Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Trump Presidency -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: combjelly who wrote (15871)	4/22/2017 8:28:48 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 365522

>> but it is notable when a denier points out that another denier is FOS. In science, that is totally irrelevant. Not even part of the discussion. In Feynman's words, "It doesn't matter who it was, what his name is," etc. The question is whether it proves out with experiment. Curry has walked away from academia specifically because of what can only be called corruption. Now, she didn't call it that - presumably she wanted to maintain a workable atmosphere. But that is what it is. There will not be any resolution of these issues until the models are strengthened (which will require eliminating of the corruption) and there is more, real experimentation rather than repetitive runs of models until you get the outcome you want. Curry has described at length the problem with models and the obvious flaws in the approach. She points out, "All the models seem to agree in the 20th century, but when you move into the 21st century, they all diverge." That, CJ, is Feynman's failure to agree with the experiment. The great Freeman Dysan understands it: The data is pretty good now, but the models are still a problem. This is a great physicist who has been smeared because he can see the problem. If the models agree in the 20th century but not in the 21st, they're wrong. Period.