Quote:
Originally Posted by JimP
[snip]
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Nereid
Better yet: without …
|
I am just looking at the correlations. |
Good.
How are you so looking?
Specifically, do you have a plan concerning what to look for? If so, does that plan incorporate a
pre-defined method of (statistical) analysis? a pre-defined method of objectively determining the accuracy and completeness of the datasets? and so on ...
Quote:
|
This is just the first step.
|
What is the second step?
Quote:
|
Breakthroughs in science do not normally happen by adhering to existing dogmas.
|
Really?
Do you intend this thread to become a presentation on the nature of science, with you proposing ATM ideas and other BAUT members questioning and challenging the ATM assertions you make? Or is this just a gratuitous editorial comment? or ...?
In any case, how about the following assertion:
few, if any, breakthroughs in science have come from those who made dogmatic assertions about "group thinking" (etc) before they had developed at least a potentially testable hypothesis?
Or this:
fewer than 0.1% of ATM threads in BAUT have contained at least one ATM idea which has, to date, been shown to have legs (much less has been acknowledged as a 'breakthrough')?
Quote:
|
In science there are things such as “group thinking”. The issue of global warming being a prime example. Global warming got totally blown out of proportion partly because of the politics behind the peer review process. In this case “correlation does not mean causation” has become an excuse to not look at the data. Tusenfern’s ridiculous example has been used before. The comparable in the global warming issue is if there is a hurricane, flood, hot year, iceberg caving off the answer is the same “ITS GLOBAL WARMING! QED”.
|
See above, re what ATM ideas you are intending to present ... and defend (in this thread).