More Muir Russell Logic

We continue our logical analysis of the Muir Russell CRU inquiry:

• This was not about forming a view on the content or quality of the scientific work and the conclusions drawn by CRU.
• On the specific allegations made against the behaviour of CRU scientists, we find that their rigour and honesty as scientists are not in doubt.

Combining these statements we conclude that what Sir Muir Russell is saying is:

• rigour and honesty as scientist is not related to content and quality of scientific work.

In other words, the result of the (honest and rigorous) investigation by Muir Russell is:

• the scientific work of an honest and rigorous scientist may lack quality.

This statement is depending on interpretation either trivially true or untrue, and in either case lacks quality. The conclusion is that the review lacks quality, irrespective if it was carried out with honesty and rigour or not.

Quality is probably what people hope to get for their tax money, taking honesty for granted.

It will be interesting to see if Muir Russell will meet criticism according to the standards

expressed in the inquiry report:

• There need to be ways of handling criticism and challenge, of responding to a range of different sorts of criticism and getting into a more productive relationship with critics than we have sometimes seen in this case.

I will thus test if I can get into a "productive relationship" with MR in my role as critical blogger, and honest and and rigorous scientist...