No. Raising “quality” of data after the fact IS fudging Good scientists (not even close to “all”) understand there are uncertainties at all stages of science, including errors in recording, and their statistical analysis and conclusions reflect that uncertainty.
-
-
Improving quality of data is fudging? Word salad time, I'm out.
7 replies 0 retweets 13 likes -
"Improving quality of data" is word salad Scott. You are being an asshole.
8 replies 0 retweets 96 likes -
Replying to @normonics @ScottAdamsSays and
Joe; never ever debate science with a nonscientist. Gabish?
16 replies 12 retweets 169 likes -
Replying to @nntaleb @normonics and
reach a point where it is impossible for anyone but an expert to untangle things. He concedes his lay-approach, and asks the critical question: can we turn society upside down when things are this murky? He concludes that 4thG nuclear is the rational approach. NT's offending
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Learning how to persuade non-scientists is a skill that is required to save civilization, assuming climate change is the problem scientists say. Might as well not bother with climate science at all if the knowledge is intended to stay in the heads of scientists only.
3 replies 3 retweets 23 likes -
Replying to @ScottAdamsSays @BulsGreg and
This makes so much sense... Glad I stopped by this morning...
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @amwick2 @ScottAdamsSays and
so Scott called my perfectly reasonable, and evidently persuasive according to likes, comments "word salad" and declared "I'm out" in order to save civilization. Yup, all adds up. (and by the way, he WAS being an asshole, calling him out was warranted)pic.twitter.com/GDPmpKdPyC
7 replies 3 retweets 17 likes -
Replying to @normonics @amwick2 and
You are arguing the advantages of bad data over good data and the problem is on MY end?
7 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
The situation we are discussing is one in which you already have both the bad data and the good data. But for some reason people prefer the bad.
-
-
Replying to @ScottAdamsSays @Brontego and
I think to get out of your silly loop you just have to ask yourself "how do I recognize good data from bad data?" I think you will find very quickly why what your doing is nonsensical.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
If you can't tell, it's all bad data. Or at least useless.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes - Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.