For 3DPeruna

[Michael Bulatovich]

[3D Peruna]

Word.

[Michael Bulatovich]

"..While Wegman's advice -- to use trained statisticians in studies reliant on statistics -- may seem too obvious to need stating, the "science is settled" camp resists it. Mann's hockey-stick graph may be wrong, many experts now acknowledge, but they assert that he nevertheless came to the right conclusion. To which Wegman, and doubtless others who want more rigourous science, shake their heads in disbelief. As Wegman summed it up to the energy and commerce committee in later testimony: "I am baffled by the claim that the incorrect method doesn't matter because the answer is correct anyway. Method Wrong + Answer Correct = Bad Science." With bad science, only true believers can assert that they nevertheless obtained the right answer."

Somewhere, I have a report card from grade 11 Physics that criticized me for jumping to "usually correct" conclusions without doing the boring methodological work carefully. Prof. "Phizzy" Hiltz said that it wasn't acceptable in a scientific context.

[3D Peruna]

Is this a complaint? Seems to me, from my high school and college science courses that Prof. "Phizzy" was correct...because how would you KNOW you were correct without being able to show the steps to correctness.

I remember taking Advance Placement tests. It was drilled into us during test prep to show our work...because we'd get points for correct methodology, even if we had a stupid math mistake.

If the science is wrong, then the results, no matter how correct they appear, are still wrong--in the sense that they were arrived at incorrectly and cannot be verified/falsified. A stopped watch is right twice a day...

[Michael Bulatovich]

no, no, no.