"Subject: Re: WMO non respondo
… Even if WMO agrees, I will still not pass on the data. We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it. …
Cheers Phil"
Here is a flowchart for the "Scientific Method"...
Maybe someone could explain how "Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it. …" fits in with "Analyze results - Draw Conclusion"...
Here are some extracts from Wikipedia's guide to the Scientific Method as a reminder to those of you who have forgotten their science O'levels:
"the cycle of formulating hypotheses, testing and analyzing the results, and formulating new hypotheses, will resemble the cycle described below."
"Each element of a scientific method is subject to peer review for possible mistakes."
"A linearized, pragmatic scheme of the four points above is sometimes offered as a guideline for proceeding:[33]
1. Define the question
2. Gather information and resources (observe)
3. Form hypothesis
4. Perform experiment and collect data
5. Analyze data
6. Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis
7. Publish results
8. Retest (frequently done by other scientists)
The iterative cycle inherent in this step-by-step methodology goes from point 3 to 6 back to 3 again."
You can read far more about this matter and more at .
Post makes no effort to clarify what was meant by the email. From the context I would suggest that what the scientist was saying was that he saw no reason why he should release data to someone who intended to MANUFACTURE something wrong with it.
ReplyDelete