Skip to main content

View Diary: Scientists: Efforts to disperse the BP spill made it much, much more toxic (21 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  This is definitely provocative (0+ / 0-)

    and quite a different story than told in the peer reviewed literature (e.g, of the type available at PubMed)!

    But hey, that's why we have DailyKos - who wants the NIH telling us what's what!!

    •  ? This is from an article just put on line. (6+ / 0-)

      http://www.sciencedirect.com/...

      What's PubMed have to do with it?

      look for my eSci diary series Thursday evening.

      by FishOutofWater on Mon Dec 03, 2012 at 01:23:34 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  It's one article (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        condorcet

        my point is that science works on consensus.

        Of course, Obama's EPA previously came to exactly the opposite conclusion of this diary and with his administration's record on energy, it's very probable that what was previously out there is all part of a massive cover-up . ..  

        •  "...science works on concensus." (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          yuriwho, aztecraingod, WakeUpNeo, kurt

          No, it does not. Here's the definition of the "Scientific Method" from the Oxford dictionary which I just snagged from Wikipedia for my own convenience:

          Oxford English Dictionary says that the scientific method is: "a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses."

          Note that there's no mention of "consensus" at all. What you're obviously referring to is the peer review process. And while peer review is certainly a valuable component to scientific research, specifically when experimental observation is repeated and confirmed, it is generally not relevant to the scientific method at all.

          For example, when Einstein published his famous 1905 paper presenting the principle of relativity, many physicists were outright hostile to it. Few actually understood it. Yet it has been confirmed repeatedly, deductively and experimentally, for over 100 years.

          Did the status of the peer review process have any bearing or not on the accuracy or correctness of the principle of relativity?

          Of course not. But it meant a lot to people who don't know the science. "Look, this guy has eight degrees and he says Einstein is wrong!!! Therefore, in my complete ignorance of it, I conclude that Einstein must be wrong, since he doesn't have any degrees."

          That kind of idiocy is what you get out of consensus.

          •  amen, great comment n/t (0+ / 0-)

            Listen to Netroots Radio or to our pods on Stitcher. "We are but temporary visitors on this planet. The microbes own this place" <- Me

            by yuriwho on Mon Dec 03, 2012 at 02:49:18 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Yeah, if you accept anything massive amounts (0+ / 0-)

              of cognitive dissonance.

              for example, this:

              For example, when Einstein published his famous 1905 paper presenting the principle of relativity, many physicists were outright hostile to it. Few actually understood it. Yet it has been confirmed repeatedly, deductively and experimentally, for over 100 years.
              Well duh - that's "scientific consensus" for crying out loud!
          •  You should read your own links for fuck's sake! (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            ebohlman

            'cuz most people would be able to tease out "consensus" from this:

            Confirmation

            Science is a social enterprise, and scientific work tends to be accepted by the scientific community when it has been confirmed. Crucially, experimental and theoretical results must be reproduced by others within the scientific community. Researchers have given their lives for this vision; Georg Wilhelm Richmann was killed by ball lightning (1753) when attempting to replicate the 1752 kite-flying experiment of Benjamin Franklin.[69]

            To protect against bad science and fraudulent data, government research-granting agencies such as the National Science Foundation, and science journals including Nature and Science, have a policy that researchers must archive their data and methods so other researchers can test the data and methods and build on the research that has gone before. Scientific data archiving can be done at a number of national archives in the U.S. or in the World Data Center.

            or since Wikipedia is your source, it DOES have a section on Scientific Consensus, which says:
            Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study. Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity.
            Global climate change nicely illustrates this concept - there is not unanimity, but the "collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists" in this particular field of study accepts global warming to be factual.
        •  Perhaps different organisms respond differently (0+ / 0-)

          or maybe there's a problem with one of these studies.

          Thanks for the link.

          look for my eSci diary series Thursday evening.

          by FishOutofWater on Mon Dec 03, 2012 at 06:20:30 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Exactly. The preprint you referenced examined (0+ / 0-)

            the toxicity VS developmental stages of marine organisms while the EPA study used direct toxicity to adult standard test organisms which are used for toxicity tests for many types of chemicals and not necessarily petrochemicals. There was enough evidence warning against the use of the Corexit type of dispersants at the time but petro-chemists and oil engineers had the ear of the administration and BP continued to use these chemicals even when told to stop (of course no immediate regulatory consequences from this so why not). In fact biologists and other academic researchers were often prevented from collecting samples from the affected area by Coast Guard vessels leading many to wonder if the agencies tasking them were working for the USA or for BP.

            I'd tip you but they cut off my tip box. The TSA would put Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad on the no-fly list.

            by OHdog on Mon Dec 03, 2012 at 08:22:16 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site