If people expert in research methods publicise lists of research they have assessed as adequate and at least potentially significant, that might help focus attention on deserving work, and less on work that's very-difficult-to-assess-regardless-of-expertise. bsky.app/profile/matt...

Some astronomy words Showsun/Sunshow/Revealsun/Sunreveal/Seesun/Sunsee/Uncoversun/Sununcover/HRS (Horizon Reveals Sun) Hidesun/Suncover/Coversun/HHS (Horizon Hides Sun) Showmoon/Hidemoon/Mooncover etc.

Moonpass The Moon always overtakes Earth on the outside. This is usually a Full Moon; sometimes a Shademoon/Part Shademoon (lunar eclipse). Passmoon Earth always overtakes the Moon on the outside. A New Moon; sometimes a total/partial Moonsun/Sunmoon/Sunblock (solar eclipse).

Is the bigger threat "AI" or "IA", InAttention?

"If there are two steps in my argument and each has 70% probability then I am probably wrong. 70/100 x 70/100 = 4900/10000 = 49%." web.archive.org/web/20081121...

"If there are two steps in my argument and each has 70% probability then I am probably wrong. 70/100 x 70/100 = 4900/10000 = 49%." web.archive.org/web/20081121...

Shall we say "published article" (or "draft" if the authors prefer) instead of "preprint" if it's published on the internet, and "traditionally published" or "published with a claim of initial peer review" if it's traditionally "published"?

These "central estimates" for global average temperature are out of line with any normal or sane approach to risk. Think of the % chances you're happy to take action, or pay, to avoid as regards plane travel, crime, health, insurance and so on.

And it's not just the average global temperature rise that's important - it's, for example: higher rises in some places, and temperature differences between places causing weather disruption, and these, and the speed of change, disrupt ecological systems.

We might ask similar questions about training, orders, guidelines, discipline and whistleblowing at ICE.

Has anyone publicised incentive structures in ICE - such as quotas, targets and bonuses? Is there scope for these systems to be challenged in court?

Politician: Voters won't let me do what I think is right/science says on animal welfare/climate/environment/refugees. Journalist can ask: Are you not experienced in persuasion? Are you not paid to be a leader? Are you giving voters the relevant facts?

Shall we call traditional peer review (for example, secret, only involving a couple of reviewers who may not between them have all the required skills, knowledge and experience, and unpaid) initial peer review: IPR?

Is the bigger threat "AI" or "IA", InAttention?

More than one ethical problem here: "For the purposes of these Regulations, “Misconduct” means all and any behaviour...which Council shall in its reasonable discretion consider to be seriously injurious to the reputation or interests of the Society." royalsociety.org/-/media/abou...

"all Fellows and Foreign Members are expected to follow the Nolan principles of public life, namely: selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership." royalsociety.org/-/media/abou...

When is the Caracas Oil Party?

"all Fellows and Foreign Members are expected to follow the Nolan principles of public life, namely: selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership." royalsociety.org/-/media/abou...

More than one ethical problem here: "For the purposes of these Regulations, “Misconduct” means all and any behaviour...which Council shall in its reasonable discretion consider to be seriously injurious to the reputation or interests of the Society." royalsociety.org/-/media/abou...

I'm thinking more of a set of findings endorsed by statisticians/methodologists etc with "we are unable to find any serious flaws here, so this is worth citing" rather than examples.

I'm wondering if academic papers might usefully include a "Due Diligence Declaration" to the effect that authors have taken reasonable, perhaps for some purposes specified, steps to try to ensure both their own work and the work they cite are adequate.

In a field where evidence suggests that a high proportion of papers have serious flaws, a database of "potentially important" papers which appear *not* to have serious flaws might be useful, as well as identifying those that do.

"World leaders and others have misled that the SDGs are "transformative" and "supremely ambitious" and so on when in fact they are less ambitious than pre-existing, key UN goals on water and sanitation for 2020 and 2025." web.archive.org/web/20221026...

We can ask when citation is justified, and also what is justifiable to say about the earlier work when citing it. Should researchers note a general apparent level of reliability/unreliability within the field, or which papers they have checked for comments on post-publication peer review sites?

A mistake too big to correct?

Moonahead Jupiter now shows ~where we've reached, in Gemini, as we orbit the Sun (Earth/Jupiter orbits are slightly inclined). Also, today's half moon (15.48 GMT) will be in the ~direction of our orbit round the Sun (within ~10 moon "widths": Moon's orbit is inclined to the orbit round the Sun).

Happy Nirjup today, and happy Passjup tomorrow! We overtake Jupiter about every 13 months. The "nearest" time and the "overtaking" time are different because of the orbital paths. Tomorrow Jupiter will be sopposite (sort-of-opposite) the Sun: the orbits are inclined.

Moonahead Jupiter now shows ~where we've reached, in Gemini, as we orbit the Sun (Earth/Jupiter orbits are slightly inclined). Also, today's half moon (15.48 GMT) will be in the ~direction of our orbit round the Sun (within ~10 moon "widths": Moon's orbit is inclined to the orbit round the Sun).

Moonpass The Moon always overtakes Earth on the outside. This is usually a Full Moon; sometimes a Shademoon/Part Shademoon (lunar eclipse). Passmoon Earth always overtakes the Moon on the outside. A New Moon; sometimes a total/partial Moonsun/Sunmoon/Sunblock (solar eclipse).

Some astronomy words Showsun/Sunshow/Revealsun/Sunreveal/Seesun/Sunsee/Uncoversun/Sununcover/HRS (Horizon Reveals Sun) Hidesun/Suncover/Coversun/HHS (Horizon Hides Sun) Showmoon/Hidemoon/Mooncover etc.

Happy Nirjup today, and happy Passjup tomorrow! We overtake Jupiter about every 13 months. The "nearest" time and the "overtaking" time are different because of the orbital paths. Tomorrow Jupiter will be sopposite (sort-of-opposite) the Sun: the orbits are inclined.

From 2003: "the mortality flaw and the inflation flaw....may have contributed to the devising of policies which, though they made the statistics look better, made the condition of poor people worse." econpapers.repec.org/paper/prampr...

From 2003: "the mortality flaw and the inflation flaw....may have contributed to the devising of policies which, though they made the statistics look better, made the condition of poor people worse." econpapers.repec.org/paper/prampr...

I suggest the word "killstock" instead of "livestock" where the intention is killing.

And then there are all the other animals, including insects and fish. How many people are aware of insect declines?

This summary of the EAT-Lancet report reads as if humans are the only sentient beings. What is the scientific basis for such a moral framework? www.thelancet.com/journals/lan...

As with climate disturbance, uncertainty provides a good argument to take more action, not less.

A sensible response to the climate/habitat destruction/environment crises by governments would seem to me to include a big effort on creative ways to help people realise that their lives can be more fulfilling without overconsumption.

Has anyone mapped the conflicts of interest that academic publishers and people who work for them may have? Publishers have an incentive not to retract. An independent organisation could make more independent decisions.

Also, political leadership explaining costs and benefits of government and individual climate action and inaction, and actually leading, can be important. bsky.app/profile/matt...

I'm interested in statements that something "may"/"can"/"could" be the case. When used about conclusions of scientific studies, for example, we might think it doesn't say anything beyond that something is possible - which we "may" have known (or realised if we thought about it) in the first place.

These posts look interesting to me, but claims about how many times something was "read" or "watched" seem to go beyond evidence and reason, if they're based on clicks. Opened page to read later/too long, didn't read? "AI" narration, so stopped the video? Partly read? Read intently?

The New Turing Test is whether a human is capable of understanding that human-like responses from a computer are not good evidence that it perceives or feels anything, compared to the biological similarities, including in DNA, between you and members of a vast number of other species.

Agrisol? Agsol? SOC - Solar Over Crops? SOA (pronounced "sower") Solar Over Ag SAA - Solar Above Ag Solar With Ag Below SE/A: Solar Energy/Ag GenAg ASP: Ag with Solar Power SEALS - Solar Energy/Ag Land Sharing (I like the idea of getting "Remote Nuclear" into a term)

Degenerative "AI".

If we also consider the unpredictability of effects on temperatures of sudden changes in ocean currents, huge wildfires driven by higher temperatures, and melting permafrost, what level of trust is reasonable in claims to predict global temperatures for 10, 25 or 75 years' time?

Let's talk of change to climates, plural. It's more accurate. The Earth has many climates. It may help people understand that the processes are complex, varied, and hard to understand or predict.

A problem with saying "clean energy" or "clean tech" is that you may give an impression, even if partly subconscious, that buying them has no climate/habitat/environmental cost, so people keep consuming at unsustainable levels, in addition to the other "hidden" costs.

The BBC not only censored - they also misled the public on the web, in the app, in the transcript and likely in the broadcast. bsky.app/profile/matt...

I'm not sure this meets the required standard of accuracy for the BBC guidelines: "for legal reasons, we’re not able to tell you what that line is." Doesn't that tend to give an impression that the law definitely forbids it, when in fact it is very far from clear that there was any defamation?