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.
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.
To get along, it is indeed the case that one must keep quiet and acquiesce to prevailing opinions, even if you know that hard data does not back up prevailing opinions.
To be chastised, it is indeed the case that one must speak up against prevailing opinions, when you know that hard raw data and pristine observation does not back up prevailing opinions. It is also often the case at my place of work, that prevailing opinions are flavored with group think processes. To wit, I am often chastised.
C02 and solar variances (each with their own group think fans) as a major driver of climate would fit right into these scenarios.
And so do IQ tests. Cognitive assessments are still a major source of labeling in special education circles. However, each instrument has its set of biases. Some are biased regarding motor issues. Some are biased regarding communication issues. Some are biased regarding symbolic processing issues. Some are biased regarding memory issues. Some are biased regarding academic experience issues. etc. Which is the point.
Bias is the major pitfall of all scientific research endeavors, leads the way to group think mistakes, and must be guarded against at all costs. And since we ALL have biases, in what ways are you biased?
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
We also need to avoid confusing post normal science with out-of-the-box thinking. Leif would like to throw them together, but they are vastly different and while OOTB thinking typically produces a small percentage of breakthroughs, it is still a valuable tool.
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.
I haven’t seen so many disjointed thoughts and commas per sentence since Alan Sokal submitted a hoax article to “Social Text” Any article with post-_____ , (fill in the blank), in it has about as much value as an environmental paper with “may” or “might” in the title.
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”
With AGW, science has finally become religion. Reminds me of Arthur C. Clarke’s Foundation series.
The problem is, religions keep people apart. I think it’s time to ban religions (not culture) and replace them with individualized codes of living based on the Golden Rule.
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.
Contrarian
Agreed that my definition of PNS was not accurate, but I think you might have missed my point in general and specific to the second half of the statement (i.e. the meat and potatoes).
All one has to do is say “alarm, drastic consequences, FUD!” and all of a sudden all the rules for normal (hard) science go out the window and there is license to do just about anything… as long as it’s in service of that greater good (or “truth”) as you put it.
The effect, where the rubber meets the road, the practical application, however you want to put it… is what I was trying to get at. Whatever it was intended to be, however noble (assuming noble intent of course – which is not necessarilly a given) 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 would hope that’s not what the guys who came up with this stuff had in mind, but it doesn’t really matter what was intended does it… if that’s what we’ve got?
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.
Richard M (19:17:39) :
We also need to avoid confusing post normal science with out-of-the-box thinking. Leif would like to throw them together, but they are vastly different
Out-of-the-box thinking can only be done if your are in the box and know what the box and its limits are. So, pseudo-science is not OOTB-thinking. As far PNS is concerned, that is just junk and undesirable in principle, so if they think out of their box, they are liable to get even further away from reliable science.
Lots of great posts tonight – some of my favorites :
Mike Haseler (16:30:28) :
Nice – that one “resonated: with me
ayeronman (17:07:37) :
If this were true, I would agree – but I havent seen an data that it is (or will be) true.
Ray Hudson (17:26:20) :
Also well stated – there ARE absolutes, regardless of PNS & whether we understand or comprehend those absolutes, they still exist.
Sorry, the writer lost me with this:
“Facts are never in dispute, otherwise they would not be called facts, but one can of course posit a factual issue, that is ask questions about the reality we live in and through research try to elucidate some facts about that specific reality. ”
Now read that sentence carefully.
Paul Z – did you mean Asimov’s Foundation series and that Ravetz is the forbear of Hari Seldon?
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.
The truth is that many people have confused the issue of ACGW with the issue of unclean fuel and insufficient combustion.
Carbon dioxide (CO2) is good for life and and more of it will stimulate crop- and forest growth. I am still waiting for someone to prove to me that CO2 is in fact a greenhouse gas (CHG) – that is to say – the the net effect in the atmosphere is warming rather than cooling.
SO2 and CO and other contaminants in the fuel and from the combustion process is what makes us feel bad, even at relatively low concentrations. So we have to concentrate on getting cleaner fuels and better combustion processes.
AGW as such is a complete non-issue.
look here:http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/13/congenital-climate-abnormalities/
The other evening, I left retirement from my career of finding new ore deposits. I left for long enough to have a post-normal reflection about our past work and how we might do better in future work.
My new understanding of post-normal science caused me to recommend to myself that I consider a new investigation of philosophies and methods that we had rejected three or four decades ago because of the simple, rudimentary conventional wisdom of the time. So I did that. Gradually, a green phosphorescence seemed to illuminate the room and I felt the sweet smell of success.
It is with great excitement that I now announce that I have in my mind, the world’s first post-normal, virtual ore discovery. I am certain that it will be highly profitable; but unfortunately, I do not know where it is.
That is not an impediment. I will claim the next new discovery as my own, no matter who finds it or how or where. I have just announced it here, so do not be surprised. You can send me cash to share in it if you wish to get rich quick.
After all, it’s proper thought that convinces the masses. Who needs the truth of numerical evidence?
Hank Hancock: “In very simple terms, I see post-normal science as being consensus built shortcuts aimed at accepting a view or solution to an issue too complex to be presently understood and thought to require immediate action.”
More precisely, it applies to issues where there is structural uncertainty and one of the conceivable scenarios *does* require immediate action. And because of the structural uncertainty, the probability of that “disastrous” outcome cannot be quantified in any rigorous way. In those cases, “do nothing” may well not be the optimum policy. Trying to decide what is the optimum policy in such situations is precisely the problem.
Ravetz’s position seems to be: when the evidence need to decide among policies is lacking, and insufficient even to estimate probabilities of various outcomes, policy must be based on risk aversion, not evidence. That is entirely subjective, of course, but when objective criteria are absent, subjective ones are all that is left. And if the issue is one which affects large numbers of the public, then their subjective assessments are as valid as those of experts. Technical expertise is redundant when there is no evidence to assess, and the subjective feelings of experts are worth no more than those of the *hoi polloi*.
“Extended peer review” has another advantage, of course. As you mentioned, it can sometimes uncover evidence or introduce approaches which the “establishment” has overlooked. That is why software companies do beta testing — it always uncovers bugs and glitches the in-house experts have overlooked.
Mariss Freimanis (20:21:09) :
Religion is part and essence of being human. Where did the Golden Rule come from?
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.
Oh yeah, sorry I meant Asimov, slip of the neuron there. I was thinking more of how a so called science ends up becoming a religion but in actual fact is nothing more than a pseudoscience like astrology which everybody pins the fate of their entire existence upon. Sounds like AGW to me.
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.
steven mosher (20:57:43) :
Sorry, the writer lost me with this:
“Facts are never in dispute, otherwise they would not be called facts, but one can of course posit a factual issue, that is ask questions about the reality we live in and through research try to elucidate some facts about that specific reality. ”
Now read that sentence carefully>>
Its another PNS reversal. We used to be entitled to our own opinions, not our own facts. In the PNS world, we are entitled to both our own opinions and our own facts. It is our own reality that we are not entitled to. For that shall be provided for us by those who know what is best for all of us. Armed with their opinions, formed of their facts, they shall thrust their reality upon us. For though it may just be a “trick” for some, for others it is the culmination of years of study of magic, which has advanced sufficently to become indistinguishable from science.
In the PNS world, communism works. In the real world it fails. In the PNS world, I make no spelling errors, it is the world that spells wrongly, not me. In the real world, I can barely spell four letter words correctly. In the PNS world a climate disaster awaits us unless we transfer vast wealth from “rich” to “poor”. In the real world…
In the real world there’s a whole bunch of climate scientists staring angrily at their falling reputations and thermometer readings. And though they may not say so aloud, in their minds the words reverbrate…
“Reality Sucks”
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.
Steve Mosher: “Sorry, the writer lost me with this:
“Facts are never in dispute, otherwise they would not be called facts, but one can of course posit a factual issue, that is ask questions about the reality we live in and through research try to elucidate some facts about that specific reality. ”
“Now read that sentence carefully.”
Poorly phrased, I agree. What he meant was, “If a proposition P is accepted as a fact, then it will not be in dispute. I.e., “facts” are those propositions which we accept as true, and thus are not in dispute. If there is no agreement that P is true, then we do not call P a “fact.” It is an hypothesis, which may become a fact if certain further evidence is forthcoming.
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.