The treason trial of Aaron Burr, legal pleadings or legal fictions?
A Comment Lost in Limbo
Steve McIntyre. announced a change in moderation policy a few days ago at his blog Climate Audit in response to the recent Fokker Scourge of blog spam that has been sweeping the blogosphere. Somehow I seem to have fallen afoul of the new anti-spam procedures, which is ok, but my most recent comment, presently in moderation limbo, awaits the Descensus Christi ad Inferos promised to posts that despite their possible sins, died in friendship with the moderator and await their present resurrection.
Hopefully Steve M. or some kind moderator will notice before the comment becomes completely irreverent – things move quickly in the blogosphere.
Continue reading →
Karl Popper, the godfather of falsifiability [© phi studios 2014]
There is a new guest article up at Judy Curry’s
blog, Climate Etc.
by Will Howard titled Appeals to the Climate Consensus Can Give the Wrong Impression
that is of particular interest to Meme Merchants because it is both relevant in scientific current affairs and is also relevant generally in the discussion of scientific epistemology in regards to how people generally are supposed to know what the state of the science is at any given moment.
The article was originally posted at The Conversation. Will Howard is a Research Scientist at University of Melbourne School of Earth Sciences and is also the Deputy Chair of the Australian National Committee for Antarctic Research.
On the current events front of science, there is a bitter and on-going debate about the supposed scientific consensus regarding anthropogenic global warming due the volume of CO2 emitted by human activity. The debate rages far and wide about this supposed consensus: what is this consensus actually? how many scientists hold this ‘consensus view’? which scientists [or who’s] really count in the matter? who should do the counting? who owns the ‘consensus’, and what does all of this mean for the rest of us anyway?
No Meme Merchant is going to settle the debate about the specifics of the consensus about the catastrophic global warming debate – there are lots of places trying to do that – but we would like to take up a very confined look at the “what does all of this mean anyway?” specifically in regards to Mr. Howard’s article – before I launch into a rave about what’s so great about science as a way of knowing.
Continue reading →