Here is an excerpt from my piece today:
I'd like to return to discussing Socolow's central claim that science is under attack and needs defending from the anti-science brigades.Please head over there, have a look at the contributions from all three of us, and feel free to return here to discuss or debate. And a special thanks to The Bulletin for hosting and to Olson and Socolow for an interesting exchange!
In short, I find the evidence for such a claim sorely lacking. In these cynical times, science is among the few institutions in society that is held in high regard. (Others include the military and first responders to disasters.) The most recent survey of public attitudes about science by the National Science Foundation found that 84 percent of Americans expressed support for government funding of basic research, and Americans have more favorable attitudes toward the promise of science and technology for our future than do Europeans. Further, Americans ranked scientists higher in prestige than 23 other occupations (and at a level similar to firefighters), a view that has remained virtually unchanged in the 35 years that the NSF has conducted its surveys.
These data hardly show an institution under attack or even a loss of support for science. Yet Socolow warns ominously that "an age of darkness could lie ahead" and worries about the "alienation of large segments of the public from the scientific enterprise." I have a hard time making sense of such general expressions of extreme concern, which are by no means unique to our exchange.
8 comments:
The scientists would do well to clearly express the limitations of their knowledge and skill. They should be the source of impartial and objective knowledge, as much as is humanly possible. They should refrain from framing their presentations to support a particular faith or preferred perspective of reality. It does not help humanity when we prematurely terminate the scientific process. It does not help humanity when scientists make definitive assertions supported by a permanent condition of limited, circumstantial evidence. The true spirit of science must be preserved to classify and exploit our natural world in order to, hopefully, elevate the human condition. It should not be exploited as leverage by different interests as they compete for prominence in our society and world.
It is not just dreams of material instant gratification which corrupts individuals and society. In fact, I would suggest that it is dreams of physical and ego instant gratification that are more readily attained, which are the greater concern, and the cause of fundamental, generational corruption. The corruptive character of these dreams are amplified when pursued through redistributive and retributive change, but also through fraudulent exploitation.
While I agree that there is value in consolidating efforts in order to facilitate realization of a desired goal. We should be wary about supporting any monopoly, but especially one with a granted or de facto authority. In the absence of moral knowledge, it is competing interests which keep people, who are vulnerable to corruption, honest.
When people submit or defer to authority, the individuals who gain that privilege must be held accountable to a greater degree -- not less -- than individuals without the authority. That is the sacrifice people must be willing to accept if they presume to lead. This is what scientists, and especially those who are funded through taxation, must recognize and respect.
Distorting science for leverage and profit is not exclusive to the political domain.
I think that Socolow's comment on the rejection of science has merit. It seems to me that the de facto position taken by politicians is to ignore the science; to let the science be hashed out by competing lobbing groups.
I don't necessarily see an outright attack on science per se; the lobbyists tend to use PR as a weapon to counter the science of opponents but this is not a systemic attack as much as an as needed PR campaign.
I don't understand what '...higher in prestige...' means. People say they value science but I don't know anyone who measurably consumes less sugar based on the science. Vague, unimplemented feelings, sure, but not action.
I don't think it surprising that scientists have begun to join the other lobbyists working to get their position acted on.
Very interesting discussion, but I'm trying to figure out just WHO is "rejecting" (and/or "attacking!") science." I don't know ANYONE who is doing that, even the politicians (of course, they tend to SPIN the science and lie about it, as politicians of ALL stripes are wont to do). But are they "rejecting" science, or are they merely rejecting the conclusions of certain scientists?? I say the latter.
Whether some of the well-funded climate scientists and leftists out there want to accept it or not, the state of the science on climate is not settled by a very, very long shot. The emails in Climagegate2 showed very clearly that even the most annointed "climate scientists" acknowledged a tremendous amount of uncertainty. It's even worse now, because of the lack of ANY clear empirical evidence to support the CAGW nonsense. Yes, climate science is quite weak; and it is getting weaker every year as the Earth is getting cooler and as the models look more and more ridiculous, and as the ice thickens, and as the ocean cools, and as more and more WWF/IPCC corruption is exposed, etc ....
Therefore, anyone, including a politician, who wants to say he/she does not accept IPCC's silly nonsense is NOT rejecting or attacking science! He is merely embracing the "other" body of scientists, at least 31,000 of them at last count, who don't accept the idea that mankind is dangerously altering the planet by adding plant food to the atmosphere! The guys at WaPo (as always), and Randy Olson, appear to have a dangerous, maybe religious, belief that their conclusions about what "the science" says(whatever that is) are correct, and anyone who challenges their belief is rejecting/attacking science. If anyone is "attacking science," they are! Can't they see the irony in their (unscientific) viewpoint? As Socolow says:
"Science is a process of searching, always incomplete. Its norms include strict evidentiary standards and transparency. Anyone working anywhere can overturn a prior consensus."
Doesn't that mean that anyone working anywhere (including politicians) can speak against some so-called "consensus, without being labeled a denier or being accused of attacking science??
And I think Olson goes way out on a straw limb and shows some serious bias when he starts that all-too-telling whining about the Climategate emails being "stolen" (which they were NOT, and even if they were it doesn't matter to science).
And then this worn-out statement:
"When word got out that climate scientists' emails had been stolen and were being used -- falsely, as it turned out -- to suggest that some aspects of climate science were fraudulent,..."
indicates he has no clue about the importance of those emails and the damage done. It appears that Socolow understands their importance much better, as shown by this statement:
"Climategate revealed how many friends science has, because so many friends made it known that they were disheartened." I would have said "disgusted," rather than "disheartened."
I would also say that science is not our ONLY way to deal with reality, and schools should clearly acknowledge this. Science has no way of dealing with many aspects of life, such as spirituality, and yet those aspects are just as important to most people as the material issues addressed by science. Thank God Shakespeare was not a scientist! Maybe that is what Soclow is addressing here?:
“The problems we are facing today in our public discourse about science have some of their roots in an agreement to disagree, dating to nearly half a century ago, between those who believe there is an underlying reality that science accesses uniquely and those who see science as only one enterprise among many, all with feet of clay."
Again, very interesting!
Anyone who thinks that science is not subject to human foibles is no longer practicing science, but rather is practicing religion.
Jae wrote: "It's even worse now, because of the lack of ANY clear empirical evidence to support the CAGW nonsense."
You must be mistaken, because while the IPCC agrees with you that there is little evidence of any recent global warming:
“In summary, while the trend in global mean temperature over the past decade is not significantly different from zero,”
The evidence that humans are changing the climate and producing more frequent and intense extreme weather is even stronger!
“Evidence of the effects of human influence on the climate system has continued to accumulate and strengthen since the AR4. In particular a wealth of new evidence has emerged from across the climate system, including regional temperature changes, changes in the water cycle and the cryosphere, and oceanic changes, that points to a warming world resulting from increased greenhouse gas concentrations. The evidence for human influence on the intensity and frequency of extreme weather events [extremes] has strengthened.” - AR5 ZOD.
Can I suggest a "facepalm" picture for your future post, Roger? :P
DaveJR:
“Evidence of the effects of human influence on the climate system has continued to accumulate and strengthen since the AR4. In particular a wealth of new evidence has emerged from across the climate system, including regional temperature changes, changes in the water cycle and the cryosphere, and oceanic changes, that points to a warming world resulting from increased greenhouse gas concentrations. The evidence for human influence on the intensity and frequency of extreme weather events [extremes] has strengthened.” - AR5 ZOD."
Yeah, yeah, yeah. The "multiple lines of evidence" crap in slightly different words. Problem is, they cannot point to even ONE convincing line of evidence and they know it; hence the vague paragraph you quoted.
Please no more IPCC stuff on this thread, thanks!
Roger,
Based on my 30 plus years in public works you are spot on. Most people tend to have already decided what they want to do. That includes politicians since they are people too. They then seek out confirming evidence, scientific is available, or anecdotal, or imagined.
In my career it has seldom been about the engineering and it looks like policy decisions are likewise seldom about the science.
Whether the issue is smoking, environment, or medicine, people don't make their decisions based on science, but science is convenient when it support the decisions they have made.
Post a Comment