Re:NASA releases detailed global climate change projections
by ikeboy on Wednesday June 10, 2015 @10:32AM
(#9692460)
"When confronted with the fact that scientists as a general rule are scrupulously honest"
citation needed
Re:NASA releases detailed global climate change projections
by caseysoftware on Wednesday June 10, 2015 @12:18PM
(#9693314)
Here are some citations showing the exact opposite. Believe it or not, scientists are humans and have biases, are occasionally bad actors, and sometimes just need to get that grant.
http://publicationethics.org/news/cope-statement-inappropria...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1182327/ - "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False"
http://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6736%... - Editor in Chief of the Lancet talking about about upwards of half of biomed studies are faked or over-estimated
Re:NASA releases detailed global climate change projections
by nitrogen on Wednesday June 10, 2015 @02:42PM
(#9694398)
The second and third links are for medical research. Anything similar for climatology?
Re:NASA releases detailed global climate change projections
by johnchristopher on Wednesday June 10, 2015 @10:33AM
(#9692465)
> when he was caught quote-mining analysis software written by the CRU researchers
As in 'building a graph of who quotes who ?' What's wrong with that ?
Re:NASA releases detailed global climate change projections
by philh on Wednesday June 10, 2015 @11:14AM
(#9692797)
I think that means: looking through the software to find something, anything, that could be used to make the researchers look bad.
Re:NASA releases detailed global climate change projections
by andyjohnson0 on Wednesday June 10, 2015 @11:34AM
(#9692958)
It looks like the origin of the use of the term "quote mining" is an article [1] on ScienceBlogs. I think your interpretation of the term is in agreement with it, in this case.
[1] http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/01/quote-mining-code...
Re:NASA releases detailed global climate change projections
by johnchristopher on Wednesday June 10, 2015 @12:21PM
(#9693344)
Thanks to both of you.
During the Climategate fiasco, Raymond's ability to read other peoples' source code (or at least his honesty about it) was called into question when he was caught quote-mining analysis software written by the CRU researchers, presenting a commented-out section of source code used for analyzing counterfactuals as evidence of deliberate data manipulation. When confronted with the fact that scientists as a general rule are scrupulously honest, Raymond claimed it was a case of an "error cascade," a concept that makes sense in computer science and other places where all data goes through a single potential failure point, but in areas where outside data and multiple lines of evidence are used for verification, doesn't entirely make sense. (He was curiously silent when all the researchers involved were exonerated of scientific misconduct.)
"My favorite part of the "many eyes" argument is how few bugs were found by the two eyes of Eric (the originator of the statement). All the many eyes are apparently attached to a lot of hands that type lots of words about many eyes, and never actually audit code." -Theo De Raadt http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-tech&m=129261032213320