Seriati has not actually answered most of the questions posed to him, simply, deflected, insulted, or ignored.
Had to go back and re-read the thread to try and figure out why you seem to think I urinated in your cheerios. Still don't see it. I've answered any number of questions, written quite a bit, and didn't really deflect or ignore anything that I can see. I was snide in some places, which doesn't cover me in honor, but I certainly didn't start the insult by snideness (have to credit Greg with that with the tribalism claims). The only question I know of that I didn't answer, or believe was already answered, was this:
I politely requested a link to papers he mentioned if possible. His response was that I did not supply links. Links he never asked for. This is obnoxious and dishonest.
I didn't save any links to what I was reading, so to provide them I'd have to try to find them again. I didn't do this for two reasons: First, I find the way you respond to me generally to be rude and it doesn't incline me to be particularly cooperative with you, and second, they aren't particularly relevant (they would be if I were trying to prove peer review was invalid, but I've never made that claim, or anything plausibly related to it).
He told me "the world will go on innovating without your contributions". I have several patents, demonstrating that I have made contributions, and his insult was contrary to reality. He has refused to reveal how many he has, which leads me to believe he has none, but refuses to admit it. So that insult is empty and uniformed. And his lack of ability to admit any fault is plain to see.
I didn't refuse, I have zero patents. Congratulations, you win the internet, do you want to cite to your advanced degrees and tell me how your father can beat up my father (pretty easy of course, my father's pretty old at this point).
Seriously though, congratulations on having patents, but I'm not sure what that has to do with advances related to Big Data analytics.
He said when people cite to "obvious" reasons, its really code for "I believe this to be true but can't explain why," or in other words, this is an axiom and you're a big silly head for not having the same axiom.
I said they were obvious reasons because they are obvious. I did not want to waste time with something so self-evident. If someone besides Seriati says that the reasons why newspapers have editors and fact checkers are not extremely obvious, let me know.
Motte and Bailey argument, you said the reasons were obvious for why we needed copy checkers, and that it "doesn't work for science, for exactly the same obvious reasons." That's quite a different claim. Pretty much, one could read that to be a statement that the primary function of the peer review process is to correct spelling and fact check on quotes and third party claims, which is literally not the case. In fact, it's hard to fathom what the "same obvious reasons" could be, when there's no credible claim that the peer review process is to clean up articles and head off defamation claims.
I've noted that when you really get going on trying to "make a point" about how I misconstrue things and dodge, you get highly selective in how you trim your own quotes, often dropping the relevant part to understanding what I was actually responding to. It makes me wonder if I'm feeding a troll when I respond.
If nobody pipes up, we will all know that Seriati's comment is pure unadulterated rubbish, intended to distract from the weakness of his argument.
Quite the substantive rejoinder. Were you not the same person that was lecturing me about insults not two quotes above?
And finally Seriati wrote If you want to provide some facts, I'll be happy to address them. Maybe you can point out where you think you did so, cause all I say is pretty much unvarnished opinion and demands that I provide facts for you.
Funny slip there, I think maybe he meant "all I see".
Hey look, I'm reasonable, I agree, that was a funny slip.
But as anyone with interest in reality instead of distractions and insults can see, I presented facts, quoted below.
"Big Data Analytics" are methods for drawing trends and conclusions from very large sets of data. It is a tool for visualizing and organizing data, no more, no less. If anyone were to use such a tool, and were to write a paper based on the results, that paper would be just as prone to error and bias as a paper that simply collected "small" data, graphed it, and drew conclusions.
Well, you presented some facts, not exactly relevant ones, but hey, at least there are a few facts in there. I think you are misconstruing what error is in this context, but I'm happy to admit that humans are fallible, and that's equally true if they write a paper based on an experiment as if they write it on a derived correllation. Of course, it's not clear that Big Data papers will be constructed or written in the same way, or that peer review will have a relative context (exactly how will it work, when the reviewer doesn't share the same data pool, analytical tools, or background and the paper isn't about causation? What exactly are they going to do?).
This is in response to Seriati saying that Big Data Analytics is an alternative to peer review.
I see where you went wrong. I made that claim in a limited context, one that I was asked specifically to engage in. To attribute as a substantive argument that I think it would be superior in all cases or somehow could be a complete alternative is your straw man, not my claim.
I was asked for some possibilities against which the peer review process could have been compared for falsification purposes of Greg's claim, I threw a few out of a hat. Do you think I'm unaware that Big Data analytics serve a different master? The kind of research Greg's talking about it hypothesis driven, with testing to validate or invalidate, with an ultimate goal of showing causitive relationships. Big Data is the exact opposite, it's data driven seeking to find correlations without regard to cause, what scientists
used to refer to as "spurious" correlations. It's a completely different model of advancing knowledge, but like any logical puzzle it can't generate new information, it can only reveal information that was already there but was too hard to see (classic research can do both).
If you know anything about big data, you understand that this is nonsensical. It is like saying that Excel is an alternative to peer review, because it generates so much knowledge.
If you "know anything about big data" you'd understand that comparing it to Excel was beyond absurd. Lol, I'm guessing your banking on no one else knowing anything about big data.
Rather than admit that he made an error, Seriati turns to belittling, distortion, and fabricated demands.
I'm pretty open to admitting errors. However, I need to see evidence of the same, rather than just attempts at bullying and belittling, how many patents did you have again? lol.
I didn't demand facts, I requested that he correct my facts if they were wrong. I can not think of any honorable, honest reason why an intelligent person would take the words "Please correct my facts" (my actual words) and parrot them back as "demands that I provide facts".
Maybe you should reread the thread. You chose to jump into an argument and misconstrue what was going on. Effectively Greg was making a claim about which camp is more tribally inclined and I was pointing out that he was making a claim that I knew he hadn't verified. Not because I have a substantive problem with what he was claiming, but as evidence of how he was overlooking his own tribalism. Even if I'm responding in broken up points, it's still in context of the entire conversation, where you were in fact asserting that I believed in a strawman argument about the overall validity of the peer review process.
This is argument in bad faith, clear and simple. Seriati has every right to continue this practice, as he has for years. I have the right to point it out.
Feel free. I think it would be more convincing to show where I'm wrong, but I agree that's hard work. Far easier to just to assert it and accuse me of failing to prove otherwise.
Just provide a simple example of a system that is better. Again, this is all in the context of climate change, so please make sure that the better system is applicable to that type of science.
Here is the response, if you can call it that.What science would that be? Is there a climate change experiment that has occurred of which I'm unaware? Did you invent star travel while I wasn't looking?
I thought that was clear. In any event, the point is that peer review of climate science, is peer review of a computer climate model. There's no actual experiment, what there is, is a simulated experiment based on algorithms designed or cribbed by the climate scientist. If you understand - anything - about how a computer works, you have to understand that they are deterministic. They
can't produce a result that contradicts their inputs. That means that they are absolutely incapable of returning a result that is inconsistent with the construction of their authors (unless the authors are so incompetent they don't understand how their own data and algorithms will interact). What we understand of climate forcings mean there is no choice in how they will come out. What we don't understand about climate is the factor of why they may not be correct. Effectively, this science is
highly prone to systematic bias, because to be qualified you have to have been trained in the bias (and to be clear I don't mean you have to be biased to accept global warming, only that you have to be biased to accept the validity of modelling and the data inputs to include).
What percentage of knowledge on how the climate works that we currently have do you think will ultimately turn out to be correct? 50 years from now, what will have been disproven? 100 years? 2000? The science is
literally the best we have, but so was was leaching at one point.