Hereby I get tired of the personal abuses and challenge contrarians directly to provide constructive criticism, or at least show they read.
[SusanC] is religious about correct references.
That remains to be shown, and from what I’ve seen so far I seriously doubt it. If "reference religiosity" only refers to the fact that SusanC includes lists of references, fair enough. If it means she cites the targets against which she opposes FUD, it’s less clear. If it means she clearly identifies what she criticizes, we’ve already saw an example where we need to walk into a hall of mirrors before getting a quote. If by that Groundskeeper means that SusanC painstakenly makes sure her FUD is justified, well, good luck with that.
If they read and link to [SusanC], they are exposed to the literature one click more slowly than if they link to the paper themselves.
Empirical research shows time and time again that people don’t read much. They barely read abstracts. Few follow citations. In this thread alone, we saw ThomasM falling into trap after trap because he failed to follow citations. Singer had to be told a few times before clicking on a stupid link, to confirm what he knew all along about something irrelevant for my point.
But let’s assume readers of the Contrarian Matrix follow citations. (An existential proof: I’m such a reader, and I do.) What comes before getting to the lichurchur? FUD. In the Contrarian Matrix, FUD always comes first.
This exercise in illogic is so transparent that willard […]
If that “exercise in illogic” was less transparent, I would what? Groundskeeper can’t even beg questions in a coherent manner anymore. He has to rip off his shirt once again because he can’t have BartV all for himself. He’s already been told to address his concerns directly to BartV. No, he still needs to rip off his shirt. He needs to blame someone. Me, for a change.
At the time of ThomasM’s farewell, which lasted six hours more than a normal sleeping night, there were 331 comments – 188 by our contrarian fellows, and 143 in response. That includes at least 8 incendiary comments by our sock puppets that were deleted, and one duplicate of mine. At least 80% of my comments were responses to contrarian crap. Notwithstanding an erratum for a stupid typo, the other 20% was to get to SusanC’s Master Argument.
In the 57% of the contrarian comments of the thread, I have yet to see one single thing that could remotely be considered like constructive criticism. Not. One. Single. Thing. Even Jos’ cite carried a cheap innuendo. What have we got? Endless whining. Some rants. Moar victim playing. Some ref playing. Peddling every single level of the Contrarian Matrix – we even had the pleasure to see some “but MBH” and “but CG.” Personal abuse, ranging from light kafkatrapping to severe gaslighting.
And loads of ad homs. O the ad homs! Do you have any idea how silly it looks to whine about the ad hominem in H17 under the light of the comments in this thread? I’m almost saddened by the fact that BartV finally had enough of you all peeing on his rug. Where’s the rug?
You got to admit – that rug really tied the room together.
If ThomasM could give it back, that’d be great.
Where was I? Oh, right. Argument traceabillity. Do you, fellow contrarians, have any criticism that could be traced back into what H17 said? I’m not talking about the crap ThomasM keeps repeating, armwaving, and handwaving ad lib., but something that looks like you’ve READ the freaking paper?
Did. You. Read. The. Paper? Why haven’t you? When will you? Next month? How the hell are you supposed to criticize the paper if you don’t even dare to read it? Is it really impossible for any of you to read that paper without fainting on a couch?
Having the decency to show you read the paper is the least one can do to expect getting room service.
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:
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.
