2 edits
Originally posted by @freakykbhand, for me, later it will be more than zero.
The answer is ZERO.
For you, it will always be zero.
8 edits
Originally posted by @handyandyA better question would be what can you do to get a scientific review on.
I'm a non-scientist without peers. Where can I get a review?
With all else being equal, being a non-scientist would make it a lot less likely for you to make a scientific discovery or works that would be considered worthy of a review, but it IS still definitely possible especially if you learn about the relevant science first (and not necessarily via formal education).
Once you sort that part out, the 'where' part should then take cure of itself.
Actually, that is almost (but not quite) what I am currently trying to do myself because although I have done and passed AI university courses with reasonable grades, my chosen research is specifically how to integrating statistical analysis with AI even though I have done no formal courses on statistical analysis (although I did plenty on advanced maths) but instead have entirely self-taught myself (from reading relevant websites and doing my own invented maths exercises) the statistical analysis part to make myself an 'informal' expert on it.
The point I am making here is that, if you are serious about doing something to get reviewed, you might consider doing some entirely self-learning in the relevant science subject yourself to become an 'informal' expert on it and then that will give you a far far better chance of contributing something that would be recognized; difficult but possible.
If you make an interesting scientific discovery, people wouldn't care if you are a 'non-scientist'; they still will be interested in your discovery.
2 edits
Originally posted by @freakykbhWhat do you base that assertion on?
you and I will ALWAYS be equal in this regard, both at zero.
What do you know of my research?
I am in a better position to rationally judge because I know how my research is doing (which is quite well, actually) while you know next to nothing about it. It is slow but steady and will get there in the end and in about one or two years time.
Originally posted by @humyI base it on your (demonstrated) inability to stay on topic or get to the salient point.
What do you base that assertion on?
What do you know of my research?
I am in a better position to rationally judge because I know how my research is doing (which is quite well, actually) while you know next to nothing about it. It is slow but steady and will get there in the end and in about one or two years time.
Too, your struggle with basic concepts--- even hypothetical ones.
I don't like betting against people, but it doesn't look good from here, honestly.
Originally posted by @humyThanks, humy. Good luck with your AI paper.
A better question would be what can you do to get a scientific review on.
With all else being equal, being a non-scientist would make it a lot less likely for you to make a scientific discovery or works that would be considered worthy of a review, but it IS still definitely possible especially if you learn about the relevant science first (and not necessaril ...[text shortened]... ldn't care if you are a 'non-scientist'; they still will be interested in your discovery.
1 edit
Originally posted by @kazetnagorraWhat consensus? You need to prove one exists and you have not done that. Saying it does not make it so.
I'm not making a "big deal" out of it. I said that if you want to criticize the scientific consensus, you should seek to find flaws in the scientific literature, not television programs.
Post a scientific consensus and I will review it and find the flaws.
Edit: Can you provide a specific link to one of your peer reviewed articles?
Originally posted by @metal-brainIt has been shown and explained to you that such a consensus exists. Try removing your blinders and re-reading those threads.
What consensus? You need to prove one exists and you have not done that. Saying it does not make it so.
Post a scientific consensus and I will review it and find the flaws.
Edit: Can you provide a specific link to one of your peer reviewed articles?
A recent thorough survey can be found in e.g. Verheggen et al., Environ. Sci. Technol. 48, 8963 (2014). According to this survey, 90% of climate scientists with more than 10 papers relating to climate science agreed than global warming is driven primarily by man.
I cannot show you any of my articles without compromising my anonymity.
1 edit
Originally posted by @kazetnagorraHere is an excerpt from the study you posted:
It has been shown and explained to you that such a consensus exists. Try removing your blinders and re-reading those threads.
A recent thorough survey can be found in e.g. Verheggen et al., Environ. Sci. Technol. 48, 8963 (2014). According to this survey, 90% of climate scientists with more than 10 papers relating to climate science agreed than glob ...[text shortened]... ven primarily by man.
I cannot show you any of my articles without compromising my anonymity.
"There was some overlap between these sources, with the unique total number of names amounting to ∼8000. Based on email address availability, 7555 of them were contacted. Of these emails, ∼1000 were returned undelivered or unread, leaving a total of 6550 people that were successfully approached. 1868 questionaires were returned, although not all of these were fully completed. This amounts to a response rate of 29%. Each respondent could only respond to the survey once. Survey results were analyzed anonymously."
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/es501998e
This might be the same study Wildgrass posted for me to read in another thread. 29% of the climate scientists responded and that is only a percentage of the climate scientists that they were able to contact. If you were to include the other 1000 emails that were undelivered it would be even less than that.
Just by not getting a response from people that may be indifferent to the questions makes this survey very flawed. Here is an example of what I mean. If I created a thread called "Is Duchess a stupid troll?" I'm sure only a minority of people who see the thread
would post something on it and most that did would probably not have anything good to say about her. The majority that didn't participate are probably indifferent and don't have disdain for her.
Would the minority that jumped at the chance to vilify Duchess be a fair representation of the consensus?
Originally posted by @metal-brainSurveys are always of a subset of a group. They extrapolate to the entire population and give error estimates based on group size. Frankly though a survey which includes over 1% of a population, never mind 29%, is going to be pretty accurate. What is more the dissenting scientists are, in my estimation, liable to be more likely to respond to the survey than those who believe the consensus. So the direction of error is likely to be in the opposite direction to the one you need it to be to support your point.
Here is an excerpt from the study you posted:
"There was some overlap between these sources, with the unique total number of names amounting to ∼8000. Based on email address availability, 7555 of them were contacted. Of these emails, ∼1000 were returned undelivered or unread, leaving a total of 6550 people that were successfully approached. 1868 ques ...[text shortened]... minority that jumped at the chance to vilify Duchess be a fair representation of the consensus?
Originally posted by @deepthoughtAbsolutely not.
Surveys are always of a subset of a group. They extrapolate to the entire population and give error estimates based on group size. Frankly though a survey which includes over 1% of a population, never mind 29%, is going to be pretty accurate. What is more the dissenting scientists are, in my estimation, liable to be more likely to respond to the surv ...[text shortened]... or is likely to be in the opposite direction to the one you need it to be to support your point.
Controls are critical, not secondary.
Less than 2% of the US is homosexual--- self-identified.
Less than 2% of the US is Mormon--- also self-identified.
Which of the groups are you going to pronounce as a "pretty accurate" reflection of the US as a whole?
Originally posted by @metal-brainThere is a possibility that the sample isn't representative for the whole. In election polls, the same sampling error exists, but we know from experience that well-designed election polls tend to be accurate (for example, an aggregate of polls in the last U.S. presidential election predicted the result to within 1 percentage point). Certainly, there is no plausible reason to expect that in this case the true percentage is far from the cited 90%.
Here is an excerpt from the study you posted:
"There was some overlap between these sources, with the unique total number of names amounting to ∼8000. Based on email address availability, 7555 of them were contacted. Of these emails, ∼1000 were returned undelivered or unread, leaving a total of 6550 people that were successfully approached. 1868 ques ...[text shortened]... minority that jumped at the chance to vilify Duchess be a fair representation of the consensus?
1 edit
Originally posted by @kazetnagorraYeah, we went on this roller coaster before. We looked at two different polls, from different sources, who asked similar questions. Both polls ended up on almost exactly the same number of a) climate scientists or b) members of a scientific society who agreed with the consensus that >50% of global warming can be attributed to anthropogenic causes. That number was 65-67%. Each poll contained some degree of error (and caveats) as they should, but the likelihood of both polls being that far off (in the same direction and in the same degree which Metal Brain wants them to) is very low.
There is a possibility that the sample isn't representative for the whole. In election polls, the same sampling error exists, but we know from experience that well-designed election polls tend to be accurate (for example, an aggregate of polls in the last U.S. presidential election predicted the result to within 1 percentage point). Certainly, there is no plausible reason to expect that in this case the true percentage is far from the cited 90%.
Also, as DeepThought says, the poll is much more likely to contain error in the other direction. Feedback and reviews on products, for example, are always skewed towards people who don't like the product.