”He was so confident that he went on the record saying:
"I'm prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong."
Excellent! That's a good scientific attitude.”
The Best Report was recently released.
”What do you think Anthony Watts' response was?A search of Watts’ post on the Best Report shows no reference to the term “fatally flawed”, and PZ gives no source for either of the quotes he attributes to Watts. A skeptic might question the veracity of PZ's claim that Watts made these statements.
“I consider the paper fatally flawed as it now stands, and thus I recommend it be removed from publication consideration by JGR until such time that it can be reworked.”
Yep. Didn't give the results he wanted. Therefore, the experiment is bad.
Here is what Watts actually said, after listing the issues with which he agrees, and the procedural issues that he questions (in detail):
So there you have it, I accept their papers, and many of their findings, but disagree with some methods and results as is my right. It will be interesting to see if these survive peer review significantly unchanged.What PZ approves of is AGW, an ideology. What PZ actually does is to distort and denigrate in the pursuit of Ridicule As Argument, which is PZ's specialty. Is there a reason that anyone should not withdraw approval from bad procedures and secret societies who approve each other's data? While I don't know whether the 60 year vs 30 year analysis is an argument with merit, PZ doesn't know either, and he doesn't address the actual issue, he attacks the person's motives. PZ is not science oriented, he is science infatuated and Scientistically impaired in the Leftist, Materialist tradition. Real science allows exactly what Watts has done, and Watts does have the right to object to procedures he didn't agree to in the first place. It's part of intellectual integrity, which is not a PZ strong point; it interferes with ideology. Nor has it been a strong point of the AGW perps.
One thing we can count on that WON’T normally be transparent is the peer review process, and if that process includes members of the “team” who are well versed enough to but already embracing the results such as Phil Jones has done, then the peer review will turn into “pal review”.
The solution is to make the names of the reviewers known. Since Dr. Muller and BEST wish to upset the apple cart of scientific procedure, putting public review before peer review, and because they make this self-assured and most extraordinary claim in their press release: (Note 1)
That’s some claim. Four papers that have not been peer-reviewed yet, and they KNOW they’ll pass peer review and will be in the next IPCC report? Is it just me or does that sound rigged? Or, is it just the product of an overactive ego on the part of the BEST group?
I say, if BEST and Dr. Muller truly believes in a transparent approach, as they state on the front page of their website…
Note 1. Quote: “Four scientific papers setting out these conclusions have been submitted for peer review and will form part of the literature for the next IPCC report on Climate Change. They can be accessed on: www.BerkeleyEarth.org .” Watts is right in questioning this process.
8 comments:
The following quote is not related to the above post except in name only. I'm not sure if the readers of this blog will agree, but I thought this passage written by Alan Watts was worthy of reproducing.
" Almost without exception, sacred writings begin their exposition of the ultimate Reality without preface, argument or proof. The modern philosopher will regard this as hopeless prejudice, for to adopt the existence of the infinite or of God as one's major premise is against every rule of his science.
But it cannot be otherwise, for as the reality of light cannot be proved or described in terms of visible shape, the reality of the infinite cannot be proved in terms of the finite. For this reason every attempt to prove the existence of God by logic is a foregone failure. Logic cannot reach God.
It may travel backwards in time from effect to cause, effect to cause, but as long as it stays in time, as it must, it cannot touch the eternal. That which does not begin with the infinite cannot end with it. The most that can be said is that finite contingencies suggest the infinite; in no way can they be said to prove it.
There is a parallel to this in ordinary experience. All philosophy, all every knowledge, must begin from oneself; it must assume a knower as the given and irreducible basis of knowledge. But no amount of knowledge proves the existence of a knower, for the simple reason that the knower cannot be the object of its own knowledge......
It is significant, in a negative sense, that the prevailing philosophies of our most unstable and unrelated age denies or ignores the existence of anything outside the realm of contingency and relativity. Despite the contradiction involved, nothing is permitted to be absolute, infinite or eternal save absolute relativism. If the philosophers would apply their own favorite pragmatic test to such theories, their connection with the disintegration of society might cause them to think again.
"A search of Watts’ post on the Best Report shows no reference to the term “fatally flawed”, and PZ gives no source for either of the quotes he attributes to Watts. A skeptic might question the veracity of PZ's claim that Watts made these statements."
Watts' quote is from his blog. You just fail at searching.
An interesting sequence of thoughts, with all of which I am in tune... except that the fourth paragraph, second part confuses me. On the surface it seems to mean that because knowledge is not an agent, it cannot have an object upon which it operates. And that includes the knower. But surely the knower, an agent, can focus on knowing himself. Not that knowing anything about myself can prove my own existence under Radical Skepticism.
Yes. PZ posted only part of a sentence. Here is Watts' full sentence:
"Because of the long time periods involved in Muller et al analysis, and because both Menne et al and Fall et al made no claims of knowing anything about siting quality prior to 1979, I consider the paper fatally flawed as it now stands, and thus I recommend it be removed from publication consideration by JGR until such time that it can be reworked."
Oh, alright then. I wasn't sure if that passage would be of any interest. The author, Stan, goes on to address that point.
Alan Watts, was an Anglican theologian who went on to be a prolific writer on the subject of Asian religion and philosophy.
I'll post the rest of that quote. It's a kind of an "explanation" of practical mysticism or an "argument" from consciousness."
Here is Watts on the BEST study: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/23/sunday-silliness-the-new-crop/
Chris, Stan:
Interesting.
In the third paragraph there's something interesting because within those boundary conditions, in my humble experience, is actually true, but also there's some missing information:
The only way possible to make an objective argument about mysticism is by discussing coinciding experiences. That's exactly what I was trying to mention all this time (my english is not very good, excuse me), coinciding experiences are an objective suggestion, to reach that knowledge. In what I disagree a bit, is the inability to reach the eternal but it is actually true still, in most of us but not all, as humans.
I think the conclusion of the fourth paragraph under those conditions, is not necessary unless you need to know the basics. I think it is actually a bit deviated from some of the basic books of theoretical mysticysm, except perhaps, from the few ones I know, the Apophenion.
Abouth the fifth one:
The problem with Atheism and Atheists in general, is that they get it "backwards", instead of looking for knowledge in the selflessness, they assume they have the knowledge, without acquiring it, so for them, it is logically impossible to disprove any Deity, or even worse, undertake the position of confirming that it is non existent.
Again, I believe Watt's visions seem to fit with the Apophenion, the Nothingness is the "absolute", but remember, theoretically, is not the Nothingness as a Void, is a kind of Nothingness that I'm actually not able to objectively describe 'something like a Nothingness that you feel like something that regenerates you', but I'll leave that to anyone if is curious to find out, my subjective words in italics here are worthless, it doesn't explain it, those experiences need to be more than sensible.
The thing is, the better way to look for that "absolute" and find it, which might be the best way of self-inquiry and learning for mysticism, and religions as the logical propositions to reach it, is by following some practical methods (which vary), and understanding the subsequent kind of experiences selflessly.
Kind Regards.
(continuing from above)
I forgot to mention (way off topic I know, just informative):
Please DO NOT practice without the indicated advice, just read them.
The Apophenion is not actually the only way for connecting with the source of knowledge, there's also (I'm gonna post them in spanish):
1) El grimorio de San Cipriano de Antioquia
2) El gran grimorio del Papa Honorio
1) and 2) Both associated with Catholicism.
Those In english:
3)The Kybalion
4)The emerald tablet of Hermes
Associated with Hermetism
5)The lesser Key Of Solomon
6)The greater Key of Solomon
Those above, like the 1) and 2) are for practicing or White Magick or Goetia, for both purposes.
Please do not associate the Kybalion directly with the Masonry as a whole, some of the cults seem to be rather chicane with their methods, because the materialist pantheism (something like an "Apatheism-Panentheism") is in itself a contradiction to the Kybalion.
Within the Kybalion, there's a lot of information regarding theology/theosophy, but also some of the logical propositions wee see in many Religions too, for the general basics.
Disclaimer: I don't belong to any masonic cult.
The "Grimorios"(Magick Books), the Solomon King's books, the Apophenion, are, more directly, some of the basic books focusing in theoritical and practical mysticism themselves.
Or a good one for practice:
The Essential Golden Dawn by Chic Cicero.
I won't bother you with that much information anymore, I promise, As I have said above this is out of focus and here should be treated just as source material.
King Regards, from South America.
Post a Comment