From The American, by Kenneth P. Green and Hiwa Alaghebandian
Science is losing its credibility because it has adopted an authoritarian tone, and has let itself be co-opted by politics.
In a Wired article published at the end of May, writer Erin Biba bemoans the fact that “science” is losing its credibility with the public. The plunge in the public’s belief in catastrophic climate change is her primary example. Biba wonders whether the loss of credibility might be due to the malfeasance unearthed by the leak of emails from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in the United Kingdom, but comes to the conclusion that malfeasance isn’t the cause of the public’s disaffection. No, people have turned against science simply because it lacks a good public relations outfit. Biba quotes Kelly Bush, head of a major PR firm, on the point:
Biba says researchers need a campaign that inundates the public with the message of science: Assemble two groups of spokespeople, one made up of scientists and the other of celebrity ambassadors. Then deploy them to reach the public wherever they are, from online social networks to “The Today Show.” Researchers need to tell personal stories, tug at the heartstrings of people who don’t have PhD’s. And the celebrities can go on “Oprah” to describe how climate change is affecting them—and by extension, Oprah’s legions of viewers.
“They need to make people answer the questions, What’s in it for me? How does it affect my daily life? What can I do that will make a difference? Answering these questions is what’s going to start a conversation,” Bush says. “The messaging up to this point has been ‘Here are our findings. Read it and believe.’ The deniers are convincing people that the science is propaganda.”
While nobody would dispute the value of a good PR department, we doubted that bad or insufficient PR was the primary reason for the public’s declining trust in scientific pronouncements. Our theory is that science is not losing its credibility because people no longer like or believe in the idea of scientific discovery, but because science has taken on an authoritarian tone, and has let itself be co-opted by pressure groups who want the government to force people to change their behavior.
In the past, scientists were generally neutral on questions of what to do. Instead, they just told people what they found, such as “we have discovered that smoking vastly increases your risk of lung cancer” or “we have discovered that some people will have adverse health effects from consuming high levels of salt.” Or “we have found that obesity increases your risk of coronary heart disease.” Those were simply neutral observations that people could find empowering, useful, interesting, etc., but did not place demands on them. In fact, this kind of objectivity was the entire basis for trusting scientific claims.
But along the way, an assortment of publicity-seeking, and often socially activist, scientists stopped saying, “Here are our findings. Read it and believe.” Instead, activist scientists such as NASA’s James Hansen, heads of quasi-scientific governmental organizations such as the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, editors of major scientific journals, and heads of the various national scientific academies are more inclined to say, “Here are our findings, and those findings say that you must change your life in this way, that way, or the other way.”
So, objective statements about smoking risk morphed into statements like “science tells us we must end the use of tobacco products.” A finding of elevated risk of stroke from excess salt ingestion leads to: “The science tells us we must cut salt consumption in half by 2030.” Findings that obesity carries health risks lead to a “war on obesity.” And yes, a finding that we may be causing the climate to change morphed into “the science says we must radically restructure our economy and way of life to cut greenhouse gas emissions radically by 2050.”
To see if our suspicions were correct, we decided to do a bit of informal research, checking Lexis Nexis for growth in the use of what we would categorize as “authoritarian” phrasing when it comes to scientific findings. We searched Nexis for the following phrases to see how their use has changed over the last 30 years: “science says we must,” “science says we should,” “science tells us we must,” “science tells us we should,” “science commands,” “science requires,” “science dictates,” and “science compels.”
What we found surprised us. One phrase, in particular, has become dramatically more frequent in recent years: “Science tells us we should.” Increased usage of this phrase leads to a chart resembling a steep mountain climb (or, for those with a mischievous bent, a “hockey stick”). The use of the phrase “science requires” also increases sharply over time. The chart (below) vividly shows the increasing use of those particular phrases. Some of this may simply reflect the general growth of media output and the growth of new media, but if that were the case, we would expect all of the terms to have shown similar growth, which they do not.
read more at: The American
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Very revealing. This reflects what Roger Pielke Jr. calls the linear model of science and decision making.
*chanting*
Hockeystick, hockeystick, hockeystick…
Very interesting take, but I think it is the politicization of science that has led to this, thank Fox News, Rupert Murdoch and MSNBC where every fact is a political one, to be attacked and manipuilated for political gain – not analyzed and thought about.
This is a very interesting study. I wonder if it is the cause of my gradual change in reaction to news stories commencing with “scientists say.”
I’ve come to expect that anything following “Scientists, (or Experts for that matter) say” will be utter nonsense.
Obviously that isn’t always the case, but lately it seems to be. I wonder how much of this is from the misrepresentation of the science by the reporters or maybe the now vast number of people who can call themselves scientists but who should probably be in some other line of work.
“And the celebrities can go on “Oprah” to describe how climate change is affecting them—and by extension, Oprah’s legions of viewers.”
The problem with the alarmist playbook is that this isn’t what the celebrities are doing. The perception of climate change is making some of them rich(er) through investments in eco-wibble. The perception of climate change is making their jet set lifestyle marginally more expensive. They aren’t appearing on the telly and saying those things they are appearing on the telly and *telling* the little people to wear sackcloth.
Excellent report! Best I’ve seen in some time.
Some scientists in the field of climatology are becoming increasingly arrogant, refusing to show their data, demanding that we believe them at face value. They keep themselves shielded in their ivory towers.
Today in German newspapers the latest scare is the reduction in phytoplankton. Again the appeal to science is being made.
Subtle but effective manipulation of the information to create the desired effect. The BBC are typical when they get mobilised on some environmental issue that involves climate change, which to be frank is absolutely anything you could think of. Their appeal to authority of “we all know these days that we need to cut our carbon emmision to prevent……..”, whatever they are selling at the time is the classic phrasology! The use of the positive reinforcemnt that “we all know”, implying even if some of us are just burying our heads because we’re too frightened of the consequences, or in the pay of Big Oil or even Little Oil for that matter, or even dare to question such “authority”, we are ignorant peasants. They also do use many of the phrases mentioned above. Hitler politicised science as did Stalin to achieve absolute power & control through FEAR. Nothing changes! The age on scientific enlightenment has now passed in favout of the official “party” line.
The same results could have been obtained at any time in the past 5,000 years or so. People will believe and trust modern Oracle’s and witch doctors, as much as they did ancient ones. And will obey their Masters whether by trickery or force. Beware the Master-Oracle complex ( h/t to Ike ).
Some of this may simply reflect the general growth of media output and the growth of new media, but if that were the case, we would expect all of the terms to have shown similar growth, which they do not.
To make this statement, one should first have normalized each phrase to the same overall frequency which they have not been.
From the article:
” No, people have turned against science simply because it lacks a good public relations outfit.”
Well, in the consideration that Freud’s nephew, Edward Bernays, coined the term ‘public relations’ as a replacement for the word ‘propaganda,’ then we come to understand the true nature of things.
Public relations, indeed!
Since when does science truth have any need for propaganda?
Here, check this out:
In everything he did, Bernays began with the basic principles of the psychology of his time, and not only his uncle’s. He felt that it was not reason but emotion and instinct that moved the common man, and throughout his long life he held onto the elitist view that those who understood this could and should control the masses. As he said in the first paragraph of his influential book Propaganda. “Those who manipulate [the habits and opinions of the masses]…constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country.”
Source: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/sex-drugs-and-boredom/201002/freuds-nephew-and-public-relations
And further to my last is this this excellent treatise on the matter:
http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/chapters/17o.htm
“Some of this may simply reflect the general growth of media output and the growth of new media, but if that were the case, we would expect all of the terms to have shown similar growth, which they do not.”
No, there is no reason to expect different phrases to increase at the same rate. I would want to see the ratio of occurrence these phrases with the occurrence of the word “science.” Even then it would be very easy to cherry pick and only report authoritarian phrases that happened to increase. Did they look at phrases like “scientists recommend”? This “bit of informal research” is just that. If climate scientists wrote something this “informal” I suspect you all would eviscerate them with ridicule.
Science is a procedure, not an entity.
The reason I find the current “Science says…” problematic, is that many of the proclamations issued by the climate science community fail to pass my common sense sensor. For example, something I still cannot come to terms with is that we have a global network of sensors, the calibration and accuracy of which is sketchy at best and unknown at worst, recording a wide range of temps between highs and lows over a 24hr period, and extending over years We know that many are recording false/no readings (placing, uhi, unavailability etc). We then brush over the obvious, invent mathematical formula to correct and extrapolate what we don’t know, average it all out and then proclaim in BOLD HEADLINES, accuracy to within tenths of a degree over decades. Yes I realize that it is the anomaly, not the actual readings, but how does one measure an anomaly between data points when each preceding and following point has a significant error factor? I’ll admit I am a complete novice here and have to submit to the expertise of others, but this really pushes my skeptical button. I know there are many out there who will shoot down my ignorance, but please do it in a way that educates, and not ridicules.
Did you do any spot-checks?
“Science requires” could form part of “Good science requires impartiality and a willingness to admit when wrong”, for example.
Hear, hear!
What probably gets to me the most of all these things is the foistering of guilt onto seemingly innocent bystanders. Not only are things bad, and probably even worse than we thought, but it’s YOUR FAULT! Not only must you acknowledge that you have been bad and change your ways, but you must be punished as well.
Many have likened the rise of CAGW to that of a religion with its doctrines, priests and high priests, sin and absolution, and the spurning of non-believers. The total antithesis to objective science.
Malcolm
Science tells us we must trust science. Trust science.
People believe science because it is factual and realistic, but…. it is being pushed into areas where it doesn’t really help, such as morals.
People with a moral agenda, try to justify that agenda to the public as a scientific reality, even through it is actually a moral or ethical or lifestyle vision that they are trying to promote.
Maybe some scientists themselves are doing this, without realising it. They are pastors in scientific clothing. They do it because on the whole, science has been phenomenally successful at improving our material survival, and therefore it gets a lot of well deserved respect from the public.
So in order to present some lifestyle moral thing as being respectable, people dress it up in science.
I just wish that if people want to teach morality and ethics, they just teach it as morality and ethics. Don’t claim that science proves the world will end if you don’t let go of your greed or selfishness. Just teach goodness.
The Enlightenment produces what is known as the Big Three: The Good, The True, and The Beautiful. Science is The True. Morals and ethics is The Good. (And Art is The Beautiful). These three are different domains. They have different methodologies for study. Science has nothing to do with morality or ethics. Science is just a study of material processes. If an ecosystem dies because of a virus, that is not a “good” or a “bad” thing. That is just a process.
If scientists want to play pastor or rabbi, let them put on a different uniform.
Otherwise it all becomes terribly confusing and you get neither science not ethics, just a hodge-podge of rubbish.
Otherwise, we are becoming so bombarded by these paranoid claims that average guy would think we are about to melt, choke or get killed by robots by 2050 (unless we cut our carbon emissions by half, of course).
Can’t believe it. And that thing with doomsday clock, oh my God…
As soon as anyone suggests that “the science” needs better PR, they are admitting defeat.
Good science stands on its own, without law or PR to back it up. The only thing it requires is reliable, repeatable empirical evidence.
When climate science has to rely on PR, it stops being science and becomes advertising.
The real problem that catastrophic climate science faces is the fact that it is not scientifically possible to measure what they are predicting will happen, as it has not happened yet. So, climate scientists are using the science of now, to go fortune telling with. That is why they need PR.
The science of current climate investigation is currently producing evidence, some of which supports the CAGW hypothesis, and much of which does not. They need PR to hide that bit which does not and over exaggerate the bit that does.
Like I said, that is not science, it is advertising.
My parents stopped telling me, what I should and shouldn’t do, when I was at the age of 14 (!), to let me make my own mistakes and learn from them.
I have duly followed their advise and learned a lot since. And now, while I am 48, I am NOT inclined to do a 180-degree-turn and let anybody else tell me again, what I should and shouldn’t do.
It’s “We, the people…” – NOT – “You, the scientist…” – you know? So tell me, what you found, prove your point and let me draw my own conclusions from it.
THAT’S what I expect from a decent scientist.
Anything else is hubris, hypocrisy and hyperbole megalomania, disguised as science.
‘Here are our findings. Read it and believe.’
Somehow that just says it all…
I’m not sure this passes the smell test . . . any such study ought to be generally consistent with what you would find in, say, a Google News archive search. The phrase that is dramatically higher than any of these, however, is the phrase “scientists believe . . .”. It is that phrase, I think, that is most often used as an authoritarian club. Sometimes it is an honest representation of the preponderance of scientific evidence. Too often, though, it is an expression of dogma that leads to a cargo-cult approach to science, the presentation of data, and the harsh treatment of those scientists who dare to dissent.
The original article ends with a nice-sounding suggestion: Prominent scientists should make a practice of jumping on every dictatorial statement, countering the dictatorship with statements like “Science only tells us what is.”
Can’t happen. First, PROMINENT scientists, the ones who can be heard by the media, are all dictatorial leftists. Second, if an honest scientist tries this, he will instantly be tarred as a denialist Halliburtonist fanatic. There will be no increase in public understanding, only a firestorm that destroys his own funding.
What do you expect when science has become the replacement for religion? People like to be told what to think. It saves them the effort of doing it for themselves.
Specialism is the norm of institutional science. More interdisciplinary generalists are needed to balance the outlandish biased and skewed claims of specialists.