PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INT a disconnect from rational reality

Heated discussions on a hot topic.

PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INT a disconnect from rational reality

Post #1  Postby citizenschallenge » Thu Jun 14, 2012 2:49 am

Recently I've become acquainted with a new organization who's mission it is to save science from itself.

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  :)



Author John O'Sullivan
SPI
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

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.
Where is PSI's supporting evidence?  These words amount to nothing more than pandering to passions, rather than a learning endeavor.

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.

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.
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”?  
Big angry words, but where are PSI's facts?  
Where is the evidence they use to justify their opinions?

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.
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?

It is the science blogging community that has become the self-appointed watchdogs of science ethics and through them has emerged Principia Scientific International.
Read that again.  
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?    :twisted:  


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.


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.
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.

But this isn't science it is pandering to emotions and political faiths.
The AGW consensus is NOT formed by scientists.
The AGW consensus IS compelled by the evidence.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
One Directional Skepticism Equals Denial
User avatar
citizenschallenge
..................
Has More Than 5K Posts
 
Posts: 5169
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 4:26 am
Location: southwest USA

Re: PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INT a disconnect from rational rea

Post #2  Postby citizenschallenge » Thu Jun 14, 2012 5:50 pm

no one into discussing principles of conducting science  :(

=============
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL
1. PSI CORE VALUES:

Principia Scientific International is a self-sustaining community of impartial scientists from around the world deliberating, debating and publishing cutting-edge thinking on a range of issues without a preconceived idea of outcomes.

". . .PSI showcases work by authors who have for too long been stymied by unsympathetic mainstream journals and publishers appearing to act as politicized 'gatekeeper' functionaries. . ."

Could it be that these folks were rejected from the "mainstream" because of poor science, or lack of trying?  The bars are full of folks blaming everyone else for their disappointments and failures.  
In both situations, the people never consider that perhaps the problems lie way closer to home?

"{...}
3. HOW THE PROM PROCESS WORKS:

... Upon feedback received after public review the PSI internal reviewers will re-assess the paper taking into account any received comments they believe are valid.
They will then recommend, and PSI shall authorize, either publication of the paper in full with the PSI full seal of approval; or we will suggest revisions so that the author may make appropriate amendments. At this stage PSI will then either publish in full or advise re-submission of the paper into the PROM system, at the discretion of PSI, to repeat the PROM review process. . ."

This is Crichton-Science !  :shock:
or science in a vacuum,
one gets to make up facts and interpretations in isolation and free from critical eyes.  

It's a great vehicle for driving a story along, but it is science fiction and not a serious attempt at understanding our planet's heat-engine.

I suggest SPI willfully ignores that the international scientific community is vast and energetic.  Many meetings, much publication, reading, discussing and arguing - that is, critical educated examination of each others work.  That's not a fantasy, that is how it works.  

Poor science happens, but it gets spotted and beaten up and rejected.  It's back to that consensus thing... what it means is that most of the informed people in a field have been convinced by the evidence.
Of course nothing is absolute, new data and answers and questions are always flowing in and being processed and added to the body of knowledge.  And that has been going on for decades and the accumulation of data proves it's a healthy process.  In stark contrast to the rabid ranting of politically motivated folks like these SPI characters.

Heck, just tune in and listen to some of the fantastic lectures that are being made available from Universities throughout the world.  UCTV's Perspectives on Ocean Science being a longtime favorite.  Why not try listening to these scientists, they aren't the sinister or dumb fools O'Sullivan and pals love to peddle for profit.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Back to the real point.
An honest examination of Earth Observation Data reveals a profound and increasingly irreversible evolution within our planet's heat-engine.  It is being energized due to the increased insulating properties of our atmosphere, among many cascading consequences is more moisture in the atmospheric - a component of our global heat engine.  Think of your vehicle, pressing the gas peddle adds more energy into the system and revs your vehicle.  
We are doing the same thing to our atmosphere.  Why is that so difficult to grasp and admit to?
The AGW consensus is NOT formed by scientists.
The AGW consensus IS compelled by the evidence.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
One Directional Skepticism Equals Denial
User avatar
citizenschallenge
..................
Has More Than 5K Posts
 
Posts: 5169
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 4:26 am
Location: southwest USA

Re: PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INT a disconnect from rational rea

Post #3  Postby xouper » Thu Jun 14, 2012 6:33 pm

citizenschallenge wrote:no one into discussing [u]principles of conducting science

That's certainly a topic worthy of discussion, but that's not what this thread is really about.
xouper
Inactive
 

? ? ?

Post #4  Postby citizenschallenge » Thu Jun 14, 2012 10:45 pm

Why would you say something like that?

:scratch:
The AGW consensus is NOT formed by scientists.
The AGW consensus IS compelled by the evidence.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
One Directional Skepticism Equals Denial
User avatar
citizenschallenge
..................
Has More Than 5K Posts
 
Posts: 5169
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 4:26 am
Location: southwest USA

Re: ? ? ?

Post #5  Postby xouper » Fri Jun 15, 2012 7:23 am

citizenschallenge wrote:Why would you say something like that?

My motive for saying that was to counter your insinuation that the lack of responses in this thread is because of lack of interest in discussing the "principles of conducting science". There are many possible reasons why people might be ignoring your thread.
xouper
Inactive
 

Re: PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INT a disconnect from rational rea

Post #6  Postby bigtim » Fri Jun 15, 2012 7:46 am

The concept of science itself and the scientific process is worthy of discussion..... this group?  not so much.....
~
BigTim
"I'm not entirely convinced that ValHalla isn't real."
User avatar
bigtim
Skeptical Berserker
Perpetual Poster
 
Posts: 4075
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2006 8:04 pm
Location: Miðgarðr

Re: PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INT a disconnect from rational rea

Post #7  Postby citizenschallenge » Fri Jun 15, 2012 2:40 pm

bigtim wrote:The concept of science itself and the scientific process is worthy of discussion..... this group?  not so much.....

Gosh from the litany of juvenile one liners at this board this morning I see what you mean     :(
The AGW consensus is NOT formed by scientists.
The AGW consensus IS compelled by the evidence.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
One Directional Skepticism Equals Denial
User avatar
citizenschallenge
..................
Has More Than 5K Posts
 
Posts: 5169
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 4:26 am
Location: southwest USA

Re: PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INT a disconnect from rational rea

Post #8  Postby citizenschallenge » Fri Jun 15, 2012 2:44 pm

citizenschallenge wrote:
bigtim wrote:The concept of science itself and the scientific process is worthy of discussion..... this group?  not so much.....

Gosh from the litany of juvenile one liners at this board this morning I see what you mean     :(

Or perhaps you meant Principia Scientific International isn't worthy of discussion.
In a way I agree,
yet their tactics and misrepresentation are actually so typical of the WUWT school of AGW denial that they shouldn't be given a free pass either.

Besides, shouldn't folks try to confront willful ignorance?
Last edited by citizenschallenge on Fri Jun 15, 2012 2:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The AGW consensus is NOT formed by scientists.
The AGW consensus IS compelled by the evidence.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
One Directional Skepticism Equals Denial
User avatar
citizenschallenge
..................
Has More Than 5K Posts
 
Posts: 5169
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 4:26 am
Location: southwest USA

Re: PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INT a disconnect from rational rea

Post #9  Postby citizenschallenge » Fri Jun 15, 2012 2:46 pm

Or perhaps I'm still struggling with how easily people embrace obvious, demonstrable lies, if they feed into ones political prejudices.
The AGW consensus is NOT formed by scientists.
The AGW consensus IS compelled by the evidence.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
One Directional Skepticism Equals Denial
User avatar
citizenschallenge
..................
Has More Than 5K Posts
 
Posts: 5169
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 4:26 am
Location: southwest USA

Re: ? ? ?

Post #10  Postby ConfessComp » Fri Jun 15, 2012 3:59 pm

xouper wrote:
citizenschallenge wrote:Why would you say something like that?

My motive for saying that was to counter your insinuation that the lack of responses in this thread is because of lack of interest in discussing the "principles of conducting science". There are many possible reasons why people might be ignoring your thread.



I tend not to feed the underage trolls. I ignore CC just as I would ignore a urine-soaked vagrant on the bus. It's like I can smell him, but I don't dare try to communicate. I don't want to contract anything.
ConfessComp
Poster
 
Posts: 78
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2012 3:43 am

Post #11  Postby citizenschallenge » Fri Jun 15, 2012 4:13 pm

ConfessComp wrote:I tend not to feed the underage trolls. I ignore CC just as I would ignore a urine-soaked vagrant on the bus. It's like I can smell him, but I don't dare try to communicate. I don't want to contract anything.

Considering the amount of posts you've made this morning perhaps you need to look up "ignore" in the Dictionary.

As for the rest of your comment perhaps a tad tooo much projection on your part,  
the poddy is the last door on the right.


:strawman:
The AGW consensus is NOT formed by scientists.
The AGW consensus IS compelled by the evidence.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
One Directional Skepticism Equals Denial
User avatar
citizenschallenge
..................
Has More Than 5K Posts
 
Posts: 5169
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 4:26 am
Location: southwest USA

Re: PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INT a disconnect from rational rea

Post #12  Postby ConfessComp » Fri Jun 15, 2012 4:16 pm

There's that stench again. I bet in less than 5 hours CC will attempt the Last Word. A game where children demand attention and it's up to everyone else to place their bets on the amount of time between posts the write.
ConfessComp
Poster
 
Posts: 78
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2012 3:43 am

Re: PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INT a disconnect from rational rea

Post #13  Postby xouper » Fri Jun 15, 2012 6:19 pm

citizenschallenge wrote:Besides, shouldn't folks try to confront willful ignorance?

Perhaps. There's plenty of that going around in all topics, not just climate science.

For example, what's your opinion about radon fission as an everyday natural phenomenon? Have you had your house tested yet? If not, then you are very much willfully ignorant of the radon danger in your own house. Do you agree you live in an EPA designated zone two radon hazard?

See what I did there? I confronted your willful ignorance about radon fission. Did you even look at the links I posted about that?

As for my own autodidactic pursuits, I learn more about climate science almost every day. I am also learning more about digital signal processing. Do you know how to program a VST plugin? If not, then you have made a deliberate decision to not learn that. In other words, you are willfully ignorant.
xouper
Inactive
 



Return to Climate Change

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

MIB
MIB
Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site! MIB