On Double Negation

John,

Thanks for this. I don’t have much time this week-end, but let’s return to Judge Judy’s rhetorical question:

Recall all the flack I took last year for talking about the ‘pause’?

We can agree that she took flak, but was this flak really for talking about the ‘pause’? This rhetorical question does seem to hint that Judge Judy received flak because she deemed to talk about the flak.

Not because of what she said exactly, nor because to whom she said it, but because she deemed to say it.

And what she said is not supposed to be unlike what Hansen, Trenberth, Pierrhumbert, or Santer said.

And yet we don’t have a link to what she said nor to the flak, so we have no means to verify what was the critical basis for this flak.

And yet all the flak we have comes from the Dittoheads, whereas Judy declared her interests, which excluded the Dittoheads, except perhaps to dismiss them or use them as flak throwers. How is the flak from the Dittoheads relevant to Judge Judy’s purpose?

Read More

(Source: judithcurry.com)

Historians Rediscover the Auditing Sciences

How to Issue an Audit

[Sharper00 provides a template to issue an audit.]

It is with heavy heart I must inform you I have selected your comment for auditing.

I have attempted to replicate your results […] but have failed to locate your raw data. I must now consider you to be behaving in a manner some, not I to be sure, would characterise as fraudulent and close to, though not quite touching the realm of, misconduct.

Though the situation is bleak I must happily inform you I see a bright future for you, free of attacks on your character and intent. Having clearly established myself as a fair minded trustworthy fellow I think you can see that if you were to hand over the data the accusation that some, not I to be sure, have leveled upon you shall surely cease.

(Source: judithcurry.com)

The Chewbacca Conjecture

My takeaway from MMarler’s comment is that the question as originally posed is unintelligible.

Please, bluesea, channel your inner Chewbacca and say that the question makes no sense.

Channeling our inner Chewbacca might always be possible: we could conjecture that with enough parsomatics, any speech act can become unintelligible.

Let’s call this the Chewbacca Conjecture.

This conjecture is inspired by Searle’s Principle of Expressibility [i.e. one can always say what he means].

A obvious lemma is that conversation space where both the conjecture and principle hold makes for a NeverEndingAudit.

(Source: judithcurry.com)

A Reputation as a Problem

[faustusnotes suggests why the auditors’ misdemeanours are not helping their avowed rationale, while pointing out the neglected relationship between data and code.]

I meant that lots of journals don’t provide formatting or publication advice – which suggests that they’re not interested. In the epi/medical field this is largely because code is irrelevant without data (the code, too, could be faked, if you don’t have data to check it on).

While I agree that transparency is a good thing in science and all fields should be pushing for more of it, the approach taken by the skeptic crowd is not the way to get this. Calling people frauds and incompetents, hacking their computers for emails and then publishing irrelevant personal stuff just to smear them, making loud claims of incompetence as soon as you can’t reproduce someone else’s work without thinking about the possibility that you’ve missed something, continuous freedom of information requests for the smoking gun of fraud and collusion, sneering phrases like “pal review,” these don’t get you more transparency, they get you a reputation as a problem.

Read More

(Source: faustusnotes.wordpress.com)

Truth or Reason?

Thank you for your peaceful gesture.

I’m sure you noted that this:

When dealing with psychological data it’s extremely unwise to infer fake data from outrageous responses.

has yet to be answered and that this lack of answer is quite a tell about the kind of pea and thimble game that is being played in the auditing sciences.

I believe this just reinforces Jonathan Haidt’s point:

Anyone who values truth should stop worshiping reason. We all need to take a cold, hard look at the evidence and see reasoning for what it is.

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/30/hope-for-reason/

While I still hope for reason (based on evidence like #5), climate blogland is becoming quite depressing, really.

(Source: faustusnotes.wordpress.com)

Little and Big Brother

[Boris comes up with an more palatable analogy than the usual one.]

I’d say it’s more like the little brother/big brother issue. Little brother is poking and kicking and wiping boogers on big brother and then big brother gives him a pop right in the arm. Little brother whines and cries and, of course, mom turns around and punishes big brother. Mom isn’t interested in all the crap little brother did to me–um, big brother, and so big brother gets grounded and can’t go to the dance with the pretty girl. Man is big brother pissed.

Read More

(Source: rankexploits.com)

You do not own the mole­cu­les. They are star­dust. They belong to God. What you do own is your soul. Nobody can take that away from you. And it is your soul that informs the brand.

It is your soul, and the pur­pose and beliefs that embo­dies, that peo­ple will buy into.

Ergo, great bran­ding is a spi­ri­tual exercise.

Everybody needs an Evil plan, not just Steves

The Chairman of the Toronto-Dominion Bank, Ed Clark, is a classmate of mine from university and a very smart and socially conscious guy. I’d follow his advice on this in a heartbeat.

Steve, selecting his auditing bias.
Older posts RSS