tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post1561474991484466992..comments2024-02-15T04:42:41.606+00:00Comments on James' Empty Blog: OopsJames Annanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04318741813895533700noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-38438207376148666922007-05-02T06:10:00.000+01:002007-05-02T06:10:00.000+01:00What more do you think should have been done?There...<I>What more do you think should have been done?</I><BR/><BR/>There's nothing wrong with publishing an interesting and unusual analysis of new data, but I think scientists could sometimes benefit from taking a slightly more detached view of their results. IIRC Feynman had something to say about pointing out the potential flaws in your own work. They could also be less willing to collude in the overselling, whether this be through Nature editors sexing it up or press officers misrepresenting it in their press releases. But even with perfectly honest reporting, mistakes will still be made and ultimately perhaps the last line of defence is simply for the reader to remember to not believe everything they read in the papers, even peer-reviewed ones let alone the newspapers! The main worry I have is that the more wrong stuff gets hyped, the harder it will be to argue that the science really is settled on the main questions...<BR/><BR/>I think it is very plausible that a betting market would have give a better summary of the honest opinions of informed scientists compared to the partial summaries provided by people all of who have their own personal axes to grind.<BR/><BR/>Brian, I agree that actually fixing a specific verifiable claiim isn't always easy. However, in discussing the Bryden result, the Guardian made some specific comment about substantial future cooling over the UK. Such an event would be easily testable and it would have been IMO interesting to find out if anyone would assign a non-negligible probability to such an event.<BR/><BR/>Robin Hanson suggests that in general, bets could be decided by a panel of experts (paid from the pool of bets). He argues that in practice this mechanism would usually not need to be invoked given a reasonably liquid market, as people would choose to cash in their bets for whatever they could get rather than throw good money after bad on a lost cause.James Annanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04318741813895533700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-3192965787690319642007-05-01T20:08:00.000+01:002007-05-01T20:08:00.000+01:00I'm trying to figure out how one could test whethe...I'm trying to figure out how one could test whether a paper is "right" for the purposes of a betting market.<BR/><BR/>My best guess is to compare number of citations with a directly contradictory paper, starting after enough time has passed for the dust to settle and a consensus to emerge.Brianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09301230860904555513noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-65703806919202771472007-05-01T17:08:00.000+01:002007-05-01T17:08:00.000+01:00It was in the public domain. The RealClimate posti...It was in the public domain. The RealClimate postings in each of those instances indicated that the results were preliminary, contradictory to other work and would need very strong additional support before being widely accepted. This is same message that I gave to journalists who interviewed me on the subject.<BR/><BR/>However, the 'methane from plants' press debacle, was in no small measure due to the scientists' original press release, the other two stories could have been better handled though. <BR/><BR/>What more do you think should have been done?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com