> "The ethical imperatives in terms of knowledge building are for doctors to convey the conditions and results of their actions as precisely as possible. **It is only after the battle that the necessary sorting work will take place.** Right now medical teams around the world are trying things. They communicate their experiences with each other through new means of communication: through social networks, using new means of communication (various messaging). Hundreds of articles have been published on a disease that did not exist three months ago. For example on BiorXiv where the work has not been validated before publication, as is the case in scientific journals. Are these works useless because they have not received the seal of peer accreditation? No, you just have to take them for what they are: partial information on which you have to exercise a critical eye. Peer validation has not disappeared; it applies after publication. It's a new way of collaborating that didn't exist before because the act of publishing was expensive: you had to print physical books, distribute them, etc. The cost of withdrawal in the event of an error was high, it is essentially zero today (we can update the information). This way of validating new knowledge, which goes through width rather than depth, is faster and takes more effort. You have to exercise critical thinking all the time, but it is also the promise of faster progress than we have ever known. It must also encourage reflection, more than reflexes, ethics because new questions arise."
This is essentially the decision of "we'll sort it out later".
Can relate that to the ENSO & QBO effort. Even though they were informative, some of the false starts I have taken on this long thread include:
* Climate shifts -- phase reversals or other *fudge factor* events used to explain anomalous changes
* Mathieu equation -- a fluid dynamics formulation to describe sloshing that held some initial promise until the LTE analysis approach was settled on
* Delay differential equations -- applying ideas from the simple recharge oscillator ENSO models used by others
* Biennial modulation -- a diversion based on clues from DDE and Mathieu period doubling, until it was obvious that an annual modulation worked more parsimoniously and plausibly
* Nodal vs Tropical -- Predominately nodal (draconic) tidal forcing worked so well for QBO and Chandler wobble that I assumed it was the same for ENSO. Now it's obvious why tropical applies to ENSO.
Some of the branches I avoided were the idea of teleconnections (which clearly is a dog chasing its own tail), full GCMs (not when simplicity is the guiding principle), and the dead end of chaos mathematics.
In fact, it may be that the entire research path of applying the recharge oscillator models to ENSO may have been a "sort it out later" diversion. None of these non-linear models, such as [Zebiak-Cane](https://www.azimuthproject.org/azimuth/show/ENSO#ZCModel), have ever been fit adequately to the data. They also haven't been contextualized to match the Navier-Stokes basis of the typical GCM formulation, because like the toy Lorenz model of chaos they don't actually seek to model the actual fluid dynamics. In contrast, the LTE approach described in this thread perfectly aligns with a GCM, as both LTE and GCM directly derived from the N-S fluid dynamics.
So whether or not models are peer-reviewed, eventually they all still need to be sorted out over time.
Latest on triad waves : https://geoenergymath.com/2020/04/06/triad-waves/
EDIT: How this triad waves relates is that it helps resolve the period doubling -- where the general triad for energy transfer has a K = Ka + Kb wavenumber relationship, when Ka=Kb, the specific triad is to period doubling from small scale to large scale.