waveman comments on Some Heuristics for Evaluating the Soundness of the Academic Mainstream in Unfamiliar Fields - Less Wrong

73 Post author: Vladimir_M 15 February 2011 09:17AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (272)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Vladimir_M 16 February 2011 12:45:16AM *  8 points [-]

waveman:

If you are going to suggest that academic climate research is not up to scratch, you need to do more than post links to pages that link to non-academic articles. Saying "you can find lots on google scholar" is not that same as actually pointing to the alleged sub-standard research.

I agree that I should have argued and referenced that part better. What I wanted to point out is that there is a whole cottage industry of research purporting to show that climate change is supposedly influencing one thing or another, a very large part of which appears to advance hypotheses so far-fetched and weakly substantiated that they seem like obvious products of the tendency to involve this super-fashionable topic into one's research whenever possible, for reasons of both status- and career-advancement.

Even if one accepts that the standard view on climate change has been decisively proven and the issue shown to be a pressing problem, I still don't think how one could escape this conclusion.

Comment author: waveman 19 February 2011 08:26:10AM 2 points [-]

Yes.

My daughter works in molecular biology, and she has noted that every paper / grant application is full of hope and promise of a cure to cancer or some other dread disease. Sometimes this hope and promise is significantly exaggerated.

It is very depressing, even in fields where the science is absolutely rock-solid, to read the nonsense that comes from the periphery. Read Deepak Chopra on Quantum Mechanics for example.