Re: Questions


Eric Stevens wrote:
On 25 Oct 2006 16:25:52 -0700, "Tom McDonald" <kiltmac@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

<snip>

Note that she calls publications inferior ("lower grade")
to working papers.

Jesus! Is that what she meant? I couldn't machete my way through that
jungle of verbiage well enough to understand what she meant. I thought
she couldn't possibly mean that a person's notes were inferior to peer
reviewed publications.

Now certainly, it is vital to be able to see what the raw data are, and
how one develops one's thinking on a research topic over time. But to
claim that scientists' published work is generally less valuable than
their notes is...well, it's fucking odd.

Now it is true that some published work could benefit from access to
the raw data; and it is further true that sometimes the data are lost
or withheld. But if that is common in the Madam's experience, then I
shudder to think of the state of Swedish science.

Careful. Not being able to get access to the data is real as is even
the claim to have 'lost' the data.

Really? Huh. Did you not notice that I am aware of this?

In another field, In another field,
no one has yet seen much of the data used by Mann when deriving his
infamous hockeystick curve and I believe he now claims that he can
neither find no reconstruct some of it.

I'm aware of this. In another situation, Birgitta Wallace did a
re-study of, I believe, some 'mooring holes' in Minnesota and
environs--back in the 60's, I think. She wrote at least one paper using
her findings. When asked for the raw data by a friend of ours (and by
me, as it happens), Wallace wasn't able to come up with it. Now she
gave reasonable excuses (mostly that it would be hard to dig the stuff
up, and she was busy). But the upshot is that there is no way to
confirm her conclusions, and it is impossible to review or build on her
work.

So yeah, I got the memo.

I wonder whether she is talking about non-rigourous, more journalistic
publications. Certainly, I have often seen where good scientists
publish something for public consumption, or for non-peer-reviewed
venues that is much inferior to their own working notes. But that can't
be what Inger decided to rely on for her 'essays', is it? Is it?

Mann's work was peer reviewed by reviewers who never even asked to see
the data.

Which is why having the data available is necessary; so non-negligent
reviewers could follow up if questions arose. And, of course, so the
work could be built on at need.


But it would help answer the question Doug and others have often
wondered aloud (or at least a-keyboard): why does Inger seem to think
well of web sites for tourists, and those dumbed-down-for-the-masses.

Because they are usually found when you are looking for a quick
refrence to something you already know. But, unless you already 'know'
you can't trust this stuff when your only source is a tourist site.
So, when someone refers me to a tourist site, I'm not really trusting
the tourist site. I'm trusting the person who referred me to it.

Which is one reason why Inger's use of such sites is useless, and
maddening when she wags her finger at us and admonishes us to dig
through the crap to the pearls. Which are, if present anywhere, are
present in her mind.

<snip>

.

Loading