Ethical guidelines for scientific conduct

A set of necessary characteristics for independently verifiable statements was proposed in the post: The principles of science (v7.5). The idea was to provide principles that distinguish knowledge from beliefs. This post provides a set of ethical guidelines that are derived from and correspond to those principles.

The ethical guidelines provided in this post, are suggested guidelines for anyone who have made the choice to differentiate clearly knowledge from beliefs. These are ethical guidelines that should be observed by anyone who is concerned with the tasks to establish, provide, or apply knowledge in the form of true and independently verifiable statements.

These guidelines can only be interpreted as intended, by applying the definitions in The principles of science (v7.5). That post contains the principles, definitions, and explanations that are relevant to these ethical guidelines. These guidelines are only concerned with the actions that are directly related to the provision of independently verifiable knowledge, and not about any other aspects of the relationship between scientists, their organisations, and the society.

§1 State clearly the premises, inferences, and conclusions of an argument.

§2 Verify that premises comply with the principles of science, identify premises and their sources and make sure that these are readily available for independent verification.

Cite precisely the referred source and identify all information that is used as a premise.

§3 Use logically valid inferences.

Whenever the truth of the premises does not guarantee the truth of the conclusion, identify clearly the argument as a feeling, judgement, belief, opinion or hypothesis.

§4 Put forward conclusions in such a manner that an independent party can verify that the conclusion is correctly deduced from axioms, definitions, theorems, measured properties, and validated scientific concepts.

§5 Put forward concepts in such a manner that an independent party can verify that the concept is correctly deduced from logically valid conclusions, axioms, definitions or theorems.

§6 Define a concept, its capability, and applicable context in such a manner that the concept can be independently tested.

§7 Validate concepts by comparison of predictions from that concept with observations. Only refer to concepts as validated when predictions repeatedly match observations within combined uncertainty of the measurements and the claimed capability of the concept.

Ensure that those who are influenced, curbed, or entitled to the propounded concept or product are also entitled to independently test the concept or product.

§8 Only refer to a concept as validated for the context covered by the validating tests.

§9 Base statements on verifiable data and make sure that data and precise information about how that data was obtained are readily available for independent verification. Whenever data are corrected or disregarded, provide both uncorrected and corrected data together with a scientific argument for the correction.

§10 Ensure that measurement reports contain traceable values, units, and stated uncertainty for well-defined measurands in a well-defined context.

§11 Ensure that prediction reports contain values, units and claimed capability for well-defined measurands in well-defined contexts.

These principles can be reproduced under the condition that the following link is provided together with the ethical guidelines:
https://dhf66.wordpress.com/2017/07/09/ethical-guidelines-for-scientific-conduct/

Advertisements

9 thoughts on “Ethical guidelines for scientific conduct

  1. TRUMP and PRUITT get the SCIENCE RIGHT – NATURAL CYCLES DRIVE CLIMATE CHANGE.
    Climate is controlled by natural cycles. Earth is just past the 2003+/- peak of a millennial cycle and the current cooling trend will likely continue until the next Little Ice Age minimum at about 2650.See the Energy and Environment paper at http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0958305X16686488
    and an earlier accessible blog version at http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2017/02/the-coming-cooling-usefully-accurate_17.html
    Here is the abstract for convenience :
    “ABSTRACT
    This paper argues that the methods used by the establishment climate science community are not fit for purpose and that a new forecasting paradigm should be adopted. Earth’s climate is the result of resonances and beats between various quasi-cyclic processes of varying wavelengths. It is not possible to forecast the future unless we have a good understanding of where the earth is in time in relation to the current phases of those different interacting natural quasi periodicities. Evidence is presented specifying the timing and amplitude of the natural 60+/- year and, more importantly, 1,000 year periodicities (observed emergent behaviors) that are so obvious in the temperature record. Data related to the solar climate driver is discussed and the solar cycle 22 low in the neutron count (high solar activity) in 1991 is identified as a solar activity millennial peak and correlated with the millennial peak -inversion point – in the UAH6 temperature trend in about 2003. The cyclic trends are projected forward and predict a probable general temperature decline in the coming decades and centuries. Estimates of the timing and amplitude of the coming cooling are made. If the real climate outcomes follow a trend which approaches the near term forecasts of this working hypothesis, the divergence between the IPCC forecasts and those projected by this paper will be so large by 2021 as to make the current, supposedly actionable, level of confidence in the IPCC forecasts untenable.””

    Like

    • Working through your paper I might have several comments, I´ll take them one at the time:

      I have previously noted the IPCC statement you cite:
      Note 16: “No best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can now be given because of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies.”

      I think you have a very clear take on the position United Nations take on that basis:
      “Paradoxically the claim is still made that the UNFCCC Agenda 21 actions can dial up a desired temperature by controlling CO2 levels. This is cognitive dissonance so extreme as to be irrational.”

      I wish policy makers would read that Note 16 and understand what it means – as you did.

      I have tried to calculate and compare the predictions by IPCC with observations of ocean warming after 2005. I run into problems finding the central estimate by IPCC, by the reasons you have also identified. I found that the likely range of climate sensitivity will allow more or less any amount of ocean warming. It is really hard to falsify a theory that allows any amount of warming. It will take cooling to falsify the theory expressed by the figures IPCC provides. This is documented in my post:
      IPCC got all bets covered!

      This is what I found:
      “IPCC states that the climate feedback parameter is “likely” between 2,47 and 0,82 (W/m2*K). This corresponds to an equilibrium climate sensitivity of 1.5°C and 4.5°C respectively. IPCC also states that: “no best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can be given because of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies”.

      To deduce the range of ocean warming allowed by the theory put forward by IPCC I use the following figures:
      IPCC estimate for anthropological radiative forcing:
      2,3 W/m2 for 2011
      And, the highest and lowest climate feedback parameters provided by IPCC:
      2,5 W/m2*K and 0,82 W/m2*K

      Based on these figures the theory put forward by IPCC would allow warming of the oceans anywhere in the range from 0,0043 K to 0,087 K.

      As there are also other uncertainties, I will allow myself to round off the figures. The theory put forward by IPCC in the fifth assessment report would allow warming of the oceans from 0 to 2000 m between 2005 and 2015 anywhere in the range from 0 K to 0,1 K.

      How can they possibly miss? “

      Like

  2. maybe you could mention in the abstract (where you tell what you are going to tell) what makes your guidelines ethical – good to whom and for what purpose.
    that might even be the most important bit…lol

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s