> I'm more in the skeptic camp, but I don't find the comments cited in this article very suspect, especially without further context.
It's another piece of circumstantial evidence. By itself, it wouldn't mean too much. Considering everything else, it doesn't reflect well upon them.
You need to be very, very careful when normalizing or adjusting a complex system, and you need to be extremely clear that you're adjusting and how you're doing it.
A lot of normalizing/adjusting based on a certain factor is to make data fit a predetermined conclusion. There's some that are generally accepted - like adjusting for inflation - but even that can be done many different ways with different goals to serve different agendas. Adjusting data without disclaiming how you did it is a pretty big no-no and casts a lot of doubt on someone's results.
I agree, but taking a code comment that says something is being adjusted does not mean a lot. Any criticism would have to look at what is being adjusted and how. You'd have to make a statistical argument based on the model.
I am a skeptic as well, but the way these emails and code comments are analysed is entirely meaningless.
However, it goes to show how incredibly stupid it is for scientists to not be as transparent as possible in the first place.
It's another piece of circumstantial evidence. By itself, it wouldn't mean too much. Considering everything else, it doesn't reflect well upon them.
You need to be very, very careful when normalizing or adjusting a complex system, and you need to be extremely clear that you're adjusting and how you're doing it.
A lot of normalizing/adjusting based on a certain factor is to make data fit a predetermined conclusion. There's some that are generally accepted - like adjusting for inflation - but even that can be done many different ways with different goals to serve different agendas. Adjusting data without disclaiming how you did it is a pretty big no-no and casts a lot of doubt on someone's results.