#auditingsciences

[neverendingaudit]

For the historical audit brings so much to light which is false and absurd, violent and inhuman, that the condition of pious illusion falls to pieces.

Friedrich Nietzsche

[neverendingaudit]

On Legs, Rugs, and Bots

Why emulating the auditing sciences may not help fight meme machines.

Science is the process of finding results that can be replicated by others.

Just like animal legs, rugs that tie rooms together, and meme bots.

There are merits in seeing scientists as results processors. This image bypasses the reasons why we produce these results in the first place. A big hint is provided by the journal articles’ structure – the “results” section is seldom the last one.

However, that model (gasp!) may be good enough for a thread about a paper that finds that the Contrarian Matrix disregards the overwhelming scientific evidence of Arctic sea-ice loss and polar bear vulnerability. On the one hand, you have 92 papers. On the other, you have for the most part SusanC’s hall of mirrors. As we already saw, even she frowns upon the use of single experts.

Singer can hardly wait, no doubt (1).

One big problem with the science-as-replication [model] is that it portrays science as a boxing match. For the most part, that’s inexact – science is a race. Research teams compete in producing results that will outmatch one another. Unsustainable research programmes die on their own, alone, without ever really be refuted.

The only place where science could be seen as a boxing match is within what I call the auditing sciences. They don’t really exist yet. They’re mostly metaphorical, they’re kinda like the institution of the Auditor General. To be able to AUDIT ALL THE SCIENCES is a great ideal. Perhaps it’ll work better with the sciences than with our finances – the US Government can’t account for most of its spendings on Occupy Iraq.

Looking into SusanC’s hall of mirrors, auditors could try to find her Master Argument. What would ordinary scientists do instead? They’d check the lichurchur. What is [the best strategy] here? Perhaps this would help decide:

https://twitter.com/JoyAnnReid/status/949970742631915520

Whatever we choose, this ClimateBall episode helps illustrate two prescriptions: follow citations, and take good care of rugs that tie rooms together.

(1): Singer, or AlanK from PaulM's fame, suggested that his comments "anticipate a possible clash between someone I expect to have a great deal of knowledge about humidity and fog (and clouds) and another who I expect to be a total numbskull," in contrast with ThomasM, another contrarian in that thread, who argues against appeals to authority.

(via BartV's)

[neverendingaudit]

Webcomicname, spotting a Bro Dude discovering his auditing powers.

[neverendingaudit]

My partial error here.

The Auditor, half-heartedly conceding he forgot to copy the readme file.

[neverendingaudit]

"I think the right thing to be concerned about is whether that consensus is underpinned by the processes of science, or classic social processes." - a memetic engineer.

[neverendingaudit]

Auditing Shrubberies

Since climate science is attempting to estimate impacts, and they consider themselves to be a valid branch of science, and their estimates are being used to drive policy, how can the only “known” be considered scientifically irrelevant?

First, climate science ain't a branch, Cap'n. It's more like a shrub, with lots of special sciences in it, which range from ecology to biology to economy. The auditing sciences are requiring a special shrub. Some call it a shrubbery:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2UbtcmjfKa8

Any resemblance to Denizens, living or dead, is almost likely coincidental.

Second, the idea that "estimates are being used to drive policy" is underdetermined. Policy makers don't project in 85 years. Not even in 50 years. Heck, not even in 20 years: they want to know if they should prepare for climate change in 10 years, 15 years at most. Even if we had perfectly certain impact estimates for 2050, policy makers would still require shrubberies that bloom earlier than that.

Taking my two points together, here's what we get: impact estimates do not belong to the "purely scientific perspective," but are relative to our policy needs. The impact estimates may never drive policy in any mechanistic sense, for the simple they're far from being as WYSIWYG as policy wonks and Denizens will require. Even if you'd have a perfectly determined sensitivity, you'd still have to feed it to economical models. If Denizens dislike climate models, wait until they look at economical models.

Only when Denizens will acknowledge that they're simply asking for a shrubbery would they abide by Hardwig's ethical concerns.

[neverendingaudit]

How to Galop Like an Auditor

[Andy Skuce describe how to persist in the auditing sciences.]

If your case is thrown out by one set of editors, shop around for another journal.

Make insinuations of dishonesty in the Murdoch press. Odd data sequences and, pauses in the ratings process surely cannot have innocent explanations, can they?

Never apologize for making a false accusation or a lousy argument. Just move on quickly to the next one.

Make a formal complaint about a smear campaign to the Guardian. When they dismiss it, claim victory anyway. When you’re a victim, losing is vindication.

Mouth pieties about the sanctity of the scientific process, while using stolen private data to bolster your case. S’all good, man.

[neverendingaudit]

How to become a better auditor