|
February 28, 2009
What's scientific about consensus?
I'm glad to see evidence that the scientific method is alive and well, at least in Japan: Japanese scientists have made a dramatic break with the UN and Western-backed hypothesis of climate change in a new report from its Energy Commission.I'd like to see less "scientific consensus" (an oxymoron, IMO) and a few more fissures, before the economy is irreparably ruined. (As I've said, I'd also like to see the Precautionary Principle applied to the economy. And even national defense....) When I was a kid, I used to respect scientists a lot more than I do now, and I was taught that the scientific method was based on skepticism, in much the same way as explained here: In policy making, especially in a political arena, consensus building is a key ingredient. In attempts to make science relevant and useful, the politics of democracy tend to promote, even in some cases demand "scientific consensus." However, as a "community of belief" develops, skepticism is no longer regarded as a virtue. In a civilization that is founded on science, this is an unfortunate state of affairs and detrimental to our future.Well, that was then. Any scientist who publicly questions Global Warming today will become a renegade, lose funding, and will be lucky is he isn't called a Holocaust Denier and threatened with a Nuremberg-style tribunal. For those who are into scientific nostalgia, the above continues, with gems like these: For centuries, science has been founded on well-established methods of scientific investigation, which include recognition that "A scientific theory must be tentative and always subject to revision or abandonment in light of facts that are inconsistent with, or falsify, the theory. A theory that is by its own terms dogmatic, absolutist and never subject to revision is not a scientific theory" (Judge William R. Overton, in Science, 1982). Thus, a basic tenet of science is for scientists to posit and test hypotheses and theories. Scientific progress is made by accepting or rejecting hypotheses at specified levels of confidence, thus embodying skepticism in the heart of scientific methodology.Ah the good old days. Today, science in the West has (at least in the context of Global Warming) been replaced with the crassest form of political activism. It's an ironic sign of decadence that the Japanese are pulling ahead. Again. MORE: I did not mean to imply that there were no American scientists who dare to question Global Warming theory. Here's Will Happer, Cyrus Fogg Bracket Professor of Physics at Princeton University: We are told that only a few flat-earthers still have any doubt about the calamitous effects of continued CO2 emissions. There are a number of answers to this assertion.Read it all. Sometimes, academic tenure is a good thing. posted by Eric on 02.28.09 at 07:43 PM
Comments
The scientific community has accepted that the popular and accepted "scientific" theories of History have mostly been badly flawed or completely in error. (All with much blustering and protest by "scientific experts" of the time.) Yes we have "Global warming" or perhaps "Global cooling" Hugh · March 1, 2009 09:57 AM It all hardly matters since global warming is a good thing, for people and for the ecosystem. It's far preferable to cooling. Optimist · March 1, 2009 01:00 PM I fear global warming because there's nothing worse than a martini without ice in which to stir it. Donna B. · March 1, 2009 11:45 PM Science is based on curiosity, not skepticism. Anybody can be skeptical; but not everybody can be curious. rhhardin · March 2, 2009 05:49 AM In a time in which the academy seeks to rule the people, peer review is little more than collusion. Brett · March 2, 2009 07:58 AM "I fear global warming because there's nothing worse than a martini without ice in which to stir it." Wow...now THAT is fearmongering. Now I'm nervous too. Joe R. · March 2, 2009 11:23 AM Consensus has value in science, but not as it is used in politics. Consensus in science is properly used to determine what I call the Zone of Agreement (or of Conflict, as needed). Inside of this zone we have settled on what we agree, while outside of it we have not. But in science there are no "facts", there are only observations and reasoning from observations. So the Zone of Agreement is subject to challenge. What consensus is good for is setting the parameters of debate: who bears the burden of proof. It's the one who would expand or contract the Zone. All this really means is that while it's nice to say science doesn't work by consensus, you have to start somewhere, with an accepted underlying reality. The scientist's job is to peel off one little wannabe fact from that reality and see if it stands up to scrutiny. Loren Heal · March 3, 2009 02:28 AM Post a comment
You may use basic HTML for formatting.
|
|
March 2009
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
March 2009
February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 AB 1634 MBAPBSAAGOP Skepticism See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
The turtle and the cat
The ongoing war on rot Climate Action Does zero intolerance lead to zero tolerance? Banning Mercury What's scientific about consensus? Tea for tyranny? How I (barely) managed to avoid tantrums On The Mend the birds and the bats
Links
Site Credits
|
|
Forget today...Back in 1993, I commented that any scientist who theorized that global warming wasn't happening couldn't get funding to a boss who had just left a position funding grants for NOAA. His reply was that such theories weren't valid so the funding would be wasted. This has been going on for a long time and is deeply ingrained in the "scientific community."