People send me things. Here’s one from today’s mail. It is a response by Dr. Jaap Hanekamp to the essays by Oxford Professor Jerome Ravetz carried here on WUWT recently.
Dr. Ravetz’s first posting on WUWT created quite a controversey. You can read it here:
Climategate: Plausibility and the blogosphere in the post-normal age.
and Part 2 here:
Hi AnthonyWith great interest we read Ravetz’ essay on WUWT and the discussions that followed.Now at climategate.nl (which contrary to climategate.com is alive and kicking 🙂 we also have posted an extensive reaction in English which we hope can clarify some of the problems with Ravetz’s hypothesis of post-normal science.
Jaap Hanekamp, the author, is publishing a lot about the precautionary principle. He is a chemist and also a teacher of chemistry and science philosophy at the Roosevelt Academy in Middelburg. – Marcel Crok
The democratization of science, instead of reductionism, is the method of Ravetz’s choice to move forward with science. Because of the many technological and scientific risks we are exposed to according to Ravetz and many with him, particular directions in scientific and social inquiry, because of their ostensible positive social, political, and environmental outcomes, should be favoured. Put differently, scientific inquiry, at the same time, should be explanatory, normative, practical and self-reflexive.
Therefore, ‘an argument is cogent for an audience if, according to standards that audience would deem on reflection to be relevant, the premises are acceptable and in the appropriate way sufficient to support the conclusion.’ (Boger, G. 2005. Subordinating Truth–Is Acceptability Acceptable? Argumentation 19: 187 – 238) Ideally, this acceptability approach should empower people with capacities to reason critically and to assess sharply the conflicting (scientific) argumentations that play an important role in their lives. The UK government’s inquiry into the purported adverse health effects of mobile phones for instance, concluded that in future ‘non-peer reviewed papers and anecdotal evidence should be taken into account’ as part of the process for reaching decisions on these matters (Mobile Phones and Health. 2000. Independent Expert Group On Mobile Phones, National Radiological Protection Board, Didcot, p. 102.)
Even if one were to agree, in a preliminary sense, with the acceptability approach as democratically laudable and worthy of effort, given the wide divergence of audiences and participants not sharing a common interest, resolving an argument’s validity on the basis of acceptability of premises and acceptable inferential links embedded in a given value-based context will in all likelihood inexcusably favour the stronger of the ‘disputants’ and place the weaker at a decided disadvantage. Thus, if we are to excise external authority (as previously hypostatised in the notion of God, by the way) that is thought to frustrate democratisation of the scientific discourse and thereby subverts the cause of justice, then the acceptability requirement re-imposes another, but hidden, authority that it sought to eliminate, namely the will to power.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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!
I’ve learned so much in the last 5 years watching the Global Warming science back-and-forth between scientists and sceptics. My conclusion thus far is that they are in fact teaching us how to identify social engineering and memory adjustments. It has been a long fought psychological warfare with some of the biggest and most power names and positions toppling from their own weight, Pachauri and Gore to name but two.
Any layman who has been following the science out of curiosity or other interest will have identified the common arguments for and against, and that the AGW proponents usually use social/moral arguments for their case rather than science as we understand it (with errors and unknowns qualified).
I think they have taught us better than they realise.
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.
What’s about to come out of my mouth is admittedly crass (if you want to snip maybe snip the whole thing – no worries mods) but I’m not sure I can properly phrase the thought any other way:
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?
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
Thus, if we are to excise external authority (as previously hypostatised in the notion of God, by the way) that is thought to frustrate democratisation of the scientific discourse and thereby subverts the cause of justice, then the acceptability requirement re-imposes another, but hidden, authority that it sought to eliminate, namely the will to power.
Translation: “If the actual results do not support our position, we will ignore them and ask for consensus, and if the consensus isn’t in our favor, we will declare that it is — because we can.”
Much like the current Democrat position of not voting on health care — errr — health insurance reform, but deeming that a vote would be favorable, and therefore, unnecessary.
Re RickA (14:33:03) :
That is a sign of your clairity of thought sir.
Could people add some constructive comments here:
http://www.acfonline.org.au/articles/news.asp?news_id=2709
It’s a David Suzuki Foundation acticle, being pushed by the ACF.
It has a working comments section and the first and only comment is heavily sceptical.
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
“NickB. (14:51:25) :
[…]
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?”
I think your thought is best answered with this:
“Addressing these questions requires Tyndall to carry out research within an integrating institutionalframework that: (i) facilitates an infusion of different disciplinary methods to offer new approaches and insights; (ii) applies integrated modelling techniques to contribute to understanding the issues; and (iii) engages academia and wider society to ensure Tyndall research continues to be scientifically, socially, politically and economically robust.”
Source:
http://www.tyndall.ac.uk/About/Tyndall-Transition-Period-2009-2010
(couldn’t help myself from looking at Mr. SuperPostNormalMan’s Fortress Of Darkness)
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.
Can’t fool me; I’m too ignorant.
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.
I didn’t quite follow the posting and the intent of the story. I must be tired.
BJ
Post Normal Science is kinda like Post Normal Legislation as we are seeing today with the Democrat’s manipulation of the rules of how to pass a bill. Deem it so, and it will be so.
Democratisation of science is science by consensus. Exactly the sort of manipulative, social engineering crap we’ve had for the past 20 years.
They do it in small steps at a time – boiling the frog slowly.
Lord Monckton warned of the peril democracy and freedom (and you can bet, science) will be in when Copenhagen II kicks off in Bonn in April.
http://bit.ly/98KAB5
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 might even clamp down on bloggers. They might use the secret ACTA treaty to do it (see the ACTA label on my blog).
So can I please ask you all to post Monckton’s warning on your blogs, social networking sites, newspaper comments, forums – everywhere? Ask top bloggers to do the same?
Our democracies and freedoms are perilously close to being lost.
“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.”…
Man has something to do with it alright…bad data records and techniques as well as concrete jungles.
To paraphrase Sen. Lindsey Graham – People are getting tired of this “post-normal science” crap!
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”.
above last paragraph missing a sentence
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”. The presumption is that the “science” is so far beyond the common person that both must appear to be magic, and decisions made in favour of plausible explanation and social acceptance rather than fact and proof.
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.
We do not need science to be governed by a new set of risk aversity rules. By its very nature it is a step into the unknown, you can’t do that honestly without taking risks.
Secondly I’m not sure we need science to be anymore explanatory, normative, practical and self-reflexive. The marketisation of science has already forced scientists to think “can I patent this” with every new development. The real breakthroughs in science aren’t made by those who apply the science to real world problems but those doing the blue sky thinking (and this from an applied scientist).
There has been a long term drive to bring science out of it’s ivory towers into democratic scutiny. The IPCC is maybe the lastest example of forcing scientist to get involved with the real world. Maybe we should just let them back in their towers to do what they do best.
Labs are like abattoirs. You really don’t need to see the processes that go on inside. Just appreciate the end product.
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.
I think Dr. Revetz chose a bad name for his concept: Post Normal Science. Most of his essay was about policy dispute, so he ought to have called it “Public Policy Disputes”.
You don’t have to believe that you will die next year or suffer a calamitous loss, in order to buy insurance, and you don’t have to believe that GHG-caused global warming is certain in order to promote a prudent response to a possible threat. There is enough evidence for AGW that the Netherlands might be prudent to build its seawalls higher; I doubt it would be prudent for Chile to redirect much of its earthquake-related resources toward AGW reduction, though even Chile needs more non-fossil fuel-based energy.
Except for that, Revetz’ two essays were ok.
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.”