[MD] Global Warming: Science or Politics?

[ian glendinning]

Case, and Platt, et al

Yes "peer review is designed to eliminate slant" and maintain
objectivity, but really it can only do that in relatively simple
cases. Being designed to do, is not the same as doing.

Take a look at this Wayne Booth article if you haven't already.
http://www.psybertron.org/?p=1351
On what authority is someone a "peer", etc. We always rely on rhetoric
at some level; it's really a matter of recognising that and working
with it rather than denying it.

In fact there is a body of people in academic research flipping
"neutrality" on its head and suggesting "aim directed research" -
where the agenda objectives and "interests" are more formally
recognised, so they can be taken into account, rather than hidden and
guessed at.

The net result is game theory ... psychology if you like .... call it
spin, slant, lying if you prefer - it's been called rhetoric for a few
millennia. Only the long run, evolved, emergent outcome of patterns in
large bodies of free dialogue and narrative get close to "truth"
(beyond simple, repeatable, falsifiable cases).

Ian


On 2/14/07, Case <Case at ispots.com> wrote:
> [Platt]
> I miss your point entirely. Whoever interprets raw data can slant it to
> support an argument. When a political body (social level) like the UN uses
> data to claim global warming, it does what the MOQ says is immoral. See "How
> to Lie with Statics" referred to at:
>
> [Case]
> While lying with statistics may work for politicians it is less effective in
> the sciences where most of the practitioners are familiar with Huff and Mark
> Twain. That is what peer review is designed to eliminate.
>
> moq_discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>