admit doing.
Then you bring in a question about whether BB believes the free market solves things. This has nothing whatsoever to do with anything he said. To make sense of that reference we have to assume that everything you say is determined by ideological presuppositions that have nothing to do with the topic at hand. So when you express clueless wondering what Marxism had to do with BBs comments you not only reveal your ignorance but seem oblivious to the fact that your entire style of discourse loudly broadcasts your commitment to ideology, Marxist or otherwise.
I dont know how old you are but you come across like an eighteen year old. When I was eighteen I too uncritically repeated the orthodox narratives of the dominant ideology of the ideological culture I shared. I too dismissed the opinions of those who assert the insight that comes with experience. Now I am older, and I find they were all correct.
Stick around and you learn by observing. but I suspect you’ll be too full of yourself and dissapear as inconsequentially as you appeared.
BTW you obviously know squat about National Socialism.

March 27, 2013 12:22 pm

Sonja BC……………”I AM SHOCKED BY THE LOW QUALITY of debates…”
Well thats exactly what any of the thousandsof non-commenting readers of your comments will conclude about you.
we posit arguments…you disregard them.
Your pomposity is IMMENSE: “…here we get inti philosophy, not wanted here I imagine…”
well I was reading Popper before you were born…. I suggest you digest theTractatus b efore you pronounce yourself versed in philosophy.
You know what…I DIDNT BOTHER reading the rest of your adolescent drivel.
If you want to “debate” you have to abide by this basic principle: each person respondst o the preceding points of the other.
Anyone starting at the top and reading down will see how I comprehensively took you apart and stomped all over you in my previous comment. But you havent the balls to try to counter my pints or the savvy to recognise that you are now embarrassing yourself by continuing without so trying.
Keep coming here little child. keep posting. Keep demonstrating to the silent lurkers as well as the few commenters the kind of puillanimous excuse for a person that is destroying our culture every time you draw a breath.

March 27, 2013 12:26 pm

…BTW you know squat about National Socialism

Gary Pearse
March 27, 2013 12:26 pm

Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen says:
March 27, 2013 at 11:12 am
“I AM SHOCKED BY THE LOW QUALITY of debates here and may well stop wasting my time …”
Sonja, you have indeed stumbled on to the wrong blog if you are interested in cheerily engaging minds here on modern meanderings born of the co-opted, corrupted and broken social sciences (google: “Corruption of the social sciences” – without the quotes, google amazingly tries to suggest something away from this direct topic but the quotes give you what you want). Below an example:
Many of us here are feverishly trying to prevent the same precipitous ruination of the hard sciences that has befallen the social sciences, and basically bled them of any scientific substance. Social science is now merely an international leftist advocacy party railing against the productive sector. I don’t fault you Sonja, because you are young enough to have inherited this mess and are probably unaware that social sciences used to have disinterested scientific underpinnings – real endeavor to understand what makes things tick. But now that you all understand that bashing and trashing the productive sector is all there is to it, there is no need for hypotheses and vigorous debate (you all already agree, so you debate trifles, because you know there should be debate in science). There is nothing post normal or political about physical reality (please spare me the “if-a-tree-falls-in-the-forest-type pseudo-philosophical homily. It does make a noise whether you are there to hear it or not). It has causes and effects the likes of which you don’t get to choose on the basis of fashionableness or politics. We fight ferociously and not very chivalrously at times because it’s important. You are most welcome, but your honed sensitivities may prevent you from getting any salt from it.

March 27, 2013 12:27 pm

…But its safe to bet you hate Israelis.

March 27, 2013 2:56 pm

Gary Pearse, dont waste your fingers typing, she’s just going to pigeonhole you as another “Right wing” OLD guy.
On second thoughts, keep typing………..every opportunity you give her to display her lethal combination of naiivete and arrogance just proves my assessment.
That’s why I’ve given her comments attention. I hope to elicit more gems like her previous ones.

March 27, 2013 8:20 pm

Wamron, slavery ……… and we are bad guys? When I read this http://frontpagemag.com/2013/frank-crimi/the-selling-of-syrias-refugee-child-brides/ just now it blew my top of, got blood shot eyes, oh man this is sooooooo bad for my health! Can you understand why I wrote this passage:
– multiculturalism, social benefits and a sub-par enforcement of regulations created parallel societies of Muslims immigrants all over Europe which are social time-bombs with a big potential for inter-ethnic violence;
This started way-back before September 2012, is public knowledge all over their ummah and sanctioned by religious leaders. We have 1 million believers of this so called religion of peace imported into our country (NL). Nearly all of them watch exclusively TV channels in that region and an estimated 100 hundred of their sons left our country to go fighting (jihad) over there “for the good cause”. They demonstrated in our streets against, satanic verses, cartoons, kuran burnings, incited hatred and yelled for death and destruction with impunity. And now, silence, nada, nothing. Our country donated more than 32.5 million euro aid for the Syrian refugees. The EU is helping Egypt with 5 billion euro to bolster democracy over there!!! There are more than 50 IOC member-states and what did they donate for Syria, but now we can at least read what their actions are!
We in the western world are mad, bonkers, beyond any normality and redemption! Thanks to our leftist and incomprehensible gullible elites who are steering us to social unrest and violence.

Brian H
March 29, 2013 12:25 pm

These tweets and comments conflate peer review and replication. Peer review is a lightly-once-over pre-publication check for egregious boners and excessively unorthodox findings. Not the core issue.

Verified by MonsterInsights