From a comment by Eli at Our Changing Climate, two thoughts about the Wegman Report, which pretty much capture the Rabett's POV"The absolute disqualifying thing about the Wegman report is how it wandered into areas where none of the authors had a clue and worse, into areas which had nothing at all to do with their charge. In particular the presence of the social network analysis sections were, to be nice about it, strange absent crude ax grinding. To be not nice about it the rampant plagiarism in those sections showed that Wegman and Said were not to be trusted (Scott played little role in that area).
Another issue which is not much discussed is that silly claim that “bad math” invalidates good data. Tell it to Feynman. QED with its subtractions of infinities is on very shaky mathematical grounds. The Dirac delta function is another example of a mathematical trick introduced on practical grounds to solve a set of physical problems but with shaky formal underpinnings.
We can find numerous examples of useful mathematics and statistics which were not bulletproof, but were useful for non-pathological data sets.
Wegman was a partisan on a mission. Said appears to have been a willing henchgirl, and not a very clever one at that."
Wegman? Wegman is the little guy sweeping up behind the elephant.(Images from the US Forest Service and the Republican Party of the US)
Perils of; 'wisdom of the bunny'?:o)..."is how it wandered into areas where none of the authors had a clue and worse, into areas which had nothing at all to do with their charge. In particular the presence of the social network analysis sections were, to be nice about it, strange absent crude ax grinding"... I hate to have to keep coming back to this stuff Eli, but--- It's kinda like Fannie, Freddie, TARP, Glass-Stiegel Act , Bankruptcy law change, National Health(?), Building 7... all this and so-much-more. Got any views on stuff like this?
ReplyDeleteStill Flyin
Bye-bye...
Hey Eli, I was wondering... you are a double doc; would you please explain Building 7 & the "Pull it down" things. I still can't explain it. And I have watched it!
ReplyDeleteSay hey, by by...
Birdbrain,
ReplyDeleteWhy would Eli want to comment outside his expertise? He's not a moron like you.
"Contrast this with the Wegman Report’s conclusions. The first conclusion that academic work has been politicized ranks right up there with patricide claiming mercy because she is an orphan. It goes downhill from there.patricide claiming mercy because she is an orphan"
ReplyDeleteEli, that's a fantastic comment over @ Barts. I hope that willard immortalizes this in his audit.
Eli...? "Why would Eli want to comment outside his expertise?" Is a_ray_in_dilbert_space, right?
ReplyDeleteJust askin...
More plagiarama, indirectly involving physics:
ReplyDeleteAlan Sokal, the 1996 Hoaxer, Takes Aim at an Accused Plagiarist at Rutgers
http://chronicle.com/article/Alan-Sokal-Takes-Aim-at-an/124969/
h/t: twitch from dvergano, Teh USA Today
Hmmm...are you sleeping? Does your watch run slow? Still wondering...
ReplyDeleteSeems like they found some stuff in a far away land, here it is; wait for it---
http://ae911truth.org/en/news/41-articles/386-ae911truth-delivers-the-evidence-to-the-media-press-conference-national-press-club-wash-dc.html
Talk about Flap...& nothin from MSM?:o)
There is a theory of distributions which fully underpins Dirac's delta function. Its been around for over five decades now.
ReplyDeleteJust when did you retire, Eli? :-)
That was what, about five decades after Dirac first used it. Eli also knows of some ways of establishing Feynman path integrals that work. Fact is tho that when they were introduced they were strictly ad hoc with a set of rules pulled out of you know where.
ReplyDeleteOuch, Capital Climate's link hurts bad. But only for the WUWT crowd.
ReplyDeleteHi Eli; I for One, would like the answers to a couple of questions I asked you yesterday while you were nappin. Perhaps I am wrong and a__ray_in_dilbert_space, is right...; you just don't have the expertise to answer the questions above. But if you could do stuff like this it should be a no brainer...
ReplyDelete"Chemical Physics and Kinetics: Photochemistry, kinetics and dynamics of small molecules and radicals in the gas phase.
Materials Science: Nitride nanowires: growth and properties. Pulsed laser desorption"
I may be 'old school' but chemical physics, kinetics and small molecules etc., should at least help you with some sort of cogent answer. The whole world seems to be running around like a chicken, with its head cut-off. Please help us get the truth of these matters. I for One, am sure that you can answer these important questions. I don't care what a__ray..., says. I am putting my money on you Eli, you can help save the world, from a Big Lie. What do you say?
Hear that typein, it's me rightin?:o)
Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteOne sign of wisdom is keeping quiet in public on complex issues where one is not a expert. This does not mean on does not have an opinion, or even strong views. It merely acknowledges the fact that someone who has made a career of a field of study an achieved acclaim in that field is more likely to give insight.
Perhaps you should consult Paul Krugmann, who has written quite broadly on the subjects, or you could even visit NPR and listen to some of the ouvre of the Planet Money team (both entertaining and informative).
There are plenty of experts who will tell you right where those deck chairs will look best.
http://www.doolittlefarmyarn.com/chickens.php
ReplyDeleteOne sign of wisdom is keeping quiet in public on complex issues where one is not a expert. This does not mean on does not have an opinion, or even strong views. It merely acknowledges the fact that someone who has made a career of a field of study an achieved acclaim in that field is more likely to give insight.
Whose flappin now?:o)...
Since we seem to have a moment... I would just like to say that Today, I much prefer the chicken to the pig. Chickens, have a sense of humor.
ReplyDeleteJust sayin---
by-bye
The sun, is going down, we are One up... how are you doing Eli, still, asleep?:o) And to Mr. David B. Benson, kind-A-like 3; over 'O'
ReplyDeleteWhadayaknow...
Still Flyin
"silly claim that “bad math” invalidates good data."
ReplyDeleteIn public, mathematicians tend to look down on physicists and their cheating ways, but Horatio would guess that in private, they are actually jealous of the glory bestowed upon the physicists and their wildly successful theories of nature -- while they (the mathematicians) are largely relegated to publishing abstruse proofs in journals that few people read and even fewer understand.
Eli --- I've been reading some results in condensed matter physics (Ising & Potts spin glass models). The authors there clearly indicate when they are using \non-rigorous\ lines of reasoning which are based on their intuition about spin glasses. Maybe someday some mathematicians will find interest in providing the foundations.
ReplyDeleteOthers --- In my experience mathematicians aren't very interested in the publicity, most of them.
Horatio physics hasnt been about the natural world or success for a long time now.
ReplyDeleteIt's been about checking out, working on, and checking in assigned sections of the grand M math project. Then having Michio Kaku go on TV and explain why your math will one day translate into time cameras.
And one of the most prominent non-M/string alternatives to the current GUT project is non-commutative algebra and geometry.
Eli & A__ray..., why do ya hang with the 'nuttin bunny'? You tell us all, that we are just a bunch of gas bags, that would kill mother earth. Yet Eli offers us 'O' for 9/11. And it, is still killin us...
ReplyDeleteIt has ruined flyin, for most folk. Eli & perhaps yourself, have talents that could help save the world..."Chemical Physics and Kinetics: Photochemistry, kinetics and dynamics of small molecules and radicals in the gas phase". Help us Eli. I know, you say "it is not about the Uncle's-Big-Bucks". Please save us all now, from then(9/11), not when(AGW).... OK? You still have time to o'pine...
We do it or die...
fly---
See above?:o)
You die
ReplyDeleteEli, it is your Blog, for Heavens sake...?:o)
ReplyDeleteBye-Bye
These are the times I realize how lucky I am that no one reads my blog. Seriously. Mo' readers mo' morons.
ReplyDeleteThe Tracker, You seem to have identified & reached your, target audience successfully.
ReplyDeleteAtom
Marion Delgado --- Who knows if quarks commute?
ReplyDeleteQuacks that drive, still get stuck in traffic...
ReplyDeleteAtom
Dude, you are a chemist. Don't try to act like you really understand QED. You probably bought some popular book or something. To really understand it (including some of the blithe remarks you made above) you would need to be a lot more sharp than you are. At least don't be Dunning-Kruger stupid (not knowing own limitations).
ReplyDeleteWell that's what you say, but Eli's colleagues keep looking at his doctoral degree and wonder how the incubus bunny talked his way in.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous@22/10/10 11:47 PM
ReplyDeleteActually, the formalism introduced by Feynmann was very much intuitive and did not have a rigorous basis. That is the sort of mind Feynmann had. The subsequent regularization with Dyson really was invaluable for imposing order on the new theory. So, technically, Eli, though flippant, is correct.
a ray, may Eli use that on his shield: flippant but correct
ReplyDeleteEli,
ReplyDeleteWe at Weasel-Words-R-Us are only too happy to help!