I’m off on travel today, but I wanted to take this opportunity to give readers a chance to talk about a variety of topics and to discuss something that has been of interest to me over the years: professional and scientific societies.
We’ve seen the pronouncements on climate change and the internal strife generated from organizations like the American Physical Society. As you may recall APS pushed a climate change agenda to their membership via a position statement. When one of their prominent members, Dr. Hal Lewis, decided to resign in protest, the APS doubled down.
A number of people who don’t like this sort of thing have resigned from professional societies they used to belong to for similar reasons, so my question is this:
If you could create a scientific society today in the physical sciences, what would you do to make it the best you could and to give it a measure of immunity from the political downsides of the climate wars?
Also, an unrelated note: the “Top Headlines” will return Monday.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Should hardly need saying, but simply make its mandate to follow the scientific process. End of.
Too simple?
“If you could create a scientific society today in the physical sciences, what would you do to make it the best you could and to give it a measure of immunity from the political downsides of the climate wars?”
That may require a cultural shift. The current melieu honors lying and cheating.
I would have a bylaw that stated that the society would never take a position on any scientific matter. Science is not done by voting and the history of science (does no one study that anymore?) tells us that “science” is often wrong when it reaches a consensus. For example, it was not all that long ago that is was heresy to claim the continents moved.
A scientific society should exist to promote good, honest science within its own field and to inform its members of the latest news and developments. (and it should have annual meetings in very nice, exotic places of course)
My two cents. ~ Mark
Ah, now there’s something I have been thinking on for a long time.
Question to all who come by: What organizations do we know of so far, in which the ‘97% consensus’ has been shown to not exist?
Right now I am aware of the American Meteorological Society. The Geological Society of Australia. And….. whom else?
Elaboration on the above. …
Explicitly exclude the association from voting on positions or topics of a political nature (i. e., anything pertaining to society and/or economy in general) and from positions on the taking of actions of any sort other than the ethical conduct of their science and operations of the association, while allowing individual members of the association all the freedoms (i. e., speech, politics) in the conduct of their own lives they have guaranteed in a free society without repercussions from the association.
As a charter member of two scientific societies formed about 30 years ago, I can report that the main purpose as we saw it was to provide a way to integrate a few isolated researchers in a number of countries by providing an association that would sponsor annual conferences where ideas could be exchanged, create a peer-reviewed journal where studies in our areas could be concentrated, have a place where students would be able to assess the job market, and so on. Ultimately, both societies took hold, with a moderate membership in the neighborhood of 1500(?) , two journals were created that have reasonable impact factors, some scholarships were established allowing students from developing countries to attend conferences, and so on. Even though the two societies include atmospheric physicists and chemists, some of whom do research impinging on climate science, neither society has felt impelled to issue a “position statement” on climate change. (The Societies are the International Society for Exposure Science (ISES) and the International Society for Indoor Air Quality and Climate (ISIAQ).)
Nonetheless, the climate change phenomenon has had a direct effect on our societies, mainly by sweeping up much of the research money available, to the extent that it forces our members to compete for research funds by including In the title something like “Effect of Climate Change on [fill in actual focus of research here]”. If awarded, the researchers can do their normal research and spend a couple of days filling in the effects of climate change on their specialty subject, always very simple to do, just calculate the effects of a 2-degree rise in global temperature, and put that in the abstract. Then Cook and Nuccitelli can count it in as a supporter of the consensus on climate change.
David, UK on June 21, 2014 at 12:08 pm
“Should hardly need saying, but simply make its mandate to follow the scientific process.”
… and some catchy motto like ‘Nullius in Verba’.
Things are so bad at this point that the word ‘science’ is now broken. It has been co-opted to such an extent that it now means blind adherence to authorities in power. Sort of like how the word liberalism now means believing in following the dictates of authority rather than its traditional meaning.
Given the difficulty in fighting such a coordinated front of misinformation, is it time to replace science with something else, something that screams falsafiability?
Quite simply we need a society for the advancement of science with a motto something like “Take nobody’s word for it.”
Oh, hang on …
I’m mostly with Mark. Things like logic, mathematics, and the scientific method are “settled”, but no “fact” about nature is.
But I would also have a process like the accounting societies do, to investigate cases where a member engages in fraud or offers fallacious arguments to the public, and tell the whole story in print. This function would probably need to be located where UK libel judgments aren’t enforceable.
Lance Wallace says:
June 21, 2014 at 12:42 pm
====
Lance exactly the same in my field….and I’m sick and tired of it
You can’t. I don’t mean to be a downer, but there’s no way to prevent people from (eventually) distorting any group or law or rule to support their agenda.
You just have to keep starting over. Making the thing with a limited and defined lifespan would help – but only a little, because people could change that rule, too.
The way I understand it, scientific societies are a way for those intersested in those subjects to discuss and broadcast acquired vetted knowledge in their particular areas of interest.
Why have a scientific society at all, why not a series of web sites and blogs, where papers may be dowloaded for free, comments sent back to the author for their perusal and perfection of the paper. Each author can have their own web site or blog, linked to other sites of similar interest.
This is the way things appear to be going any way. The choke points ( publishers, societies with agendas, paywalls, etc) will have to adapt, or become more irrelevant.
Reykjavik atmospheric pressure (north component of the NAO) is a good guide to the N. Atlantic’s SST, which in turn drives the N. Hemisphere temperatures.
It suggests about 0.25C cooling during forthcoming decade.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/RAP-AMO.htm
That all members be bound to present data , analysis methods & code for all published materials in any journals the society publishes.
In addition, there will be no speculative statements not supported as conclusions by the above in any journal or made by any member in any capacity.
It’s politics.
It poisons everything.
As a minimum: Each member would affirm Feynman’s statements regarding the scientific method – and any member or group who best fulfills the principles that fall from that method would be awarded the Feynman Medal of Scientific Excellence. And I would seek out and reward science teachers who are not afraid to embrace the scientific method, putting science ahead of agenda.
Isn’t there a saying “whose bread you eat, his song you sing” ?
William F. Buckley quote from 1955: The largest cultural menace in America is the conformity of the intellectual cliques which, in education as well as the arts, are out to impose upon the nation their modish fads and fallacies, and have nearly succeeded in doing so.
The society should adopt a motto, that the society not take a position on any scientific matter, in order to preserve open inquiry and avoid closing their minds to evidence which contradicts the views of members.
Something like “Nullius in verb”.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullius_in_verba
All organizations, unless carefully structured will drift left over time. Influential organization will be target by Marxist for infiltration taking advantage of this tendency. This exasperates the problem, making the protection nearly impossible. The only solution is to deliberately exclude socialists. This would mean using some sort of litmus test and we all know that only lefties are permitted to do such things.
That motto needs an update.
How do you say “computer output” in latin?
This is a great question. You need to define what you mean by a professional or scientific society. For example, I am required to belong to a professional body as a P.Geo. in order to practice in the field of geophysics. However, I can also join the SEG (Society of Exploration Geophysicists) or CIM (Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum), more for professional development and networking but not a requirement for my profession. If my Association of Professional Geoscientists came out with a position on global warming (which I was supposed to agree with) I would be very concerned. I can’t quit because I’d be out of work or breaking the law. But if the SEG supported global warming I could quit or just ignore the executive.
In short, societies should stick to a narrow mandate and not wade into political topics. They should not have latin mottos either. If a society wasn’t formed in the back of a bar or in someones basement over a case of beer, you probably shouldn’t join.
What is it that a scientific society would do? If not to encourage some form of “socialized science, I would guess they would sit around in deep armchairs smoking cigars and drinking cognac like some latter-day Mycroft Holmses, occasionally debating the merits of Barycentrism. As soon as you elect a chairman, you’ve elected a “deer leader”, with his eyes fixated in the headlights of his own version of the “truth”. Wouldn’t that deter honest science?
Utopia:
http://www.bl.uk/learning/histcitizen/21cc/utopia/more1/island1/island.html
Politics and climate science have been inextricably linked. Wish it wasn’t, but here we are.
How do you remove the “funding trough” motivation as well?