Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. sends word of this via email. I’m a bit amused, but not surprised, as we know WUWT has been pushing the traditional media envelope, and we often tackle subjects they can’t or won’t. I liked this statement about skeptical blogs:
They serve as extended peer communities as put forth by post-normal science, however, blog users themselves do not see post-normal science as a desirable goal.
She’s got that right. Just wait til she sees what is coming up next. – Anthony
CSTPR Noontime Seminar
Fall 2012 Series
Thursdays 12:00 – 1:00 PM
The Communications-Policy Nexus
Media, messages, and decision making
* Tuesday September 11, 2012
THE CONTRARIAN DISCOURSE IN THE BLOGOSPHERE: WHAT ARE BLOGS GOOD FOR ANYWAY?
by Franziska Hollender, Institute for Social Studies of Science, University of Vienna
CSTPR Conference Room, 1333 Grandview Avenue
Free and open to the public
The media serve to inform, entertain, educate and provide a basis for discussion among people. While traditional media such as print newspapers are facing a slow decline, they are being outpaced by new media that add new dimensions to public communication with interactivity being the most striking one. In the context of climate change, one question has arisen from recent events: what to do with the contrarians? Some propose that the contrarian discourse is merely an annoying sideshow, while others think that it is science’s responsibility to fight them. Blogs, being fairly unrestricted and highly interactive, serve as an important platform for contrarian viewpoints, and they are increasingly permeating multiple media spheres.
Using the highly ranked blog ‘Watts up with that’ as a case study, discourse analysis of seven posts including almost 1600 user comments reveals that blogs are able to unveil components and purposes of the contrarian discourse that traditional media are not. They serve as extended peer communities as put forth by post-normal science, however, blog users themselves do not see post-normal science as a desirable goal. Furthermore, avowals of distrust can be seen as linguistic perfomances of accountability, forcing science to prove its reliability and integrity over and over again. Finally, it is concluded that the climate change discourse has been stifled by the obsession of discussing the science basis and that in order to advance the discourse, there needs to be a change in how science as an ideology is communicated and enacted.
========================================================
http://cires.colorado.edu/calendar/events/index.php?com=detail&eID=605
Can anyone go? Pielke Jr. reports he will be traveling.
Congratulations! You are finally getting their attention.
This bothers me in so many ways:
– That, as evidenced in events like the Lewandowsky paper, climate scepticism is framed as some kind of pathology (“what to do with the contrarians?”)
– The assumption – again! – that “science” is some kind of homogenous entity – (“others think that it is science’s responsibility to fight them”) and contra to the sceptics.
– That our contributions are now being analysed (“discourse analysis of seven posts including almost 1600 user comments”). Something I’d have no problem with ordinarily (I write bots to do exactly the same thing to trace how stories or information is spreading and where from). But it suddenly feels a little oppressive and Orwellian given the above assumed pathology.
– “avowals of distrust can be seen as linguistic perfomances of accountability, forcing science to prove its reliability and integrity over and over again.” – I thought that WAS the essence of the scientific method? It worries me that I’m increasingly encountering this slack post-normal attitude to science. A few years ago had a falling out with an ex-girlfriend who is a microbiologist over a campaign she was supporting for science funding in the UK. The promo page contained several outright economic falsehoods and on the grounds that they would not correct them I refused to support the campaign. She said “but its for a good cause…”. I’m really starting to worry hearing that type of reasoning from people who really should know better…..
– “the climate change discourse has been stifled by the obsession of discussing the science basis” – huh? The discourse is more important than the science (discussion of which is “obsessive”)?
– “in order to advance the discourse, there needs to be a change in how science as an ideology is communicated and enacted.” – Good god. I’d like to know what they mean by “ideology” here as I don’t think it will match up with my own expectations of what it means to follow the scientific method given the above….
I can’t go – I don’t have Boulder visa.
stifled by the obsession of discussing the science basis and that in order to advance the discourse, there needs to be a change in how science as an ideology is communicated and enacted
Here she is dead wrong. Science is not an ideology and should not be communicated as such.
Beware the Social Studies Professors bearing gifts.
Science as an ideology? Really? I think ideology should be separate from science, but perhaps that is a result of my time. I think science and engineering principles are not about what you believe or want to be true, but what data, observations and experiments demonstrate. Nature is not what you want it to be, it’s what it is. As an engineer or scientist, it is for you to determine from these things, not to project upon.
Gerry Parker
I’m lost again. What is post-normal science?
Hilarious!
Franziska thinks that climate change discussions (discourse) have been stifled by skeptics wanting to discuss the science.
It doesn’t get any better than that? Perfect material for a Josh cartoon.
The abstract should be a subject of peer-to-peer reviews via this blog. Help formulate the issues and the important elements not mentioned. It would be fitting.
BTW, what should be name for the type of on-line, free access, accountable, review and critique of papers and talks?
“Blog Review” – that is condescending. One person with a blog no one reads posts one comment. No. Blog is not the critical element.
Peer-to-Peer Review — that is closer. It involves a community, it implies openness and it sounds official (which is not necessarily the case). But then “Peer Review” sounds more official than “Pal Review” it too frequently becomes.
Crowd Review — a cousin to Crowd Source, it embodies the more unruly nature of a pre-publication review. It is not limited to blogs. A twitter stream (shudder!) at a live presentation would also count.
Social Review — Peer Review by Social Media. I don’t like it — It brings to mind up turned noses.
Other ideas?
@Leif
I was wondering about the ‘ideology’ thing myself, then thought perhaps she was referring to the principles that scientists are supposed to adhere to, and I think you could argue that’s an ideology.
The first definition I came across is this: “the body of doctrine, myth, belief, etc., that guides an individual, social movement, institution, class, or large group”
Assuming that were allowed to drop myth and belief I’d probably accept that definition, but ideology is a fairly loaded word and wouldn’t be one I’d use for preference.
“what to do with the contrarians? Some propose that the contrarian discourse is merely an annoying sideshow, while others think that it is science’s responsibility to fight them. ”
So they have to decide what to “do with” me?
Either I’m an annoying side show to be ignored, or it is the responsibility of “science” to fight me?
I can’t go, but this pi$$es me off to the point that if I was in the area I certainly would go and I gaurantee that there would be some “disruption”.
What complete arrogance surpasses only by their self imposed ignorance.
I used to worry that we were living in a world run by accountants. Now I worry that we’re living in a world run by sociologists.
“Some propose that the contrarian discourse is merely an annoying sideshow, while others think that it is science’s responsibility to fight them. ”
Note the elitist bubble. “Skeptics: Pest or Menace?” These are the two opinions of the Establishment, not the two opinions of the whole world of science. Non-elite opinions do not exist in Franziska’s mind.
Also she seems to be confused by “post-normal”, which is understandable. The term has no fixed meaning. Most of us on the factual side would take “normal” to mean the Establishment, so post-normal means us. But Jerome Ravetz, whose article was probably the one Franziska “analyzed”, used post-normal in a more complicated way. He may have been referring to the Establishment climatologists as post-normal. Frankly, I couldn’t tell what Ravetz meant, and I don’t think he knew what he meant.
Yes, science SHOULD be forced to prove its reliability and integrity every time it makes a new claim.
Someone claiming to be performing “science” doesn’t get a free pass simply because past scientists were able to build television systems or put men on the moon.
@ur momisugly katabasis1 and Dr. Svalgaard:
I cannot express my concerns with this piece of condescending acatrivia (academia + trivia) more succinctly than you have done.
What ‘discourse’ is science supposed to advance, that WUWT and similar blogs are obstructing? Surely humility in the face of nature and natural events, aided by curiousity, should be the sum total of the ‘ideology’ of science.
If any of the seminar participants is looking at this thread, this tenured and publishing historian of science wishes to point out that historically there have been many discourses in science, and often the prevailing but later jettisoned discourse is the main thing that stands in the way of newer and more fruitful understanding (I’m of course avoiding here references to ‘truth’ or ‘progress’ to honour the Kuhnian and social constructivist biases of sociologists of science.)
When, I wonder, is the mainstream of historians and sociologists of science, and their STS brethren, going to apply the reflexivity principle to their treatment of global warming and climate science? How about looking in the mirror if you want to identify an interesting pathology.
“Finally, it is concluded that the climate change discourse has been stifled by the obsession of discussing the science basis and that in order to advance the discourse, there needs to be a change in how science as an ideology is communicated and enacted.” – U of C Journalism(?) Staff 2012
“It is the absolute right of the State to supervise the formation of public opinion.” – Joseph Goebbels 1934
I fear memories, especially at university, are growing shorter every day.
science as an ideology => Cargo cult science
Her prose makes my brain ache. What is she really trying to say? What is “discourse analysis”? How do you do it without asking those who made the comments to verify the interpretations of what they intended to say? This strikes me as so much post-normal nonsense.
Today we have people of intelligence, people who have become educated, but the result is they speak Babel. They mentally get things confused and twisted. Could this have some aspect of age old prejudice in one’s beliefs?
Or could it be in part due to current society is very complex and there are many ‘educated’ people that lack the intelligence to see things sensibly? Such as the miss state in climate science and global warming?
Everything has been hijacked as part of an overriding ideology.
The blogosphere is the only significant remaining arena of free public discourse.
Wow, that last sentence….
“…climate change discourse has been stifled by the obsession of discussing the science basis and that in order to advance the discourse, there needs to be a change in how science as an ideology is communicated and enacted.”
…is quite the whopper! Obsesstion of discussing the science…. Science as an ideology…
They’re right, the debate is over!
I’ll bet Max “Balance is Bias” Boykoff will be there to assert that “contrarians” should be censored, and maybe Ben Santer will show up to punch dissenters in their faces. And Michael Mann can threaten to sue anyone that misses Ben’s punches.
Looks like it could be a could show of cloistered climatologists.
I used to live and work in Boulder, but now reside in the Free American Sector of Colorado. Perhaps I’ll be able to head back north across the 40th parallel to witness this academic Reichsparteitag. I promise to be out of Boulder before dark.
Meanwhile, I’ll chicken out and not post my name with this. These Boulder types, well, they have ways…
First i read about us being heretics in the Guardian and now science is an ideology. I’m getting worried.
Any idea on the what 7 posts?
Gerry Parker says:
September 1, 2012 at 10:15 am
Science as an ideology? Really? I think ideology should be separate from science, but perhaps that is a result of my time.
===================================================================
It’s how science has been twisted and used by politics to promote a social(ist) agenda that has made “climate science” an ideology. Mann, Hansen etc. are willing “twisters” in promoting the ideology. It’s no surprise that there are attempts to marginalize WUWT and other such blogs are “untwisting” the science thus removing one of the tools of the politicians.
The internet is the uncontrolled “Free Press”.
This is the fundamental problem with the alarmist crowd. They truly believe science is an ideology that everybody, especially we “contrarians” are to accept without question. If only we would goose-step in perfect harmony with the CAGW brownshirts, our opinions might be acceptable. Galileo must be spinning in his grave at the sight of all this.