ASSOCIATION OF PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL
(A PRIVATE CONSORTIUM)
"AD VERITAS AD VICTORIAM"
In particular, to save society and business from the scourge of the establishment understanding.
And they will do so with their own select panel no less.
Pretty impressive, so i though I'd share my musing and see if any defenders of the 'skeptical',
or pray tell, the hoaxer school of thought might have any thoughts to share.
Also I was thinking since I complain about PSI's lack of actual evidence to support outlandish rages, I invite skeptics to fill in the pieces you think I'm missing .
Let's have an energetic, clean discussion, isn't that what a discussion forum is about
Where is PSI's supporting evidence? These words amount to nothing more than pandering to passions, rather than a learning endeavor.Author John O'Sullivan
RE-ASSERTING TRADITIONAL SCIENCE METHODS
Despite our achievements in climate science publishing our prime focus is tackling the root cause of the malaise that befell climatology: the rise of post-normal science.
Climate science was the most conspicuous victim of a hijack attempt of science for global political policy purposes and stands as a stark warning of the insidious power of post-normalism.
Again, no supporting evidence is presented? PSI's words amount to nothing more than pandering to passions, rather than a learning endeavor.
OK, at another place on this page PSI claims to have no political interest, but now they are bringing up politics, when they were promising to tell us a little about how science was supposed to be done. Where are their specific examples of “subvert(ing) open science debate” and “den(ing) empirical evidence”?As President Dwight D. Eisenhower foretold, the monolithic juggernaut that is government science (a key driver of post-normal rationale) is all too easily able to subvert open science debate and deny empirical evidence when it suits.
Big angry words, but where are PSI's facts?
Where is the evidence they use to justify their opinions?
Again, passionate angry, or is that scared, words. But, PSI can’t seem to actually define this buggyman they claim. Where is PSI's evidence? Why can’t we look at it?All around the world supporters of the traditional scientific method are expressing fears that unless principled people unite to stem its ascendancy; ‘post-normal’ science will rise again and again in various guises.
Read that again.It is the science blogging community that has become the self-appointed watchdogs of science ethics and through them has emerged Principia Scientific International.
Let it roll around a little.
The “blogging community” have “become the self-appointed watchdogs” of “science ethics.”???
What about the people who have actually dedicated their live to learning their professions. Does every John, Dick, or Harry who can format a webpage have the right to be taken as seriously as someone who has spent years studying, learning and working in their particular field? PSI seems to think so, hey read further, they got their hand out too.
I suggest it takes a certain disconnect from rational reality to allow that thinking to take hold.
After all, if you need brain surgery you aren't going to go to your dentist... are you?
Scientists who have achieved the learning and produced the work, and overcome the hurdles of a community of educated, critical thinking colleagues
What's most amazing about these conceits of PSI is that the writer of this document is none other than John O’Sullivan.
I mean this is the guy that has absolutely no respect for the truth when it comes to the columns he writes. Unbelievable, ey?
Unfortunately it’s true.
I’ve researched and documented it personally.
Can we try to be honest here? The internet does make all sorts of things possible, including inviting many liars to play on the fears and emotions of folks who’d rather not think beyond their own struggles. Folks who just as soon stick to their faith and comfortable notions.Thanks to the modern miracle of the Internet a grassroots movement exposed the myth of so-called runaway 'greenhouse gas' warming. Further landmark achievements are sure to follow as long as openness and transparency reigns.
But this isn't science it is pandering to emotions and political faiths.