It’s absolutely how a dishonest science institution functions. Science itself is nothing more than a method. The disdain is for people who confuse the process with the institution. And at that point it is just blind faith like any old religion. Show me the preregistration, the conflict of interest disclosure and the third party replication and then I’ll “trust the science”.
PEOPLE are abusing bad incentives. I'm quite certain that if this lab was exposed for doing what the poster claims it would be a major controversy just like other cases we've seen. That's the institution correctly reacting to bad actors.
How is this relevant? Do these people define what science or is it an established set of principles and methods? You think scientists are the only ones who can do science and what they do, wrong or not, defines what science is??
How science functions is how it functions. You do not have knowledge of the entirety of scientific endeavors, it only seems like you do, presumably due to being trained on propaganda, like an LLM.
Maybe you are conflating it with how it is supposed to, and is claimed to function by people who share the same form of faith based epistemology as you.
Science is a set of methods. If you abandon those methods and fake data to fit your needs you aren't doing science you are committing various kinds of fraud. Maybe ChatGPT can explain that to you instead of listening to Alex Jones.
> Science is a set of methods. If you abandon those methods and fake data to fit your needs you aren't doing science you are committing various kinds of fraud.
You still have the title "scientist", and still get your paycheque. Like baking, there is the recipe one is supposed to follow, but there is also the how the baking is actually done. If a baker failed to follow the recipe in an instance of baking, would you also believe that they are not a baker, or are not baking?
I think it's interesting how people intuitively frame (construct a virtual model of reality, and perceive/present it as reality itself) the practice of science such that it "is"[1] literally impossible for scientists to do wrong, and with such a simplistic method: if it isn't perfect, it isn't science (which opens up a serious ontological problem: because it cannot be known to what degree each potential scientist executes the method with perfection, it is not possible to know how many scientists exist, or if a given candidate actually is a scientist...an individual could be one for decades, and then one off day and Shazam: you "are" no longer a scientist, despite having the title, the income, and the respect and admiration, despite not actually being the thing itself).
>Maybe ChatGPT can explain that to you instead of listening to Alex Jones.
What's the current scientific consensus on mind reading? Maybe it's not me who has to brush up on my scientific scriptures.
And since we're on the topic of who to take advice from: perhaps you should reevaluate the trustworthiness of that Oracle inside your mind, because it's "fact" here is way off: I do not listen to Alex Jones. Do you now wonder how many other facts your Oracle got wrong? My Oracle suspects not, but cannot be sure.
[1] here I am using the colloquial, normative meaning of the word "is": how humans believe "reality" "is".
You seem to be completely obsessed by titles for no apparent reason. I don't care what your title is, if you fake data to validate false hypotheses you aren't doing science. It's very simple.
>You still have the title "scientist", and still get your paycheque. Like baking, there is the recipe one is supposed to follow, but there is also the how the baking is actually done. If a baker failed to follow the recipe in an instance of baking, would you also believe that they are not a baker, or are not baking?
If you purchase a cake from Walmart and tell people you baked it from scratch you are not a baker. If you 3d print a cake look alike made of plastic and tell people it is a cake you are not a baker.
You seem to be in the midst of a mental break so good luck to you.
> You seem to be completely obsessed by titles for no apparent reason.
You seem to be an overconfident Naive Realist.
> I don't care what your title is, if you fake data to validate false hypotheses you aren't doing science. It's very simple.
I doubt it. You don't take the opinions of scientists more seriously than non-scientists? Shall I go through your comment history to find instances?
And this is the problem: "science" (which is copposed at least in part by scientists) CANNOT make an error according to this reasoning.
>>You still have the title "scientist", and still get your paycheque. Like baking, there is the recipe one is supposed to follow, but there is also the how the baking is actually done. If a baker failed to follow the recipe in an instance of baking, would you also believe that they are not a baker, or are not baking?
> If you purchase a cake from Walmart and tell people you baked it from scratch you are not a baker. If you 3d print a cake look alike made of plastic and tell people it is a cake you are not a baker.
As the saying goes: Reality is perception (as demonstrated by your very comment!).
> You seem to be in the midst of a mental break so good luck to you.
Do you have any interest in whether the reality your mind generates and projects into the "you" service's experience (as "reality") is actually correct?
For example, take your prior comment:
>> Maybe ChatGPT can explain that to you instead of listening to Alex Jones.
By what means could you acquire knowledge of my interests? Feel free to peruse my comment history, you'll find no praise or likely even mention of Alex Jones (I think he's a dummy, though I do like him). And if you're going to suggest you have mind reading capabilities, I am happy to have that argument.
Could it be, perhaps, that an idea popped into your mind, and you accidentally forgot to apply any(!) epistemological rigour to it before streaming it out onto the page, like an LLM? I mean, come on man.
It's not called fraud in climatology and yes it is how "science" functions. There are no universal standards in academia. Climatological norms involve heavy processing of thermometer readings to "clean" them in various ways. They all do it and do not see any problems with what they do. Every claim you've ever read about temperatures from climatologists is based on that kind of procedure.
Some of this has good intentions, at least originally. Weather stations aren't normally intended to be used by climatologists. They exist for other reasons. So they get moved around, or not moved even as the environment changes around them, get placed in inconveniently unrepresentative places like airport runways, and more. Climatologists scrape this data from the internet or collect it from logbooks and then try to work out what's happening, but the data is super noisy.
Now the way science works is that you characterize the uncertainty in your data and propagate it through any calculations you do, in order to track your uncertainty intervals. Then you communicate those and take them into account when making predictions.
But in climatology they don't do this. Instead they use lots of algorithms and manual tweaks to try and "fix" the data to bring it into line with what they know it "should" be, and then report the data without CIs, as having 100% confidence. For example if a time series at a weather station is stable for 20 years, then experiences a short break, then it returns but the average is consistently 0.3 degrees different than before, they infer that it must have moved and they then "correct" it back to the previous baseline. If there are gaps in the data then they generate fake readings by interpolating between the nearest alternative weather stations, and so on.
Outsiders might expect that they would investigate and try to improve the quality of their source data but they don't. Like, if their algorithms infer a station move, they don't contact the station operator to figure out if that really happened. They just assume their corrections are fine and move on.
Another fun thing they do is alter data that was already published. When they update their algorithms for deciding what data points to include/drop/change, they don't just use it for new data running forwards. They reprocess the entire historical data set. That can yield outcomes that would normally be taken as a clear indicator of scientific fraud, for example where NOAA declared a temperature record, and a few years later declared a new record that was lower than the previous one [1]. Or where scientists invalidated decades of published papers (thousands of them) by deciding that the temperature trend in the first 15 years of the century was totally different to what had previously been reported:
The underlying data on which those papers were built was announced to be all wrong, but nothing was retracted! That's how science functions. And the best part is that they've trained the public so well that for anyone who calls any of this fraud, as you just did, they are instantly ostracised for being a heretical Denier.
