• Welcome to ScubaBoard

  1. Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.

    Benefits of registering include

    • Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
    • A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
    • You can make this box go away

    Joining is quick and easy. Login or Register now by clicking on the button

Scientific drilling and climate change

Discussion in 'Marine Science and Physiology' started by charlier, Sep 2, 2017.

  1. Storker

    Storker Divemaster

    # of Dives: 100 - 199
    Location: close to a Hell which occasionally freezes over
    11,590
    7,986
    113
    To the point.

    Competition for public funding is so fierce that anyone trying to peddle bad science - plus quite a few of those doing sound, good science - are weeded out from the grant pool pretty fast.
     
    RyanT likes this.
  2. Wookie

    Wookie Orange Man Bad Staff Member ScubaBoard Business Sponsor

    20,545
    26,889
    113
    If I had time, which I will in a couple of days, I will direct your attention to the UM RSMAS hogfish assessment from 1996 or so. The science was thoroughly discredited, however the conclusions were correct, because the answer was plain as day to the most casual observer. The professor was and continues to be a rainmaker for RSMAS, therefore a junk study now and again is acceptable.
     
  3. RyanT

    RyanT Solo Diver

    # of Dives: 500 - 999
    Location: Maryland
    1,664
    1,286
    113
    @Wookie, how does a discredited study relate to the discussion at hand? I never said that there isn't some bad science being conducted. As I mentioned in a previous post, what I took issue with was the castigation of an entire study based on what was being done in a couple of photos. I also took issue with the mischaracterization of how science is done, (e.g. that hypotheses don't really have a place in science, rather it is just a bunch of grad students drinking beer...)
     
  4. Wookie

    Wookie Orange Man Bad Staff Member ScubaBoard Business Sponsor

    20,545
    26,889
    113
    Because bad scientists still make more science if they are a university rainmaker. You said that if a professor or acientist produces bad science, they wouldn't get funded. I just called bullish!t. Your turn to show me how bad science results in decreased funding.
     
  5. Storker

    Storker Divemaster

    # of Dives: 100 - 199
    Location: close to a Hell which occasionally freezes over
    11,590
    7,986
    113
    Yes, and your argument was a single anecdote. Even the plural of anecdote isn't data.

    I've sat in committees evaluating grant proposals. And those committees generally consist of a decent bunch of pretty highly qualified scientists. While it's impossible to guarantee that the occasional cheater won't slip through the system, I can guarantee you that it's impossible on the systematic level. IME even just a fraction of the good proposals make it all the way to be approved.
     
    RyanT likes this.
  6. Skeptic14

    Skeptic14 Manta Ray

    # of Dives: 50 - 99
    Location: Va
    615
    371
    63
    As long as humans are involved you can be confident there will be incompetence, bias and outright intentional misrepresentation.

    Science is an objective process, the best method we've come up with at obtaining knowledge.

    Scientist are people; not special people, not chosen people, not perfect people.

    The only problem with science is that people have to conduct it; that's what should always be scrutinized.
     
    RyanT and Schwob like this.
  7. RyanT

    RyanT Solo Diver

    # of Dives: 500 - 999
    Location: Maryland
    1,664
    1,286
    113
    @Wookie, like @Storker, I have sat on plenty of review panels at the National Science Foundation. Indeed, I didn't always agree with the panel's recommendation on every proposal, but the panel generally ends up with a small list of very high quality proposals. One of (the many) things that goes into each proposal's evaluation is the track record of the investigators. Given the competitive nature of grants now (10% or less funding for mainline grants at NSF), a poor publication track record will get you booted. And you don't get a consistent, high-quality publication record by continually producing poor quality science. I've served as an editor for scientific journals as well. Even the basic journals are rejecting 2/3 of the manuscripts they receive these days. Does that mean a crappy paper never gets published? No. Does it mean a crappy proposal never gets funded? Of course not. As @Skeptic14 said, scientists are people. But, overtime, the review and funding process tends to support high quality proposals. Also, here's a link to a study showing a correlation between quality of science and funding in medical research.

    Association Between Funding and Quality of Published Medical Education Research

    Finally, to stay on topic, my original intent was simply to point out that you can't castigate an entire study from a couple of photos.
     
    Storker and Schwob like this.

Share This Page