I enjoyed todays lecture. For me it was nice to hear our curious or desparate Googling referred to as information hunting🙂 but also to have it reframed as a skill. Rather than relying on an instinct, a sceptical approach to results built over years of practice, we have been given a framework today.
Its one that encourages to use published papers and results that allow for easy ‘certification’ as a proper source. So much of my coding/data science related searches over the past couple years have focussed on popularity within certain communities. I feel with the skills sumamrised below and a focus on scholarly papers I will be subject to a much more scientific set of results!
As regards to the climate change task, there are a couple of different viewpoints to take. Trusted sources imply a known truth. Climate change is not a black and white topic, so when we choose resources like NASA’S climate agency are we really seeking truth, confirming our bias our simply protecting ourself with a populist view and source? Perhaps these world renowned scientists are biased/influenced due to their current status? Perhaps they have been paid off by corporations? My recent exploration of ergodacity shows just how wrong really popular scientists can be in the field of probability. Data can be tweaked, made to tell the story it needs to tell. Healthy scepticism and the willingness to hear from ‘the other side’ seems to be the only path forward.