MAJ USA RET
8/6/2019 11:43:05 AM (updated 8/6/2019 11:43:34 AM)
This is true: We seek confirmation. That is to say that we prefer the perceived condition which validates our position.
But… can that position change?
If you are a true scientist, it can. Experimentation either confirms or dispels a thesis. If the numbers confirm your belief, then you are satisfied. BUT… if the numbers do not support your thesis… then what? NOW, you have a divergent choice. You can either change your belief… change the numbers… or gather more data.
Changing the numbers is ethically deficient. It means that your audience is more important that the truth. That is… you are more concerned with your “aspect” than your credibility… as a true scientist. Perhaps you have another... less scientific... goal.
The scientific method provides the defining truth. If your thesis survives the scrutiny of your peers, then you have validation of your theory. If you cannot defend your thesis… if your raw data… and consequent manipulation… does not survive your defense… then you have failed to support your thesis. The TRUE scientist can admit, “I was mistaken.”
But, the pseudo-scientist manipulates the argument… and declares his jury to be “DENIERS.”
To a true scientist, ALL data is worthy of consideration. But, data must be both reliable and valid. In defense of one’s thesis, “reliable and valid” are legitimate questions.
If one begins with a dubious position… and needs to skew facts to support that position… then one risks… on the consideration of his defense… the scorn of his peers. If you have to editorialize your defense, then there are facts which you have not presented in support of the thesis.
Scorn is reserved, by scientist, for the ethically bankrupt.
ANTHROPOLOGICAL GLOBAL WARMING is ethically bankrupt. It fails to truthfully consider documented history. It cannot survive the defense proscribed by the scientific method.
AND… for example… THAT, is why AGW is scorned by true scientists.
- LMF Curmudgeon