|
November 25, 2009
Some skeptical thoughts about scientific bandwagons
The more the CRU Climategate scandal unfolds, the more likely it is to do some serious damage to the Anthropogenic Global Warming scientific bandwagon. Not only has the word "gate" been securely attached to it, it has been likened to Vietnam, and clearly it is the biggest blow the Global Warmists (yes that is a term now) have suffered yet. I'm thinking that it might be analogous to yet another burst bubble, although it's probably too early to tell whether it really has burst. The sort of massive collapse that characterized burst bubbles involves more than criticism and condemnation from skeptics; and a legitimate concern might be that the resultant collapse in public trust might extend beyond the global warming bandwagon. By any standard, though AGW is a classic bandwagon. Bandwagon thinking comes and goes, but the global warming bandwagon has been one of the most relentless ones I have ever seen. I've seen a lot of fads, but these have usually been cultural or political; nothing quite like the strange, very forced interplay between science and politics at the heart of what is called "Global Warming." Or the more recent term "Climate Change" (calculated to sound more palatable to skeptics, for who would not agree that climates are subject to change?) My problem with bandwagon thinking is twofold. First, there is nothing logical about a bandwagon, whether from a scientific perspective or not: Logical fallacies are types of arguments that are invalid. Once you know the logical fallacies, you can recognize them in arguments constantly. Knowing these can really help to decipher what is true and is what is pure baloney.This can be said about anything. Belief in Global Warming, belief in a political platform, or belief in God. (The fact that lots of people believe in God no more proves the existence of God than the fact that lots of people believe in atheism disproves the existence of God.) The second problem I have with bandwagons is personal. I don't like them. Not liking them is also a logical problem, as I freely admit. Because, just as bandwagons can be wrong and misguided (like the Prohibition bandwagon), they can also be absolutely right (like the microbe bandwagon). So ideally, just as I should not allow the existence of a bandwagon to compel me to adopt an idea, nor should it deter me from adopting it. Easy to say, but harder to implement. So, I am an admitted skeptic, and I probably err on the side of skepticism too often. But OTOH, my skeptical and contrarian outlook is fueled when I read that popularity can lead to inaccuracy. Yes, even in science, where skepticism is supposed to be built in. Here's an abstract from a study titled "Large-Scale Assessment of the Effect of Popularity on the Reliability of Research": Based on theoretical reasoning it has been suggested that the reliability of findings published in the scientific literature decreases with the popularity of a research field. Here we provide empirical support for this prediction. We evaluate published statements on protein interactions with data from high-throughput experiments. We find evidence for two distinctive effects. First, with increasing popularity of the interaction partners, individual statements in the literature become more erroneous. Second, the overall evidence on an interaction becomes increasingly distorted by multiple independent testing. We therefore argue that for increasing the reliability of research it is essential to assess the negative effects of popularity and develop approaches to diminish these effects.I have seen no evidence to suggest that this was ever done in the case of Global Warming. (The Climategate evidence suggests that quite the opposite occurred.) Fascinatingly, less controversial scientific bandwagons are subject to the vagaries of political whim, as the vaccines-cause-autism meme in the last election cycle showed: No matter who wins in Pennsylvania today, the next President of the United States will support research into the growing evidence of some link between vaccines and autism.That's all fine during an election, but now that we have a media-annointed president and a burgeoning flu epidemic, the people kvetching publicly about vaccines and autism now tend to be right wing kooks. What are the implications for science? I can well remember how slow the AIDS bandwagon was to develop. Many activists on the left and the right were skeptical, and many continued to be skeptical, because there are some unexplained holes in the theory. (There are always holes in theories.) This ultimately led to officially implemented, government-sponsored AIDS skepticism in certain countries, and (so the mainstream AIDS bandwagon community argues) to many deaths: ...from 2000 to 2005 South Africa implemented policies based on the belief that HIV does not cause Aids, and declined to roll out adequate antiretroviral therapy. It has been estimated in two separate studies that around 350,000 people died unnecessarily in South African during this period.Let me add that I think that it's a shame people had to die. I guess that puts me on the side of the AIDS bandwagon community, but I lost a lot of friends -- way before the current AIDS drugs were developed -- and I sincerely believe that HIV was the culprit. I don't care whether my views are in accord with the scientific majority, whether it's an "overwhelming scientific consensus" or not. Similarly, notwithstanding the skeptics, I suspect there must be some relationship between cholesterol and heart disease, because I find it hard to believe that the world's cardiology community is driven by a bogus bandwagon at the behest of Big Pharma. I may be wrong, but if that were to turn out to be the case, I don't know whether I would ever trust a medical doctor again. (But what bandwagon could I join? Some homeopathic/natural herbalist bandwagon?) For better or for worse, bandwagons seem to be an inescapable part of science, probably because scientists are people, and bandwagon thinking is an inescapable part of human behavior. And much as I might not like it, a good argument can be made that bandwagons actually help advance science: This paper analyzes the development of a scientific bandwagon in cancer research using a social worlds perspective and qualitative methods. It shows that a "standardized" package of oncogene theory and recombinant DNA technologies served as a highly transportable interface among many different laboratories and lines of research. That is, the package promoted intersections among different social worlds which, in turn, facilitated the rapid development of oncogene research and the larger molecular biological cancer research bandwagon. The paper proposes the bandwagon as one process by which conceptual shifts in science occur and shows that the process of such change is inseparable from both the local and broad scale organization of work and technical infrastructures.Why would anyone oppose a mechanism that works, especially when it works? I say this in full awareness of medicine's tonsillectomy bandwagon in the earlier 20th Century. Or the even more egregious lobotomy bandwagon in the 1950s. But if a doctor scrubs before surgery in obeisance to the microbe theory bandwagon, I would argue that's a good thing. Who would want to be operated on by a contrarian doctor who refused to wash his hands? And while this may reflect my anti-bandwagon bias, I'm not entirely sure I would trust a doctor who belonged to the green "sustainable healthcare" bandwagon that's catching on. I'm not even sure I would trust my heathcare to a doctor who belonged to the outdoor clothesline bandwagon, for example. ...the original reason clothes lines fell into disfavor: they connote poverty.Maybe it's just me being selfish, but I don't want a doctor who worries about my carbon footprint, OK? I'd worry that such a doctor might believe in other goofy ideas. Like the anti-diaper bandwagon or some equally "scientific" back-to-nature meme. If I knew that a doctor who didn't want to waste water was letting his kids do number two on the floor at home, I might question his judgment in other areas (maybe even handwashing). But maybe shouldn't be such a bandwagon skeptic. I'm probably at risk of becoming a crank. posted by Eric on 11.25.09 at 11:09 AM
Comments
Thousands of times, people have said "For thousands of years people believed the Earth was flat." That doesn't make it true. Unironic flat-earthism was a very short-lived Dark Age political-religious weirdness, a lot like GW/CC. "Thousands of years" ago, the ancient Greeks knew the size of the obviously round world, and so has everyone ever since then, if they wanted to know. You can figure it out yourself by tracking a shadow. It was never not known. The knowledge was politically suppressed, for a much shorter time than is usually assumed. The flat-earth/GW analogy is actually great. But no one makes it the right way. One of my crank peeves. guy on internet · November 25, 2009 01:02 PM Governments never made billions of dollars in funds available to flat earthers, GW ism grew rapidly when the managers of these research groups found it produced funding. Hugh · November 25, 2009 01:38 PM While I quoted from another post which stated that "for thousands of years people believed the Earth was flat," it certainly seems true enough. While the Greeks and Romans didn't believe it (nor did educated medieval Christians), many other peoples and cultures did, and the periods involved cover thousands of years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth Interestingly, at least one relatively modern Western leader (South Africa's Paul Kruger) seems to have believed as recently as 1897 that the earth was flat: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Kruger There are probably some isolated people today who still do, but flat earthism hasn't been a part of serious Western thought since late antiquity. Eric Scheie · November 25, 2009 02:11 PM This is a bizarre coincidence, but I was just reading about "flat-earthism" on Wikipedia earlier this morning!! John S. · November 25, 2009 03:18 PM The "tonsillectomy bandwagon." rolled during my childhood. Children missed a few days of school and then returned somehow less vulnerable to one or more perils. Children only knew that something was clipped from the throat. It sounded gruesome even before they knew "gruesome" was a word. It never happened to me or my sisters. Then the bandwagon departed. It was spoken of no more. I suspect doctors preferred to forget the matter. K · November 25, 2009 04:05 PM Flat Earth? It is a mistake is to think earlier men reasoned as we do today. The evidence is otherwise. Early man had no difficulty believing the Earth could be flat and spherical at the same time. And why not? The Gods decided such matters and sometimes acted on whim. Nature was incomprehensible. Compared to what the God's could decree man's experiences, his puny senses, and his scratching geometric shapes in sand, could prove nothing. That inability to generalize beyond right now and immediate experience seems laughable to us. But it was never-the-less true. Gathering two eggs here and three there might give you five eggs today. But maybe two eggs and three eggs would not equal five eggs next time.
K · November 25, 2009 04:40 PM Hang on a minute. You do *not* support the right to air-dry your clothes in public? What kind of fascist fashion Nazi are you? :) And with that I invoke Godwin on this thread... Gregory · November 25, 2009 07:23 PM To coming critiques of scientific research: "It's Climate Science" "It's Global Warming" "Hide the decline" And it is not just climate science. It is everywhere: http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124 M. Simon · November 26, 2009 02:28 AM I have seen a bandwagon develop in the medical community on the nature of addiction. Back when I was doing my original work on the subject I posted where it was likely doctors would see the material. Of course it was hard to make headway. Every one "knew" drugs cause addiction and people who take them are morally weak. I started around 2001. It is now 2008. The medical community is on the bandwagon. Including to some extent the NIDA. They fail to connect ALL the dots. But they do connect some. And the reason for that? The research is pretty solid. BTW the title of my above link? Why Most Published Research Findings Are False Hide the decline. M. Simon · November 26, 2009 02:43 AM Wow, a fashionist I may be, but did I really call for a ban on clotheslines? I wouldn't want to get on the "banned" wagon, would I? :) Eric Scheie · November 26, 2009 07:23 AM I dunno. When laying out the foundation for a house I have never heard of doing corrections for the curvature of the earth. We don't deal in arcs of chords. We deal in straight lines. So at least for some tasks it is a flat earth. Euclid rules. For larger buildings round earth comes into play. For smaller objects - not so much. M. Simon · November 26, 2009 02:03 PM "That's all fine during an election, but now that we have a media-annointed president and a burgeoning flu epidemic, the people kvetching publicly about vaccines and autism now tend to be right wing kooks. What are the implications for science?" ummm... I think most of the kvetching about vaccines and autism are leftists nuts who don't trust "Big Pharma". Kooks from the right kvetch about psychoactive drugs and antidepressants. Or something. It really is difficult to tell the difference between left wing nuts and right wing nuts :-) Donna B. · November 27, 2009 12:43 AM Post a comment
You may use basic HTML for formatting.
|
|
November 2009
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
November 2009
October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 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
Kiwi Scientists Cooking The Books?
Happy Thanksgiving! Everything You Know Is Wrong Giving Thanks Random Thoughts Some skeptical thoughts about scientific bandwagons Hide The Decline The Next Big Discovery Channel Program? Just doin' my job! Check It Out
Links
Site Credits
|
|
Climategate? or Climate-quiddick?
What happens when an enormous fraud is uncovered and all the "right-thinking" people ignore it?
There won't be hearings about this fraud.
There will be "moving on".
.