So some people think that there is such a thing as settled science. I recall
some people saying that about climate change.
Well, that was cobblers - there is no settled science. It is arrogant to
believe that any science is beyond doubt.
Here is a superb example.
https://newatlas.com/physics/mit-evaporation-experiment/
Who knows what else we don't understand?

On 2024-04-27, Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
> So some people think that there is such a thing as settled science. I recall
> some people saying that about climate change.
> Well, that was cobblers - there is no settled science. It is arrogant to
> believe that any science is beyond doubt.
> Here is a superb example.
> https://newatlas.com/physics/mit-evaporation-experiment/
> Who knows what else we don't understand?

So the human activity climate change folks will have to put this into their
fine models. Probably make no difference as the science was settled ages
ago.

On Sat, 27 Apr 2024 20:56:21 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote:

> So some people think that there is such a thing as settled science.

As Carl Sagan said “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”.
Some scientific theories (e.g. thermodynamics) are so well established,
that if you claim to have discovered a counterexample (e.g. a perpetual-
motion machine), then you better damn well have a ton of evidence to back
up your claim.

Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>On Sat, 27 Apr 2024 20:56:21 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote:
>
>> So some people think that there is such a thing as settled science.
>
>As Carl Sagan said “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”.
>Some scientific theories (e.g. thermodynamics) are so well established,
>that if you claim to have discovered a counterexample (e.g. a perpetual-
>motion machine), then you better damn well have a ton of evidence to back
>up your claim.
Indeed, but do you have anything to say about the article?

On Sat, 27 Apr 2024 23:25:00 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro
<ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:

>On Sat, 27 Apr 2024 20:56:21 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote:
> https://newatlas.com/physics/mit-evaporation-experiment/
>
>> So some people think that there is such a thing as settled science.
>
>As Carl Sagan said “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”.
>Some scientific theories (e.g. thermodynamics) are so well established,
>that if you claim to have discovered a counterexample (e.g. a perpetual-
>motion machine), then you better damn well have a ton of evidence to back
>up your claim.

Indeed; this does not change the general conclusions about the effects
of atmospheric gasses affecting our climate, but indicates that the
actions of light are sufficient to assist evaporation. We already knew
that the amount of heat reaching the planet is affected by what is in
the atmosphere, and that man-made gasses have changed our climate, but
the effects may be lightly greater than previously realised as mere
light being blocked will have an effect. That is not all bad; if less
light from pollution causes less evaporation from heat it may in some
ways be a good thing, but that is really stretching the article. It
does confirm however that scientists know more about what is happening
than "reckons" from the average non-scientist.

We live in a world of spin, disinformation and deliberate propaganda;
it is good to see solid scientific facts set out so clearly, with a
careful and balanced description of the facts. It is a however
generally believed by most governments that global worming is a danger
to our societies, and that through a reduction in emissions, we may be
able to mitigate some of the worst effects of those changes - and
those beliefs have led to international agreements which successive
New Zealand governments have supported - for any government to ignore
such an agreement may well result in actions from other governments to
reinforce their displeasure through sanctions such as loss of trade or
favourable terms of trade - New Zealand cannot afford to lose our
ability to sell overseas - and many farmers are aware that this is a
significant risk unless they change practices; and we cannot afford to
start mining and burning more coal for example. Those may seem a long
way from scientists understanding a detail of physical effects of
light, but we do need to accept that short term actions can be
important in a sensitive area where the need for change is largely
agreed by our trading partners.

Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 27 Apr 2024 23:25:00 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro
><ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 27 Apr 2024 20:56:21 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote:
>> https://newatlas.com/physics/mit-evaporation-experiment/
>>
>>> So some people think that there is such a thing as settled science.
>>
>>As Carl Sagan said �extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence�.
>>Some scientific theories (e.g. thermodynamics) are so well established,
>>that if you claim to have discovered a counterexample (e.g. a perpetual-
>>motion machine), then you better damn well have a ton of evidence to back
>>up your claim.
>
>Indeed; this does not change the general conclusions about the effects
>of atmospheric gasses affecting our climate, but indicates that the
>actions of light are sufficient to assist evaporation. We already knew
>that the amount of heat reaching the planet is affected by what is in
>the atmosphere, and that man-made gasses have changed our climate
No we don't. Provide proof of that.
>, but
>the effects may be lightly greater than previously realised as mere
>light being blocked will have an effect. That is not all bad; if less
>light from pollution causes less evaporation from heat it may in some
>ways be a good thing, but that is really stretching the article. It
>does confirm however that scientists know more about what is happening
>than "reckons" from the average non-scientist.
As you have amply demonstrated above. Your non-scientific background has led
you down a rabbit warren of guesswork.
>
>We live in a world of spin, disinformation and deliberate propaganda;
>it is good to see solid scientific facts set out so clearly, with a
>careful and balanced description of the facts. It is a however
>generally believed by most governments that global worming is a danger
>to our societies, and that through a reduction in emissions, we may be
>able to mitigate some of the worst effects of those changes - and
>those beliefs have led to international agreements which successive
>New Zealand governments have supported - for any government to ignore
>such an agreement may well result in actions from other governments to
>reinforce their displeasure through sanctions such as loss of trade or
>favourable terms of trade
>
Rubbish - that is desperate conjecture at best and more likely a fantasy.

> - New Zealand cannot afford to lose our
>ability to sell overseas - and many farmers are aware that this is a
>significant risk unless they change practices; and we cannot afford to
>start mining and burning more coal for example. Those may seem a long
>way from scientists understanding a detail of physical effects of
>light, but we do need to accept that short term actions can be
>important in a sensitive area where the need for change is largely
>agreed by our trading partners.

Did you know that a lot of published scientific results turn out to be
irreproducible?

Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>Did you know that a lot of published scientific results turn out to be
>irreproducible?
Obviously, that is the nature of scientific research, publishing everything is
important. It is the context that matters.
Speaking of which, why do you remove the context of posts?

On Sun, 28 Apr 2024 21:25:05 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:

>Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>>Did you know that a lot of published scientific results turn out to be
>>irreproducible?
That depends on what you consider a lot. Most research is not
reproduced unless there are other matters to be explored that need
replication of part of previous research - simple economics suggests
that reproduction of well researched findings (which normally include
sufficient replication to justify results) or not reproduced for
economic reasons. Some of course are time specific; it does not in any
way invalidate conclusions. Take the famous cohort analysis where a
group of children have been interviewed over a period of many years -
the research is being repeated with later cohorts, but different
results are to be expected for those who have lived through different
periods. Then there are the thankfully rare cases where scientific
results are fabricated to some extent; some of that is picked up by
deficiencies in research design which should prevent most fabrication
of results, some is picked by other scientists doing replication of
some or all of the research, either because results are surprising or
because the work is part of extended study on a related issue. Such
incidents in the scientific community are fortunately rare - rare
enough that they are well publicised and the culprits tend to be
treated quite harshly in academic circles.

>Obviously, that is the nature of scientific research, publishing everything is
>important. It is the context that matters.
Actually quite a bit of research is not published widely - it may well
be carried out for commercial purposes rather than to benefit world
knowledge, and aspects of such discoveries may well be kept secret -
sadly the current government is moving in that direction by calling
for more of the work of our publicly funded scientific researchers to
work more with private companies for private profit than for the good
of the public. Publishing is important for Academics, but they know
very well the negative impact of publishing dishonest conclusions - it
could well destroy an academic career. The same does not apply to
posts to nz.general - posters like Tony regularly distort the truth -
often through ignorance but also from what one far-right commentator
sees as "fomenting mischief", or from believing the incredible
"reckons" of "The Hosk" radio jock.

>Speaking of which, why do you remove the context of posts?
Copying you, Tony?

Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 28 Apr 2024 21:25:05 -0000 (UTC), Tony
><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>
>>Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>>>Did you know that a lot of published scientific results turn out to be
>>>irreproducible?
>That depends on what you consider a lot.
Who are you talking to?
>Most research is not
>reproduced unless there are other matters to be explored that need
>replication of part of previous research - simple economics suggests
>that reproduction of well researched findings (which normally include
>sufficient replication to justify results) or not reproduced for
>economic reasons. Some of course are time specific; it does not in any
>way invalidate conclusions. Take the famous cohort analysis where a
>group of children have been interviewed over a period of many years -
>the research is being repeated with later cohorts, but different
>results are to be expected for those who have lived through different
>periods. Then there are the thankfully rare cases where scientific
>results are fabricated to some extent; some of that is picked up by
>deficiencies in research design which should prevent most fabrication
>of results, some is picked by other scientists doing replication of
>some or all of the research, either because results are surprising or
>because the work is part of extended study on a related issue. Such
>incidents in the scientific community are fortunately rare - rare
>enough that they are well publicised and the culprits tend to be
>treated quite harshly in academic circles.
Wrong - it is vital that in specific scientific communities, research that
produces no results or poor results or unrepeatable results is published. That
is something you would not know (you are not scientifically qualified or
trained) and if you did know that you would not comprehend. But those that do
understand matter, you don't!
>
>>Obviously, that is the nature of scientific research, publishing everything
>>is
>>important. It is the context that matters.
>Actually quite a bit of research is not published widely
The word widely is telling - it is irrelevant - published within an interested
or involved community is what is being discussed but you need to stick to what
you know (politics, lies and defamation).
> - it may well
>be carried out for commercial purposes rather than to benefit world
>knowledge, and aspects of such discoveries may well be kept secret -
It is still published, dummy! within that community. company etc and that is
the point. Duh!
>sadly the current government is moving in that direction by calling
>for more of the work of our publicly funded scientific researchers to
>work more with private companies for private profit than for the good
>of the public. Publishing is important for Academics, but they know
>very well the negative impact of publishing dishonest conclusions - it
>could well destroy an academic career.
Nobody is talking about dishonest conclusions - start your own thread.
Lie removed
>
>>Speaking of which, why do you remove the context of posts?
>Copying you, Tony?
Got you!
The difference is profound. I remove abuse and stupidity from one person only,
that is you. Lawrence removes significantly more from everybody. SOrry that you
are too dumb to understand the difference.s01 s02

On Mon, 29 Apr 2024 14:06:38 +1200, Rich80105 wrote:

> Most research is not reproduced
> unless there are other matters to be explored that need replication of
> part of previous research ...

There is a thing called the “Reproducibility Project”. It seems to
find particular trouble with research in social science
<https://arstechnica.com/science/2016/03/social-science-reproducibility-not-great-but-not-as-bad-as-reported/>.

There is also a more general problem in science in general, when
original data sets and analysis software tools are not available to
those trying to reproduce the results
<https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/11/keeping-science-reproducible-in-a-world-of-custom-code-and-data/>.

On Mon, 29 Apr 2024 02:58:08 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro
<ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:

>On Mon, 29 Apr 2024 14:06:38 +1200, Rich80105 wrote:
>
>> Most research is not reproduced
>> unless there are other matters to be explored that need replication of
>> part of previous research ...
>
>There is a thing called the “Reproducibility Project”. It seems to
>find particular trouble with research in social science
><https://arstechnica.com/science/2016/03/social-science-reproducibility-not-great-but-not-as-bad-as-reported/>.
>
>There is also a more general problem in science in general, when
>original data sets and analysis software tools are not available to
>those trying to reproduce the results
><https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/11/keeping-science-reproducible-in-a-world-of-custom-code-and-data/>.
Perhaps some things have changed, but these issues are why if data or
findings are found to have been forged / wrongly changed in a thesis,
the University and thesis supervisor would also be rightly criticised.
I do not believe this is a significant problem in New Zealand, or that
New Zealand has any greater level of such dishonesty in scientific
publications as anywhere else.

The general issue can however be illustrated by political polling -
having been one of the "participants" in a number of polls in recent
years, I have observed that there are ways in which those seeking
answers over the phone can influence answers - the ordering of
questions is not always as subsequently published, and light-hearted
conversation or explanations of questions can also be a subtle way of
indicating what answer is being sought.

On Mon, 29 Apr 2024 16:07:53 +1200, Rich80105 wrote:

> On Mon, 29 Apr 2024 02:58:08 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro
> <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>There is a thing called the “Reproducibility Project”. It seems to
>>find particular trouble with research in social science
>><https://arstechnica.com/science/2016/03/social-science-reproducibility-not-great-but-not-as-bad-as-reported/>.
>>
>>There is also a more general problem in science in general, when
>>original data sets and analysis software tools are not available to
>>those trying to reproduce the results
>><https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/11/keeping-science-reproducible-in-a-world-of-custom-code-and-data/>.
>
> Perhaps some things have changed, but these issues are why if data or
> findings are found to have been forged / wrongly changed in a thesis,
> the University and thesis supervisor would also be rightly criticised.

You don’t have to go as far as deliberate falsification to find
quality problems, is the point.

Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>On Mon, 29 Apr 2024 16:07:53 +1200, Rich80105 wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 29 Apr 2024 02:58:08 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro
>> <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>There is a thing called the “Reproducibility Project”. It seems to
>>>find particular trouble with research in social science
>>><https://arstechnica.com/science/2016/03/social-science-reproducibility-not-great-but-not-as-bad-as-reported/>.
>>>
>>>There is also a more general problem in science in general, when
>>>original data sets and analysis software tools are not available to
>>>those trying to reproduce the results
>>><https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/11/keeping-science-reproducible-in-a-world-of-custom-code-and-data/>.
>>
>> Perhaps some things have changed, but these issues are why if data or
>> findings are found to have been forged / wrongly changed in a thesis,
>> the University and thesis supervisor would also be rightly criticised.
>
>You don’t have to go as far as deliberate falsification to find
>quality problems, is the point.
It's 'a' point but entirely off topic. Results that are not reproducible still
add value to research by their very existence. That is the point.

On Mon, 29 Apr 2024 06:49:59 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote:

> Results that are not reproducible still add value to research by their
> very existence.

Now we see the ideologically-based appeal-to-science-when-it-suits-you,
discount-it-when-it-doesn’t mentality rear its ugly head.

On Mon, 29 Apr 2024 08:55:23 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro
<ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:

>On Mon, 29 Apr 2024 06:49:59 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote:
>
>> Results that are not reproducible still add value to research by their
>> very existence.
>
>Now we see the ideologically-based appeal-to-science-when-it-suits-you,
>discount-it-when-it-doesn’t mentality rear its ugly head.

Exactly - there was an idiot who stole some Covid data from a database
and misinterpreted it like crazy to assert all sorts of nonsense; I
doubt anyone was really fooled but some at least pretended to believe
the nonsense because it suited the anti Labour / anti-health
precautions that were being used (wrongly) to attack the previous
government He was charged with some offences and last I heard they
were discussing a trial date.

Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>On Mon, 29 Apr 2024 06:49:59 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote:
>
>> Results that are not reproducible still add value to research by their
>> very existence.
>
>Now we see the ideologically-based appeal-to-science-when-it-suits-you,
>discount-it-when-it-doesn’t mentality rear its ugly head.
That is quite simply a deliberate mistruth - you hate it when people see
through your bisa don't you?
I feel sorry for you and those of your limited ability to see anything of value
in other points of view.
I have no political or other ideology other than fairness and compassion for
people.
You are a very different and very sad person - the years have not helped you
Lawrence.

Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 29 Apr 2024 08:55:23 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro
><ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 29 Apr 2024 06:49:59 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote:
>>
>>> Results that are not reproducible still add value to research by their
>>> very existence.
>>
>>Now we see the ideologically-based appeal-to-science-when-it-suits-you,
>>discount-it-when-it-doesn�t mentality rear its ugly head.
>
>Exactly - there was an idiot who stole some Covid data from a database
>and misinterpreted it like crazy to assert all sorts of nonsense; I
>doubt anyone was really fooled but some at least pretended to believe
>the nonsense because it suited the anti Labour / anti-health
>precautions that were being used (wrongly) to attack the previous
>government He was charged with some offences and last I heard they
>were discussing a trial date.
We shall see - but your deliberate prejudging of a case that is already before
the courts is typical.
Your red flag is showing once more.

On Mon, 29 Apr 2024 19:50:43 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:

>Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>On Mon, 29 Apr 2024 08:55:23 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro
>><ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 29 Apr 2024 06:49:59 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote:
>>>
>>>> Results that are not reproducible still add value to research by their
>>>> very existence.
>>>
>>>Now we see the ideologically-based appeal-to-science-when-it-suits-you,
>>>discount-it-when-it-doesn’t mentality rear its ugly head.
>>
>>Exactly - there was an idiot who stole some Covid data from a database
>>and misinterpreted it like crazy to assert all sorts of nonsense; I
>>doubt anyone was really fooled but some at least pretended to believe
>>the nonsense because it suited the anti Labour / anti-health
>>precautions that were being used (wrongly) to attack the previous
>>government He was charged with some offences and last I heard they
>>were discussing a trial date.
>We shall see - but your deliberate prejudging of a case that is already before
>the courts is typical.
>Your red flag is showing once more.
I am not prejudging the case. I suspect he may only be charged with
the theft of the data; whether he is also charged with his spreading
of lies and misleading conclusions is another matter - as I recall you
Tony were one of those misled by the incorrect conclusions that had
been drawn from the data which he had stolen; you saw it as a means to
attack the then government, but perhaps you also lacked the critical
understand of statistics. It is possible that the person that stole
the data and misinterpreted it will claim if necessary that he was
just giving his opinion; and that may be enough for him not to be
charged with the deliberate spreading of disinformation; but the
original theft of data is under those circumstances enough to justify
being guilty in that regard. Certainly many gullible New Zealanders
were taken in by the disinformation, which purported to support with
statistical evidence lies that were being made by others, some for
political purposes.

There was interesting information on Radio NZ this morning about
Pharmac. The Government is clearly fully supportive of continuing
vaccinations for those most at risk and others that wish to be
vaccinated, and the increase in the budget for Pharmac announced turns
out to be merely continuing what was separate funding for Covid costs
that is now being folded into Pharmac - it does not signal that the
government has yet funded the 19 cancer treatments that they had
indicated they would support during the election. The clear
disappointment being expressed from those wishing support for various
cancer and diabetes treatments are expressing their disappointment;
hopefully the government will learn that being open and frank with the
public rather than trying to play partisan politics does not always
work in their favour. We know that they gained votes (particularly for
NZ First and ACT) from some anti-Vaxx and other nutters, but their
sensible support for Covid precautions (albeit more on a user pay
basis than the previous government for all expect those most in need)
is good to hear - they know the reality that the policies of the
previous government were very good overall, as shown in international
comparisons, but they put their need for votes ahead of that reality;
they know now however that we are still experiencing deaths and the
effects of long covid - they cannot afford to abandon the sensible
policies of the previous government - and disinformation may have been
acceptable from fronts arranged by the NZ Taxpayers Union, but cannot
be seen to be unpunished by the new government . . .

Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 29 Apr 2024 19:50:43 -0000 (UTC), Tony
><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>
>>Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>On Mon, 29 Apr 2024 08:55:23 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro
>>><ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 29 Apr 2024 06:49:59 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Results that are not reproducible still add value to research by their
>>>>> very existence.
>>>>
>>>>Now we see the ideologically-based appeal-to-science-when-it-suits-you,
>>>>discount-it-when-it-doesn�t mentality rear its ugly head.
>>>
>>>Exactly - there was an idiot who stole some Covid data from a database
>>>and misinterpreted it like crazy to assert all sorts of nonsense; I
>>>doubt anyone was really fooled but some at least pretended to believe
>>>the nonsense because it suited the anti Labour / anti-health
>>>precautions that were being used (wrongly) to attack the previous
>>>government He was charged with some offences and last I heard they
>>>were discussing a trial date.
>>We shall see - but your deliberate prejudging of a case that is already
>>before
>>the courts is typical.
>>Your red flag is showing once more.
>I am not prejudging the case. I suspect he may only be charged with
>the theft of the data; whether he is also charged with his spreading
>of lies and misleading conclusions is another matter - as I recall you
>Tony were one of those misled by the incorrect conclusions that had
>been drawn from the data which he had stolen; you saw it as a means to
>attack the then government, but perhaps you also lacked the critical
>understand of statistics.
That is a lie and defamation. Go and shove your head down a latrine.,\
It is possible that the person that stole
>the data
Not proven, as above - this is in court now and you are in breach of justice
rules.
> and misinterpreted it will claim if necessary that he was
>just giving his opinion; and that may be enough for him not to be
>charged with the deliberate spreading of disinformation; but the
>original theft of data is under those circumstances enough to justify
>being guilty in that regard. Certainly many gullible New Zealanders
>were taken in by the disinformation, which purported to support with
>statistical evidence lies that were being made by others, some for
>political purposes.
Not provne - more lies.

Off topic, start your own little boy.

On Mon, 29 Apr 2024 19:49:24 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote:

> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 29 Apr 2024 06:49:59 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote:
>>
>>> Results that are not reproducible still add value to research by their
>>> very existence.
>>
>>Now we see the ideologically-based appeal-to-science-when-it-suits-you,
>>discount-it-when-it-doesn’t mentality rear its ugly head.
>>
> ... you hate it when people see through your bisa don't you?

Selectively attaching greater significance to one particular result,
scientific as it may be, just because you agree with it, not because it is
better established?

Projection is one form of denial.

Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>On Mon, 29 Apr 2024 19:49:24 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote:
>
>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 29 Apr 2024 06:49:59 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote:
>>>
>>>> Results that are not reproducible still add value to research by their
>>>> very existence.
>>>
>>>Now we see the ideologically-based appeal-to-science-when-it-suits-you,
>>>discount-it-when-it-doesn’t mentality rear its ugly head.
>>>
>> ... you hate it when people see through your bisa don't you?
>
>Selectively attaching greater significance to one particular result,
>scientific as it may be, just because you agree with it, not because it is
>better established?
>
>Projection is one form of denial.
I avoid doing any of that but I have to ask - why do you do it and then imagine
(or project!) those faults in others, you do it time and time again?