tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post6173932250792084904..comments2024-03-19T03:14:04.172-04:00Comments on Rabett Run: Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics Throws Itself Into the TrashEliRabetthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comBlogger51125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-78825292239491958752013-02-06T17:43:13.945-05:002013-02-06T17:43:13.945-05:00Thanks Willard and Eli
I can respect your opinions...Thanks Willard and Eli<br />I can respect your opinions and appreciate you taking the time to engage and explain them. So thanks. <br /><br />Two loose ends for you, please:<br />What is a "climateballer" (google only finds comments from you Willard, and the texts are cryptic to me, so best I ask direct)? <br />Don’t believe everything you read in "the Australian".<br />Thanks<br />Good luck and take care<br /><br />Douglas in Norwayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12454210222155391068noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-12552189088232585202013-02-06T03:48:32.251-05:002013-02-06T03:48:32.251-05:00"What obviously happens to that energy is pre..."What obviously happens to that energy is pretty clear. The change in volume upon condensation is small, but will result in a negative pressure gradient. The heat of condensation will heat the non-condensible gas which will then expand producing a much larger positive pressure gradient."<br /><br />The pressure gradient associated with latent heat has never been described in theory nor has it been proved empirically that it is significant. People realized that this is not as simple a problem as you depict it quite a while ago. In brief the physics is that the descending dry air parcel acquires positive buoyancy. This impedes the circulation and prevents the conversion of the rising parcel CAPE into the kinetic energy of winds. This cancellation effect (mentioned btw also by Lackmann ad Yablonsky 2004) leaves the net dynamic significance of latent heat an undetermined magnitude. If you are interested in this topic, you can consult the existing literature on, for example, the slice method. Additionally, latent heat is not relevant when there is intense horizontal mixing.<br /><br />For this reason the common simple considerations like yours above are just not relevant for the problem in question.<br /><br />The effect of gas removal that we described does not suffer from this cancellation effect in the descending branch of the circulation. It is not affected either by whether the ascent is adiabatic or not.Anastassia Makarievahttp://2s3c.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-60857653835858232452013-02-06T01:30:36.021-05:002013-02-06T01:30:36.021-05:00Douglas,
It's very easy to wind up:
If you a...Douglas,<br /><br />It's very easy to wind up:<br /><br />If you accept Held's statement we just discussed as a statement of fact, whatever it's truth value, your argument in #2 collapses.<br /><br />Your misreading of Held helped you work the ref.<br /><br />Human beings do work the ref from time to time. And scientists are human beings. So scientists can work the ref. But "this is not science", as you said elsewhere. (Replace "work the ref" with "take out the trash" to see how the equivocation works.)<br /><br />This does not mean that working the ref is unscientific, Anastassia. It is just not what evidence-based reasoning is about in empirical sciences. Unless, of course, your subject study is related to publication policies or mental models of academic reviewers.<br /><br />You both should accept Held's claim as a factual one and discuss its evidence base. This would be more relevant to the paper, and more constructive for everyone. In the long run, such strategy will help you gain allies, or at the very least something more than resources.<br /><br />Before starting this comment, I was tempted to search for "heat release associated with condensation dominates over the effect of the mass loss" in ze Scholar, just to see what evidence I could find for Held's claim. Now I'm tired. Everyone is welcome to follow through.<br /><br />***<br /><br />As Garrison Keillor would say, be well, do good work, and keep in touch.<br /><br />Bye,<br /><br />wwillardhttp://neverendingaudit.tumblr.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-39154022211372121422013-02-06T00:31:55.145-05:002013-02-06T00:31:55.145-05:00So let's start at the very beginning. Does an...So let's start at the very beginning. Does anyone doubt that the energy available for pressure-volume work from water vapor condensing is not considerably greater than the energy change associated with the change in volume due to the condensation?<br /><br />What obviously happens to that energy is pretty clear. The change in volume upon condensation is small, but will result in a negative pressure gradient. The heat of condensation will heat the non-condensible gas which will then expand producing a much larger positive pressure gradient.<br /><br />And oh yes, most of the time condensation is not immediately followed by rain out, but there are these things called clouds which hang in the air a long time. EliRabetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-46997672771613073342013-02-06T00:03:26.320-05:002013-02-06T00:03:26.320-05:00"Thanks ... shall we wind this up soon? "..."Thanks ... shall we wind this up soon? "<br /><br />Douglas, earlier:<br /><br />"Remember we are trying to produce a whole new theory."<br /><br />No, not likely to wind up soon. BTW no one serious takes Judity Curry seriously any more. Her misunderstandings of climate science basics combined with her defense of iron-sun convicted pedophile guy Oliver Manuel (you can look this up yourself), has pretty much turned people off.<br /><br />Reasonable people, I mean.<br /><br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-81607947200285938792013-02-05T23:58:32.361-05:002013-02-05T23:58:32.361-05:00willard,
Is your statement this?
Authors, who in...willard,<br /><br />Is your statement this?<br /><br />Authors, who in a public response to a review of their work, <br />"(perhaps not accuse, but) quite clearly hint" that the reviewer has a confirmation bias, behave unscientifically.Anastassia Makarievanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-10590145989980174222013-02-05T22:44:31.952-05:002013-02-05T22:44:31.952-05:00Willard
Thanks ... shall we wind this up soon?
I&...Willard<br />Thanks ... shall we wind this up soon? <br />I'm looking to find something here we can agree on (call me old-fashioned). Clearly I don't accept your premise and people can judge much of what you are claiming for themselves (questioning people's beliefs versus their judgement etc). But let me take this next text of yours at face value as I think it offers an agreement: <br />"Have you looked? I suppose you did. Have you found any evidence? I suppose you did. Or else you're suggesting that our actual atmospheric models have been developed out of pure etheral layers of conceptual emptiness."<br /><br />Certainly we have looked. you "suppose we did find" ... no that's kind of a key point here and may be part of the perpetual cross-purposes ... I'm not sure how many ways I should say this but we don't know what evidence Dr Held is alluding to (go and look harder you say ... well if there is none that looks a little unreasonable -- please suggest a philosopher of your choice here -- and I would call foul intentional or not). We don't know what he was referring to -- we agree it matters. It'd be great to know and might move the process along.<br /><br />Certainly if our theory is finally judged correct your conclusion is one that you might then draw. It is a little harsh (let me assume that is because you find the idea absurd). I don't think we move science forward through scorning what came before: their skills and abilities were impressive. When people first resisted the argument that planets move around the sun one of the reasons was that epicycles offered a markedly more accurate prediction (no sorry no ref just now). In our case it is less dramatic: we are not discarding one mechanism for another but simply adding one.<br /><br />So ... in short we do seem to agree.<br />Douglas in Norwayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12454210222155391068noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-68870458759777551162013-02-05T21:19:35.958-05:002013-02-05T21:19:35.958-05:00Douglas,
Let's look at how Held constructs hi...Douglas,<br /><br />Let's look at how Held constructs his paragraph.<br /><br />His argument is introduced with his <em>first</em> sentence:<br /><br />> The authors make an extraordinary claim that <b>a term that is traditionally considered to be small, to the point that it is sometimes neglected in atmospheric models and, even when not neglected, rarely commented on </b>, is in fact dominant in driving atmospheric circulations. <br /><br />There are two arguments in this sentence. The term you claim <em>drives</em> clouds is (a) traditionally considered small and (b) insignificant in actual atmospheric models. <br /><br />If we combine these arguments, we get that our best actual explanation considers the driver you are positing as <em>insignificant</em>. The reason Held invokes is that:<br /><br />> [F]or Earth the standard perspective is that the heat release associated with condensation dominates over the effect of the mass loss.<br /><br />What are the justifications for such views? It seems that there are, since Held alludes to given "the accumulated evidence, implicit as well as explicit".<br /><br />If you don't know to what Held is referring right now, you can't disagree with his claim. If you do know what he's talking about, that means you have checked where this evidence could be.<br /><br />Have you looked? I suppose you did. Have you found any evidence? I suppose you did.<br /><br />Or else you're suggesting that our actual atmospheric models have been developed out of pure etheral layers of conceptual emptiness.<br /><br />***<br /><br />I doubt this is the case. I might be wrong. Even if I am, this has nothing to do with my commitment, which is to <em>read</em> to you what Held is saying, to show that how your confirmation bias schtick has no merit.<br /><br />This is not my job to find out about that state of art in atmospheric models. The burden is on your shoulder to dig this out. <br /><br />You're shifting your burden on me for no good reason. I am not your <b>resource</b> for this work, if we can borrow the ecological expression you used to refer to Judy's denizens.<br /><br />I have no idea why you think this will work. I don't really care. This is your business.<br /><br />***<br /><br />There is no great subtlety between an accusation of confirmation bias and a disagreement about the evidence supporting a belief, Douglas. The first is invalid, as it tries to explain why your opponent entertains a belief you <em>presume</em> unjustified. The second is valid, because it tries to show that the relevant belief is unjustified.<br /><br />Not only your ad hominem begs the question, but it it attacks the integrity of the bearer. And that's notwithstanding the victim playing going on.<br /><br />This is basic critical thinking, Douglas.willardhttp://neverendingaudit.tumblr.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-70222084188080210532013-02-05T20:17:42.692-05:002013-02-05T20:17:42.692-05:00Willard
This comment may also add a few explanator...Willard<br />This comment may also add a few explanatory comments (on the wider issue)<br />http://judithcurry.com/2013/01/31/condensation-driven-winds-an-update-new-version/#comment-292407<br />The basic point being that journals will often welcome a reviewer know to be critical and another who can be judge more open. The editor then decides if there is a case to answer. That seems to be what happened.Douglas in Norwayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12454210222155391068noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-68835668093396015312013-02-05T20:06:37.093-05:002013-02-05T20:06:37.093-05:00Willard
"by disagreeing with his belief and c...Willard<br />"by disagreeing with his belief and came with counter-evidence "<br /><br />I admit difficulty with this. His perception of strong evidence is relevant to you but not the fact that none of us (not you, hot him not us) can find this evidence? Or again if you think it is a "his comment as correct statements of fact." Then offer justification (evidence).<br /><br />If I am being dim you can help me out with the reply you wanted. What kind of counter-evidence was available to a charge we could not identify? (a point we also made in the reply ... have you read the whole thing BTW? You never answered before. Interested to know if you share our concerns about dogma and the value of vibrant engagement with new ideas).<br /><br />I acknowledge interesting subtleties here (what you call "disagreeing with his belief" and what we called "confirmation bias" ... but to really know who is correct we'd need to know the basis of the beliefs ... I think I'll pass on getting deeper into that). We can hold our own views.<br /><br />I any case I am interested if Dr Held, or you, or Eli or anyone can find this huge heap of contrary evidence. <br /><br />BTW<br />You say "scientists argue by providing evidence, not by playing the ref.". No. They must do both. Practicing scientists are assessing arguments as well as evidence on a daily basis (theirs and others). I peer review as well as being peer reviewed. Standards are a shared responsibility. If I am out of line others will let me know and visa-versa. Editors expect authors to appeal within these rules. If your point is that we were partisan about doing that then my answer is simply of course -- that is how it works: we are expected to propose and defend out work within this framework of rules. I absolutely wanted the paper published. I make no claim to be objective about its merits (I don’t know any authors who are).<br /><br />Thanks for the blog link. We have been in touch with Snr. on this stuff quite a bit. Unfortunately I don’t normally spend a lot of time on blogs -- during my recent years the internet was too limited. Now it is largely about time. Indeed if this response is not enough we may have to call it quits soon. We have no need to frustrate each other. <br /><br />Douglas in Norwayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12454210222155391068noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-19015886137366648102013-02-05T20:00:03.552-05:002013-02-05T20:00:03.552-05:00For other readers, here's the paragraph me and...For other readers, here's the paragraph me and Douglas are discussing:<br /><br />> The authors make an extraordinary claim that a term that is traditionally considered to be small, to the point that it is sometimes neglected in atmospheric models and, even when not neglected, rarely commented on, is in fact dominant in driving atmospheric circulations. The effect concerned is that of the mass sink associated with condensation. This term is of first-order importance in some planetary atmospheres, such as Mars, where the total mass of the atmosphere has a substantial seasonal cycle, but for Earth the standard perspective is that the heat release associated with condensation dominates over the effect of the mass loss. A claim of this sort naturally has to pass a high bar to be publishable, given the accumulated evidence, implicit as well as explicit, that argues against it. I am afraid that this paper does not approach the level required. I have done my best to keep an open mind, but do not see any cogent arguments that overturn the conventional wisdom. I do applaud the authors for questioning the foundations of our understanding of the atmosphere and provide some unsolicited advice on how the authors might proceed to clarify some of these issues. There is a need for some clarification.<br /><br />This paragraph is the only piece of evidence I need to make my case.<br /><br />One week arguing over climate blogs can save Douglas a minute reading a paragraph.willardhttp://neverendingaudit.tumblr.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-4360898959245296122013-02-05T19:10:22.431-05:002013-02-05T19:10:22.431-05:00Dear Douglas,
Thank you for missing the point.
H...Dear Douglas,<br /><br />Thank you for missing the point.<br /><br />Here it is again:<br /><br />> My point was that you were (perhaps not accusing, but) quite clearly hinting that Held's judgement was clouded by confirmation bias. This still appears to me unjustified, as I read his comment as correct statements of fact. <br /><br />You now seem to disagree about the correctness of Held's statement of fact. <br /><br />But to disagree with it, <i>you have to interpret it as a statement of fact</i>.<br /><br />And if you <i>do</i> interpret it as a statement of fact, you should <i>see</i> that your claim that Held is accounting you and your co-authors to a higher standard than others has no merit.<br /><br />Held is not saying that you <em>should</em> be accountable to the most stringent criteria, he's saying that you are embarking in a daunting task of overcoming what he perceives as strong evidence against your theory.<br /><br />***<br /><br />Your accusation of confirmation bias is <b>irrelevant</b> to what Held is claiming, as are most of ad hominems of this kind, not unlike your "someone is deluded".<br /><br />Your latest model bashing is amusing but irrelevant to that point. <br /><br />***<br /><br />Had you replied to Held simply by disagreeing with his belief and came with counter-evidence instead of trying to cry foul, we would not have this conversation. <br /><br />More to the point, <b>you would have been acting like a scientist</b>, because scientists argue by providing evidence, not by playing the ref.<br /><br />Please acknowledge this. If you really <em>do</em> wish to improve your unsportsmanship, please learn from the true master:<br /><br />http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.ca/<br /><br /><br />willardhttp://neverendingaudit.tumblr.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-13411620927934168912013-02-05T17:35:31.864-05:002013-02-05T17:35:31.864-05:00Sorry - typo
you should find this easySorry - typo <br />you should find this easyDouglas in Norwayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12454210222155391068noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-9853085436806226342013-02-05T17:32:09.184-05:002013-02-05T17:32:09.184-05:00Willard
"given the accumulated evidence, imp...Willard<br /><br />"given the accumulated evidence, implicit as well as explicit, that argues against it".<br /><br />You were serious? Ok ...<br /><br />Let's see ... indeed I am not aware of this "accumulated evidence". It certainly sounds like a big, diverse and weighty stack though right? (let me declare in advance, just in case we are talking at cross purposes, that analytical challenges [where reasonable people may differ] and the ability to make more or less plausible heat driven simulation models [see the discussion of regular behaviours in the JC blog] are not the kind of evidence that we should accept here ... n.b. we dealt with the flawed Spengler et al. physics that Dr Held drew attention to as a correct approach in the review). <br /><br />Unfortunately Dr Held is a busy man and didn't actually detail any evidence. It was all implicit. We thought about it: what did he mean? We couldn't find anything.<br /><br />800+ comments on the JC thread and no obvious evidence against it there either. On the JC thread Antonio and I offered some evidence for it ... but noone offered any against (lets set aside all the analytical derivations stuff: that was a rich discussion and it is reasonable for people to differ, but I don’t think this is what Dr Held was referring to). I acknowledged that it may be that few people have tried yet. (You didn't offer the requested evidence there when I invited falsification ... odd I think if there is indeed so much accumulated evidence available to do that ... but we will ask again). <br /><br />So someone seems to be deluded -- perhaps it is me, perhaps it is you (likely both!). But we are talking about evidence so we can make a judgement -- and if your case is strong you should find this east. What are we overlooking? <br /><br />Please be very explicit about the contradictory evidece that we need to address. We science types find the implicit stuff slippery. We need evidence that we can evaluate in a reasonably formal manner. What is this vast accumulated heap of evidence against our theory? <br /><br />Thanks Douglas in Norwayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12454210222155391068noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-23050198842938140502013-02-02T20:15:44.521-05:002013-02-02T20:15:44.521-05:00Aaron
Thanks (I think).Aaron<br />Thanks (I think).Douglas in Norwayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12454210222155391068noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-85113588856147248612013-02-02T20:13:08.489-05:002013-02-02T20:13:08.489-05:00Hi Alastair
Remember we are trying to produce a wh...Hi Alastair<br />Remember we are trying to produce a whole new theory. We cannot do everything in detail in one paper. We are offering key principles.<br />See here for more resources and evidence: http://www.biotic-regulation.pl.ru/index.html<br />You may also like to come and see the discussion at JC's http://judithcurry.com/2013/01/31/condensation-driven-winds-an-update-new-version<br />Douglas in Norwayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12454210222155391068noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-58507235873841423492013-02-02T20:10:10.432-05:002013-02-02T20:10:10.432-05:00Thanks Willard - fun link
Thanks Willard - fun link<br />Douglas in Norwayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12454210222155391068noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-39041546443476841082013-02-01T19:55:03.731-05:002013-02-01T19:55:03.731-05:00I should have written:
"Recently, I have be...I should have written: <br /><br />"Recently, I have been curious about what it is that drives the clouds across the sky? As you will be aware, clouds at different altitudes are often seen moving in different directions. This is made possible by the fact that the atmosphere consists of layers of air with different humidities and temperatures. Since these layers do not mix, they can slide above and below each other. But what powers those movements? Your idea that condensation can produce lower pressures which could cause the advection of the clouds would seem to answer my question."Alastairhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15152292130415788120noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-79837330707946883162013-02-01T18:45:21.181-05:002013-02-01T18:45:21.181-05:00Douglas,
I think that you may be onto something w...Douglas,<br /><br />I think that you may be onto something with that paper but I have to agree with Dr Held and Richard Smith (ex BMJ) that the paper is not clear. My feeling is that there is too much maths and not enough discussion of the physical reality. <br /><br />For instance, it does not take much imagination to think of an experiment which shows that condensation causes a decrease in pressure. All that is needed is a large thin plastic 2 litre lemonade bottle plus a little warm water. Add the water to the empty bottle, and shake it to ensure that the air is saturated, apply the cap, then wait for water vapour in the bottle to cool and condense. The bottle will collapse inwardly to such an extent that it cannot be due only to the effect of the air contracting as the bottle cools. Obviously a more sophisticated procedure is needed for a published paper, but I have just performed the experiment as described above and shown to my own satisfaction that it does produce the effects predicted.<br /><br />You may also be interested in a comment made in a talk to post graduate student at UCL (University College London) by Professor Huppert of Oxbridge. I recall him saying that in his experience, fluid convection was usually caused by chemical rather than physical changes. If you apply this principle to the air, then it is the addition of the lighter water vapour molecules which causes convection, not heating. <br /><br />This explains why the Sahara Desert, where there is strong heating of the surface air, is situated a region of atmospheric down welling. This is part of a Hadley cell where the surface winds (the Trade Winds) are driven by convection in the tropics, caused by Huppert type evaporation rather than Makarieva type condensation! <br /><br />Recently, I have been curious what it is that drives the clouds across the sky? As you will be aware clouds at different altitudes are often seen moving in different directions. This is made possible by the fact that the atmosphere consists of layers of air with different humilities and temperatures. These layers do not mix and travel in different directions. Your idea that condensation can produce lower pressures which cause the advection of clouds would seem to answer my question.<br /><br />Another problem about which I have been curious is that when humid air condenses to form cloud, the gas in the air will become less dense but the air overall will retain its density because the water aerosols are still present in the air. Until the water precipitates the mass of the air (and its volume? and density) will remain unchanged. Thus the pressure the air exerts at the surface of the Earth will remain unchanged, since it is based on the weight of the column of air above it.<br /><br />Thus my conclusion is that your mechanism is not applicable to the surface air movements which are what are commonly thought as winds, but it is the main driver of the advection in the remainder and majority of the troposphere, the region of the atmosphere where water vapour is a major player. <br /><br />Curious, yet again. Is this of any help?<br /><br />Cheers, Alastair.<br />Alastairhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15152292130415788120noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-60373294181314184372013-02-01T01:03:47.334-05:002013-02-01T01:03:47.334-05:00Wrong link:
http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/ta...Wrong link:<br /><br />http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/tagged/FeynmanForBloggerswillardhttp://neverendingaudit.tumblr.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-426532895741425892013-01-31T22:27:32.778-05:002013-01-31T22:27:32.778-05:00Douglas Sheil,
Thank you for this Feynman quote. ...Douglas Sheil,<br /><br />Thank you for this Feynman quote. <br /><br />Here are my favorites:<br /><br />http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/FeynmanForBloggers<br /><br />As interesting as your discussion of confirmation bias may be, it does not address my point.<br /><br />Not that you have to address it. After all, if you've got nothing against it... not that I would mind if you did, for I'm here seeking criticism... You know, we all want Sound Science...<br /><br />Et cetera.<br /><br />Sigh.<br /><br /><br /><br />willardhttp://neverendingaudit.tumblr.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-32554413508165997192013-01-31T18:15:24.698-05:002013-01-31T18:15:24.698-05:00thanks Willard
There was never a human born withou...thanks Willard<br />There was never a human born without confirmation bias. Here is a famous quote for you: "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." - RP Feynman. That makes the principles of the science process important. Calling on these basic principles is a general point not a personal one (yes certainly I believe they should apply to our study but also to any other). I am only requesting (and repeating) that if anyone believes we are wrong the criticisms should be based on scientifically relevant criteria. I want and welcome those. If that is being "messianic" according to some definition that you and Nick agree on I'll have to learn to live with that. <br />BTW I have no problem with "the reception" -- I very much appreciate people taking the time and effort to consider our paper however negative their reactions. I don't expect everyone to agree. Criticisms and challenges can help advance the ideas - That too is a scientific principle I would defend. <br />Thanks again for all the interest<br />Douglas in Norwayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12454210222155391068noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-58437329910669422752013-01-31T14:06:38.123-05:002013-01-31T14:06:38.123-05:00Douglas Sheil,
My point was that you were (perhap...Douglas Sheil,<br /><br />My point was that you were (perhaps not accusing, but) quite clearly hinting that Held's judgement was clouded by confirmation bias. This still appears to me unjustified, as I read his comment as correct statements of fact. <br /><br />I am not sure I would advise to do that, since this looks a lot like playing the ref. Were you to indulge a bit more and you'd wish us to believe that you're being persecuted by Saint Bellarmine. <br /><br />***<br /><br />So this was my main point, and your response to Nick's point does not address it. The other about other kinds of bias was for argument's sake. Speaking of which, you have to admit that to respond to:<br /><br />> You're being messianic.<br /><br />with<br /><br />> No, I'm just in the same predicament as Einstein's.<br /><br />kinda begs for the reception you get. I hope you do get how theatrical your overall plea looks to me. In any case, the choice is yours and I side with Aaron on this. <br /><br />***<br /><br />Yes, there is a dilemma between being conservative and being innovative. I suppose we can oppose type I and type II errors in selecting papers for publication. It's always a matter of judgement, and in the end your position prevailed. You certainly should be proud.<br /><br />Congratulations!<br /><br />wwillardhttp://neverendingaudit.tumblr.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-76286081154035812732013-01-31T00:34:05.783-05:002013-01-31T00:34:05.783-05:00Hi Willard
You are close ... it is where I point o...Hi Willard<br />You are close ... it is where I point out that in my view novelty is not the enemy of science but its lifeblood. And that Nick's criteria would exclude many scientific advances: general realtivity being one selected example (chosen for the punch). That I think addresses your smart point about the search for novelty. I agree it may be a bias but I see it as +ve.<br />Theories are there to be evaluated and tested. Finding new theories to examine with a skeptical, objective and mind that is open to the possibility of surprise is what science does. After all if we ar all convinced we know all the answers why do we even need more science right? <br />Did you read the replies to Held?<br />thanks for the continued interest.<br />Douglas in Norwayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12454210222155391068noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-90507491818894513962013-01-30T23:35:22.959-05:002013-01-30T23:35:22.959-05:00Douglas Sheil,
I don't see anything in your c...Douglas Sheil,<br /><br />I don't see anything in your comment to Nick that addresses my criticism of your #2.<br /><br />Is it when you compare your paper with Einstein's?willardhttp://neverendingaudit.tumblr.comnoreply@blogger.com