Response to Ravetz and post-normal science

In the Ravetz essay, he says: “And what about the issue itself? Are we really experiencing Anthropogenic Carbon-based Global Warming? If the public loses faith in that claim, then the situation of science in our society will be altered for the worse.”
—
Oh, come on!! Will the public still refuse to utilize the best in medical and pharmaceutical research and development? I think not!
The public isn’t as gullible, nor as stupid, as many in the university systems seem to think. We know when we are being conned, and demand the truth.
Many in the lay public have very good to excellent scientific credentials and training in engineering, medicine and all the related disciplines, and are discerning consumers of science.
Seems to me that the climate community, with their tails between their legs, are lashing out at the blogs. Tough beans, the Internet is showing great value as a community meeting place to hash out difficult policy questions.

“Feel-Good-Science”.

The CRU emails revealed climate researchers are not scientists. Their task is to “fix” data to fit the AGW theory, and silence real scientists. Why is this douche complaining?

Imagine that post normal science principles applied to eugenics by a global government.

Democratisation of science!
Ive never really liked quantum mechanics any chance of a quick vote!

I am sorry – but I read the whole essay and did not understand it. I have no idea what post-normal science even is.

The only interesting thing about all this post-normal stuff is what is Hulme up to right now with his mass manipulation center?

The day we start practicing post-normal science in the medical research lab and offering cures by consensus is the day we start killing a lot of people with pharmaceutical snake oil. Post normal science might have a place in the social and metaphysical sciences as long as they promise to keep it to themselves. However for the biological, chemical, and physical sciences, it is akin to practicing voodoo.

RickA (14:33:03) : That’s good. You are normal, not post-normal.

Ricka: “I have no idea what post-normal science even is.”
As I understand it, it is a way to change the rigour of “proof” to make it easier to prove things by other than scientific ways. Whilst I’m obvously putting that in a biased way, it doesn’t necessarily mean it is wrong to unscientific methods in an area like climate forecasting. This is an area which is inherently devoid of real evidence, and where it is believed that action cannot wait for real scientific proof, so (if it weren’t all eco-balony) it is not unreasonable to try to make a decision before enough data has been collected for proper science.
But you can’t call it science: politics yes! Science, No! Even a political decision based on voting by scientists, but that is not real science!

Bryan (14:29:58) :
Democratisation of science!
Ive never really liked quantum mechanics any chance of a quick vote!
I’m looking forward to democratising math. If we can 2 + 2 = 5 (or 6 or even 10), it’s going to do wonders for my bank account.

14 March: St. Petersburg Times, Florida: Outlook cloudy on climate
By Eric Deggans
Phillips’ caution makes sense; he’s not only a weather forecaster, but a local TV personality who wants the widest possible audience. So a contentious, confusing topic like global warming must sometimes feel like a minefield.
Which may also explain why most of the area’s other chief TV meteorologists displayed the same sort of ambivalence — while admitting they are also asked about it all the time.
In fact, just one forecaster among the five chief meteorologists at the Tampa Bay area’s top TV news outlets agreed with the conclusions issued years ago by the American Meteorological Society and the global Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change:
Namely, that the planet’s temperature is warming and man is contributing to it.
“I haven’t worked in a weather department yet where there wasn’t a split decision on the topic,” said Tammie Souza, chief meteorologist at St. Petersburg CBS affiliate WTSP-Ch. 10, who blames political interests for distorting the debate. “Personally, I think it’s obvious our climate is changing … and man has something to do with the warmup. But the minute you get government involved and money involved, the simple facts are blurred all over the place.”…
http://www.tampabay.com/features/media/article1079148.ece

Re RickA (14:33:03) :
That is a sign of your clairity of thought sir.

For a great, and easy to read, dressing down of Post Normal Science, you can’t beat ScientistForTruth’s blog on the subject:
http://buythetruth.wordpress.com/2009/10/31/climate-change-and-the-death-of-science/
I added some of my own thoughts also in the following blog:
http://i-squared.blogspot.com/2009/12/green-snake-in-grass.html

I agree with Leif, much too convoluted. Someone else had it right also about post normal science and called it ab-normal. And, too many folks in government don’t know squat about business or government because they have always been in “school” doing graduate work,teaching or whatever. For instance, take a look at the lady’s background that the administration has just nominated to be on the Federal Reserve. Just a”school kid”. She has never run a business of any kind or made money for a business.I don’t remember her name or the article about her. I’m afraid too many of us are gullible. I think we may be sunk if we don’t change something quickly.

NickB. (14:51:25):
Or perhaps a “revolt” of practitioners of the soft sciences against the hard science – something they don’t really understand and so they mistake it for some sort of “evil, elitist soft science”. So, “post-normal science” is an attempt to “soften” hard science.
Welcome to the second coming of the Dark Ages.

When I read Ravetz’ first article I was supportive. I have travelled the same path on post normal science that I did on AGW. PNS, however, I have an actual working explanation for.
It is magic. It is proposed by those who believe the common person to be so inadequatly equiped to evaluate the science, that they must accept the conclusions of their betters for the good of mankind, and even should there be reason to question it, accept it anyway “just in case” because it is for the best anyway.
Arthur C Clarke had it backward. He should have said “any sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from science”
Because thats what I am being sold. A magic trick trumped up as science, and the PNS crowd trying to convince the public that sometimes “urgency” and “consequences” require that we accept “these” magicians and ignore “those” magicians, “just in case”.

Leif – great definition.
Another way of putting it is that if everybody’s point of view is equally valid, then nobody’s view is valid. What results is a tyranny of rule by emotion, or force. Rationality is the casualty.
This is why it is essential to ensure every citizen possible has some degree of scientific education, and is capable of rational decision making, even when the specialist area may be esoteric.

Leif Svalgaard: “Basically, if ‘truth’ is what your audience wants to hear or find important, then it ain’t science. It becomes what Napoleon once said: ‘a set of lies agreed upon’.”
That’s a bit cynical, Lief.
Most people understand that “truth” has two meanings: “ordinary truths,” which are reports confirmable by observation and experience, and “higher truths,” which are claims entailed by some religious, ideological, or moral axiom. How a proffered “truth” is understood and whether it is accepted depends upon the priorities assigned to the interests at stake. There are no doubt many creationists who will never accept any ordinary truths (reports based on observation and experience) which conflict with the “higher truths” they’ve already accepted. That is because the losses they anticipate from a de-throning of their “higher truths” — collapse of the foundations of their *welatanschauung,” extinguishing of their hopes for eternal life, etc. — are much greater than than any loss they can envision from a mistaken understanding of biology. Yet those folks’ understanding of ordinary truths is perfectly sound — they will certainly demand it when, for example, considering a suggested treatment for a disease, or when considering whether to buy a car claimed to be more fuel efficient.
People will be receptive to alarmist claims about climate as long as they assume the costs of being wrong are catastrophic. Then the priority becomes, not thoroughly understanding climate, but avoiding disaster. If the fear of disaster is exacerbated (and perhaps precipitated) by a long-held and thoroughgoing animus for “exploitive capitalist society,” “crass materialism,” “alienating individualism,” “rape of Nature,” etc., ordinary truths will have little chance of countering it. Higher truths always trump ordinary truths. And when the ordinary truths are ambiguous, contradictory, or simply unavailable, the “higher truths” have the field to themselves.

The difference between science and sociology is that science is put to work “on the ground” – usually by engineers. In this way it is “proven” what “truths” are correct. Academia can argue about what can be true with the next scientific discoveries but the layperson will not, and should not, care about these issues until someone wants to put them to work “on the ground”.
This is the reason for the heated discourse on AGW…..people want to implement social changes based on unsupported “truths.”

For the electronics engineers can I suggest another analogy. Real science is like the traditional analogue RF receiver – what comes out is a direct relationship to what goes in. The audio signal out is a causal relationship (+ a bit of internal noise) to the input.
In contrast, Post Normal science, is a bit like a phase locked loop. The “model” is the internal oscillator, which is the model, which is compared to the actual environmental signal as and when available and adjustments made to resync the oscillator to the signal. This is in some senses a “superior” model, because it can cope with low information content subjects – so that e.g. the model of the climate, can be created and compared to available evidence on the climate and adjusted to match – and if you are lucky it can lock into the “real” signal from the environment at much lower signal levels and with better signal to noise.
But as every electronics engineer should know, PLLs also have the characteristic of false locking. They can lock into signals that aren’t there (harmonics) and can give the false impression of representing a reality which isn’t there. This happens because the internal model, continues to have a life of its own and the sparse information from the real climate/signal is insufficient to kick it out of a false mmode into the real mode where the internal model will match the environment.
Add to this the natural tendency to look for evidence to support our worldly viewpoint/group-think rather than looking for evidence to counter our view, and these non-deterministic (i.e. non-scientific) methodologies are highly subject to false paradigms such as the current fad re manmade global warming.

“FaustiesBlog (15:32:42) :
[…]
They will be more devious this time. They will increase their inducements on politicians and the media. They’ll use every trick in the book because they want it so badly. Hell, it’s been 20 years in the making.”
They will be as incompetent and bumbling as the last time.

NickB: “Is it just me or is post-normal science not, as perhaps originally intended to be, an enlightened understanding of the intersections between hard sciences and soft sciences (social science, political science, perhaps a bit of philosophy thrown in for good measure)… but instead be better described as the gang-rape of hard science by the practitioners of the soft sciences?”
Neither. It is science as it must (per Ravetz) be practiced when 1) the “ordinary evidence” (evidence as traditionally understood) is ambiguous, contradictory, or non-existent, and 2) the consequences (for the public) of assuming different answers are great, and thus indicate radically different policies.

Global Warming is not (imho) as big a threat to this planet as CO2 is. We can deal with the warming, however the acidification of the oceans as a result of elevated levels CO@ in the atmosphere will be a much more challenging problem. The book Sea Sick mentions that the worlds oceans will be so acidic by 2038 that the only organism that can srvive in it will be jelly fish. An ocean with no fish in it is way more scary than Jaws.

People talk about science as if it operates in a vaccuum. Scientists are employed by government, industry and academia. and have never been detached from the real world. Scientists must eat. Someone pays their salary and funds their research.
Government is the biggest funder of scientific research. Eisenhower warned of the dangers in his last speech as President. In some science, government is the biggest employer, for example example in Atmospheric Science (climate). Not all of the science that is funded is in the public domain, some of it is classified. During the 60’s when plate tectonics was being debated, much of the data used was classified, and only available to some scientists with security clearance. The internet was created by the military, funded by the government. That which is not classified is not available free of charge to every taxpayer, but is protected by a subscription pay wall.
Research conducted by industry tends to be proprietory, and more applied science than theoretical. Industries also fund some science via academic scientists, but it’s a drop in the bucket compared to government funding. Industries also sponge off government funded science, especially Big pharma, and use such research in product development for new drugs (no discounts available to the tax papers who funded said research).
Academia of course begs for money from government grants, some industry grants, and of course has pressure from those in administration who seek to please those who provide the endowments and rate their universities. Researching an aspect of science that is not popular among the intellectuals and socialists who seek to mold this world in a form as envisioned by Plato is not conducive to a career in acacademia. Government and Industry scientists are also easily silenced as long as they are working for one or the other.
Science has been used to justify child labour, unsafe working conditions, to confirm the safety of lead and asbestos, to deny contamination of Polio vaccines with SV-40 from monkeys kidneys, to deny that bacteria could cause ulcers, to deny plate tectonic theory (first proposed in 1911), etc.
The concept of the democratization of science is interesting. I suppose it could mean that scientists should be given the freedom of speech without having to worry about all of the above (money and career). It should relate to peer review. I mean, could a scientist like Einstein working as a patent officer get his papers published on special relativity and quantum theory. I doubt it. He debunked a wildly popular theory at the time about the Aether, saying only that it was not needed for his theories (no proof offered).
Having anonymous peer reviewers is a great way to silence those speaking an inconvenient truth. There was no peer review in Einsteins day until later in his career when he challenged the popular view of quantum mechanics. He had a paper rejected in 1937 and was furious, saying I sent my paper to you to be published, not to be reviewed by other scientists first (stealing of others ideas was well established back in the day, and delays in publication were a concern). Peer review is a modern practice, popular only in the late 20th century. Science did quite well before peer review.
Einstein was one of those scientists who did not perform any laboratory work, and had to outsource his math. He and other scientists performed thought experiments, others collected data via experiments, some did both. Kind of like what computer modellers do when you think of it. They cherry pick some data collected by others, make some reasonable or unreasonable assumptions, program the math and use the big brain that is computer power to determine outcome. If outcome not what is desired, adjust data, assumptions and algorithms, wash, rinse, repeat . This especially works when the output or theory can not be disproven easily, at least not for 30 years or so.
It was skeptics who refined Einsteins theories, corrected some errors, and made improvements over the following decades. They never did accept his justified concerns about the spookiness of Bohrs Quantum Mechanics, so today Science is content to construct a world view of probabilities (percentage, or using words like IPCC’s very likely).
When there is public debate on science, it is due to one reason. That the science is going to be used as justification to regulate someone or something, which will cause reduced profits, or higher taxes, supposedly for the public good. But as JP Morgan once said, you must have 2 reasons for everything, a good reason (public good), and the real reason (wink, wink). Scientists can be found to support any position, and the silencing of scientists with opposing views is quite simple, as already explained.

Ahhh yes, I can see it now: “The relationship between velocity and acceleration is not acceptable to me, because I do not understand calculus. It is too complex for me, the common man. So, since my point of view is just as valid as someone who understands calculus, I now demand that the relationship between velocity and acceleration now be… purple. That is acceptable to me.”
I hear the Dark Ages gearing-up for them comeback!

15 March: Business Week: Bloomberg: Simon Lomax: EPA Studying Own Carbon-Trading System, Official Says (Update2)
Editors: Richard Stubbe, Charlotte Porter
The existing Clean Air Act “could enable us to include emissions trading” within agency regulations aimed at reducing carbon dioxide and other gases that scientists have linked to climate change, Anna Marie Wood, a senior policy analyst at the EPA, said at an event in Washington hosted by the American Bar Association.
“We’re considering all that right now and thinking about what might make sense,” Wood said. While the agency “strongly prefers” that Congress pass new laws dealing with greenhouse gases, “we think that there’s a lot of progress that can be made using certain tools under the Clean Air Act.”..
The budget request showed the EPA’s interest in carbon trading under existing law and there are “continuing signals from the agency that they’re looking at this and evaluating this internally,” Allan Bedwell, a vice president at CantorCO2e, the emission markets unit of Cantor Fitzgerald LP, said in a telephone interview…
A “cautious and responsible approach” by EPA officials today will help the agency fend off court challenges from groups that oppose any future carbon trading regulation, he said.
“The stakes are big, and when the stakes are big, these issues get litigated, even if there’s a fairly small chance of success,” Cannon (Jonathan Cannon, a University of Virginia School of Law professor and former EPA general counsel during the Clinton administration) said..
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-03-15/epa-studying-own-carbon-trading-system-official-says-update1-.html

For me, the concept of “Post Normal Science” is an anathema. And I am not overly fond of the term “Normal Science” either. In general, I prefer the simple label “Science” which has its opposite, “Non-science”.
I do not doubt that “Post Normal Science” should be placed squarely in the “Non-Science” category. The core of scientific impulse is to be found in the act of each individual apply logic and reason to problems by (and for) his or her-self. Since PNS seems to be some form of bureaucratised “group think”, I fail to see how it can lay claim to the moniker “Science”.

I do not know what the arguments are in these essays. Lots of really big words that dont seem to make sense. I heard Warren Buffet say that writing should be clear and straightforward. He said when he reads something over and over and cant figure out what it means, he realizes that the author is purposely trying to make it hard to understand. What poor writers these fellows are! Ravetz particularly.
I cannot define “post-normal” science after reading the essays. Nor can I define “normal” science. I dont know what it means when the other author insists that science should be “normative.” Nor do I know what he means when he says that science must be “self reflexive.”
What happened to replication and the good ol scientific method? And to keeping accurate notes and measurments?? And honest statistics? And searching for a theory that explains data which is actually observed? Lets get that right before jabbering on about….whatever they are jabbering about.
I felt a little dumb until I re-read the same paragraphs of Ravetz’s essay about 4 times and realized the guy is full of it, and full of himself. I have no idea whether I agree with his point, since I have no idea what his point is. I am astounded that anybody listens to him.

Ray Hudson (17:26:20) :
Ahhh yes, I can see it now: “The relationship between velocity and acceleration is not acceptable to me, because I do not understand calculus. It is too complex for me, the common man. So, since my point of view is just as valid as someone who understands calculus, I now demand that the relationship between velocity and acceleration now be… purple. That is acceptable to me.”>>
The problem here, is NOT the common man demanding that the relationship be “purple”. The problem is he who understands calculus CLAIMING that it is purple (when it isn’t), warning of disaster happening because of purple (but it doesn’t) refusing to explain what data and evidence justified purple (and getting caught making it up) and never the less, trying to stampede the common man who doesn’t understand calculus and so is presumed to be unable to determine that the calculus isn’t actually calculus, into solving purple by giving up massive quantities of green.
This isn’t a return to the dark ages. The dark ages was suppression of science to maintain power. This is the elevation of purple to obtain power.

Brilliant, I’m glad to see a rebuttle of Ravetz given a full post which is so well done. The whole point of the scientific methodology is that scientists can submit themsleves to it as slaves and not masters. The idea of the scietific method being slaves to peoples opinions of acceptability is unacceptable scientific practice and can be likened to manufacturing results.

Peter B
A caveat to my agreement if you will… I do not necessarilly think the soft sciences have inflicted this upon the hard sciences because of spite, or any other intentionally nefarious reason. I think instead, it is probably more easily and readily explained as good intention. With a soft science – take economics – it’s quite easy to interject your political or other activist leanings into your work. It’s the status quo, an expected part of your work.
I think it’s quite likely that many see the softening of the hard sciences (although when it comes to climate science, I would argue that until proven otherwise it should be categorized as softer than economics) as a good thing – as an improvement.
/sarcon – When that rusty old scientific method isn’t giving the right answers, and you’re confident you’re right anyway just go for it. Advocacy and hard science, it’s ok to mix them up… you’re saving the planet after all. You’re a hero! /sarcoff

I read the whole thing; so many words were sacrificed to say nothing at all. It was nearly meaningless. The best I could distill from it was “Scientists do important stuff that affects us all so it’s important for us to tell them how to do their stuff.” Did I get that right?
Balderdash!
Scientists offer a plausible underlying principle to explain why and predict how observable things interact in our universe. The principle is the iterative result of experimental and theoretical scientists. The first presents a dilemma or contradiction of accepted knowledge that draws the attention of a theoretician. The theoretician integrates the new disparities and offers a novel explanation that accounts for old knowledge and new. The experimental scientist then tests the new theory against what’s observable to find flaws in the new idea. If the new idea holds, engineers, entrepreneurs and policy makers become involved to exploit the new idea.
This shouldn’t need reciting. It’s old-hat scientific method and it has worked for over 500 years now.
What we have with Climategate is a complete mess. The CRU crew et al became experimental and theoretical “researchers” and policy makers all rolled up into one. They short-circuited the experimental-theoretician separation; they merged both responsibilities into one. The price was the competition between the two that has kept science honest disappeared. There is nothing like an experimental scientist in bed with a theoretical one when they are the same person.:-)
Worse, these scientific conjoined-twins added a policy-making entity to become the world’s first conjoined-triplets. An unproven theory validated by cooked experimental data revealed a consequence so dire it required drastic action. Kind of like a sci-fi B-movie where the lone scientist saves the world. A comic book scientist action hero has to act after all.
Along comes Professor Jerome Ravetz, a cultural relativist from the soft sciences who cannot believe what happened was a failure of character in a few dozen “scientists”. Rather than seeing the resulting carnage as a cleansing process, he wants to incorporate bad science into “post-normal science”. He thinks he has discovered something.
Bad science is bad science. Professor Ravetz doesn’t realize it should be expelled instead of being incorporated. I don’t think we need the good professor’s help in reshaping science.
I wonder how Einstein would have fared were it a Newtonian “post-normal science” world at the beginning of the 20th century.

davidmhoffer
I think I’d like to start with a quick kudos for your always interesting comments. There are lots of folks here that deserve a shout out, maybe I can make the rounds (DirkH, you’re my main man in Deutschland!) but back on topic…
I find your reworked quote by Arthur C. Clarke immensely compelling. Computer models and statistics really have become our modern “magic”. They have removed the need for objective, emperical analyses and that rusty old scientific method. Who needs chicken bones when computers can tell us the future?
What the uninformed observer misses when they hear about the latest supercomputers, neural nets, and GCMs is that there is nothing special or magical going on in that black box. If anything, I’d say it makes us more prone to error since it obfuscates the relationships and underlying theories. Similarly, statistical methods are all also easy to game, especially when you make up the rules as you go along.
I think it’s safe to say with either, if you go looking for “the right answer” you’ll be able to find it. Having a computer or statistical analysis confirm the overstatements, overconfidence, and specious theories of the person programing it is no great trick – yet there is still a part of us that yearns for an oracle to tell us “great truths” that we might not trust otherwise. It is our “magic”

Paul,
Religion is part and essence of being human. Where did the Golden Rule come from? You cannot ban religion anymore than you can ban people from exhaling CO2. Vigilance entails being watchful for seeing religion masquerading as science and knowing the difference.

OK, I’ll just say it. I find the article insulting. Why not attempt to communicate with people instead of just throwing out long convoluted sentences? Does the author believe putting out stuff like that makes him seem intelligent or educated?
The actual semantic content could be written in two short paragraphs. Putting out crap like that tells me that he does not respect his audience enough to bother using plain language. He is simply trying to dazzle people with his erudition.
Perhaps that is probably the real summation of “Post Normal Science.” Simple hard facts don’t matter any more. Just dazzle ’em with crap.

Paul Z – did you mean Asimov’s Foundation series and that Ravetz is the forbear of Hari Seldon?

NickB: “. . . the end result is that it gives supposedly hard scientists the license to interject their beliefs and value systems on their scientific conclusions, and to more or less reject basic tenants of the scientific method when it suits them.”
I fully agree. Deciding policy when evidence is absent or inconclusive is tough enough; when scientists present their own subjective preferences as “evidence,” or minimize the uncertainties in whatever real evidence they may offer, or when politicians cite them as evidence, they increase the risk of a bad decision, by parading or accepting as evidence something which is not. They need to stick to scientific method and let others ponder the policy responses.

Leif Svalgaard
“It is a fallacy to believe that morality springs from religion. Many adherents to religions would happily slit the throat of non-believers, given [some, seeking] the chance”
Henry@Leif
You forget that the basic principle of life in Islam and Judaism is: an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, which is why the violence never stops.
Jesus teaches: if someone hits you on the cheek, show him the other….love your enemies, do good to those who persecute you, etc. That is quite the opposite.
In the end, I believe religion and science are two roads that (should) lead to the same thing: the truth.

Regarding the Precautionary Principle. One might do worse than read up on it again. By President Obama’s Regulatory Czar:
Sunstein, Cass R. “Throwing precaution to the wind: Why the ‘safe’ choice can be dangerous.” boston.com – The Boston Globe, July 13, 2008.
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2008/07/13/throwing_precaution_to_the_wind
Main point: “Yet the precautionary principle, for all its rhetorical appeal, is deeply incoherent. It is of course true that we should take precautions against some speculative dangers. But there are always risks on both sides of a decision; inaction can bring danger, but so can action. Precautions, in other words, themselves create risks – and hence the principle bans what it simultaneously requires.”
…
“In the context of climate change, precautions are certainly a good idea. But what kinds of precautions? A high tax on carbon emissions would impose real risks – including increased hardship for people who can least afford it and very possibly increases in unemployment and hence poverty. A sensible climate change policy balances the costs and benefits of emissions reductions. If the policy includes costly (and hence risk-creating) precautions, it is because those precautions are justified by their benefits.
…
“The nations of the world should take precautions, certainly. But they should not adopt the precautionary principle.”
On-Line:
Sunstein, Cass R. Beyond The Precautionary Principle. Working Paper #38. Public Law and Legal Theory. University of Chicago, January 2003.
http://www.law.uchicago.edu/academics/publiclaw/resources/38.crs.precautionary.pl-lt.pdf
Does this seem familiar? Just for the fun of it, compare the Laws of Fear (#1 – #5) to journals and newspaper articles associated with “Global Warming” and “Climate Change”.
Sunstein, Cass R. Laws of Fear: Beyond the Precautionary Principle. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2005.
“This is a book about the complex relationship between fear, danger, and the law. Cass Sunstein looks afresh at the precautionary principle, and at the idea that regulators should take steps to protect against potential harms, even if causal chains are uncertain and even if we do not know that harms are likely to come to fruition. However Professor Sunstein argues that in its strongest forms the precautionary principle is both incoherent and potentially paralysing, as risks exist on all sides of social situations, and he demonstrates that in practice such a principle can only operate because different cultures focus on different risks, and that there is no ‘general’ precautionary principle as such. This is a very important insight for the contemporary world, and Laws of Fear represents a major statement from one of the most influential political and legal theorists writing today.”
Notes:
Adopted Broadly (Pg 17)
“In February 2000, the Precautionary Principle was explicitly adopted in a communication by the European Commission, together with implementing guidelines. The Precautionary Principal even appears in the draft Constitution for the European Union….”
Pg 35, #1: Availability Heuristic:
“making some risks seem especially likely to come to fruition whether or not they actually are;”
Pg 35, #2: Probability Neglect:
“…leading people to focus on the worst case, even if it is highly improbable:”
Pg 35, #3: Loss Aversion:
“… making people dislike losses from the status quo;”
Pg 35, #4: Benevolence of Nature:
“a belief in the benevolence of nature, making man-made decisions and processes seem especially suspect;”
Pg 35, #5: System Neglect:
“… understood as a inability to see that risks are part of systems, and that interventions into those systems can create risks of their own.”
Sounds like a plan to me; a game plan, that is. I do not blame blame Cass Sunstein, however. Anyone’s work can be misused.

Leif Svalgaard (22:15:11) : “Radical Islam, perhaps…
It is a fallacy to believe that morality springs from religion. Many adherents to religions would happily slit the throat of non-believers, given [some, seeking] the chance.”
That is as gross, prejudiced, unscientific, and bigoted statement if there ever was one, Leif. For shame!
Your comparison to the violent Wahhabism to….for example….Episcopalians…is just insane.
I don’t see any throat-slitting going on at the National Cathedral in DC. On the contrary…to the extreme!
This is your achilles heel. Your all-or-nothing statements show that you do not pay attention to nuance.
[Excepted: nuance in solar physics and science…]…but your religious prejudices are outstandingly visceral, emotional, and lacking real world data.
Especially in regards to the less violent forms: Last time I checked…there weren’t any Presbyterians trying to bomb supermarkets.
Rather….they were harboring Classical music concerts in their architecturally significant structures…and other such evil stuff.
Also…last time I checked….many of the hospitals and the centers of learning in the third world…were started by well-meaning religious institutions.
Ever research the Jesuits?
And by the way, the Golden Rule is a good way to treat others. It is the diametric opposite of what is seen in Wahhabism nonsense.
Granted, given the track record of religious history, it is pretty bloody.
But that does not discredit the more peaceful and truth-loving religious forces, who have achieved much good and advancement the world, down through the ages.
Please stop painting with such a broad brush. It is anti-intellectual, and takes away from your respected platform!
Regards,
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA

When I was growing up in the 1930’s & 40’s, my friends and I were always taught the Golden Rule at home and school. It was simple and natural to understand that “you wouldn’t want anyone to treat you badly….etc.” That was it. No religion ever in public school in Chicago and Los Angeles. (No “Under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance either, until it was inserted during the Mc Carthy hysteria.) The “bad” kids tended to be at parochial schools.

savethesharks (22:56:01) :
“That is as gross, prejudiced, unscientific, and bigoted statement if there ever was one, Leif. For shame!”
The observation that religion is capable of good things (savethesharks) doesn’t mean that morality springs from religion. Nor is the fact that adherents to religion are capable of the worst (Leif’s observation) a good argument to falsify the same.
Religion is just irrelevant when is comes to innate human characteristics of which morality forms part.

Creationists are already using the failed AGW hypothesis as ‘proof’ that science and scientists doesn’t hold the truth. When the dam really bursts (after a few more years of flattened or reduced temps) then science will REALLY be damaged – as I predicted back in 2003 on a BBC forum.

Jeremy Young had a long and enlightening post in Tipsy Notes a few days ago on the subject of this thread. I would like to see Jeremy re-post it here in full. If you are reading this, Jeremy, I hope you will.
If not, it can be read here: Tips & Notes — Jeremy Young (21:46:06)
I liked this quote within it (in context):

“If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I have stood on the shoulders of giants.”

— Sir Isaac Newton

davidmhoffer (18:54:36) :
“This isn’t a return to the dark ages. The dark ages was suppression of science to maintain power. This is the elevation of purple to obtain power.”
YES, purple is the new green!

“NORMATIVE: A “norm” is “a standard, model, or pattern regarded as typical” (American Heritage English Dictionary). A process is said to be “normative” when it results in bringing atypical patterns in line with typical ones. Socialization, for example, is often a normative process, as it involves bringing social pressures to bear on behavior that is considered unusual. ”
So how is science normative? By twisting the data until it fits the model?
Somebody please explain.