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.
Mariss, I respect people who believe in their faith and act accordingly. I think that every individual is spiritual and should answer directly to the source of their spirituality. Why use a middleman? Religion is a middle man, nothing more. Why not call direct?
The Golden Rule came down to us from the great teachers like Jesus, Confucius, Buddha, et al but the funny thing is, they never advocated organized religion, they just wanted to free peoples’ consciousness. Organized religion is a human construct, used by the elite to control the masses. This is what I am totally against. Because traditional religions are no longer as effective in the West, they had to invent this new pseudoscience-based religion of AGW. And all the spiritually empty people turned hungrily to environmentalism to fill the lack of meaning in their lives.
We already have rule of law, so why the need for religion? Let each person have his or her own personal spiritual creed based on the Golden Rule, and put an end to organized religion which keeps getting hijacked by those in power. Unfortunately, too many wolves in sheep’s clothing on this planet, using religion to control and push their own nefarious agendas.
I have a message for everyone out there: You don’t need organized religion to talk to God. If you believe in a Higher Power, God, The Universe, etc. than talk to God everyday direct (I do) because it helps. Look at it another way: If I told you I had an imaginary friend called Joe, you’d think I was crazy. Then, I ask you, what is God?
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
Leif 17.49.
I am a joe public, and started reading these blogs last summer when i saw a msm media story about the solar min. You soon learn to weed out the opinion science.
Oh, and by the way, we always had a rule here in england when down the pub.
NO politics or relgion. A very good rule in my h.op
ScienceForTruth revealed this for what it is – a justification of the corruption of science by propaganda and advocacy. Democratisation is politicisation and an excuse to depart from the evidence-base.
However, I am not yet convinced that SFT has the link with Schneider right in his comments under the first Ravetz post. It is not so much a licence to bend the truth but rather it is used to support a move to dismiss sceptical arguments as not over the evidence-base but as motivated and value-based. I have not found this explicit in Schneider, but it is in complete sympathy with what he does: hey, those sceptic are arguing the science but it is not about the science, but it is that they disagree with us on how to act on the risk (that they refuse to acknowledge) and because they dont share our (environmental) values. PNS is also in sympathy with –it explains — Mike Hulme’s curious book, Why we disagree about C C. We disagree because of differing values — it is not a disagreement in a dispute over interpretation of the evidence.
This position is most outrageous explicit in Mike Hulme’s Guardian article of 2007. See more about this and the affinities of PNS with neo-Marxist social theory in my post here.
savethesharks (22:56:01) :
Ever research the Jesuits?
Or the Spanish Inquisition….
Granted, given the track record of religious history, it is pretty bloody.
Right up to the present day and beyond, I’m afraid.
there weren’t any Presbyterians trying to bomb supermarkets
Just milk factories in Sudan and markets in Iraq, and the occasional wedding in Afghanistan…or perhaps that was a different sect?
But that does not discredit the more peaceful and truth-loving religious forces
So you are saying that some religions [yours?] are better than others. Isn’t that the bigotry?
What I was saying was that morality does not spring from religion. That religion has no monopoly on morality. And that over history, as you said, religion was pretty bloody and will continue to be so.
And that religion has no place in science, no matter who believes what. This was not always the accepted view. One could argue the other way, that science is the medium by which one discovers and admires [for better to be able to worship] Her handiwork that we inhabit. That I don’t personally subscribe to that view does not mean that I denigrate it.
[REPLY – Don’t get me started. I fully agree with you about keeping religion out of science, but I deplore the moral equivocation. There is no reasonable comparison between the way the west wages war (i.e., extreme avoidance of civilian targets to the extent we suffer many otherwise needless casualties) and the deliberate targeting of noncombatants by ununiformed, illegal combatants.
Why do we not settle on keeping science and religion in separate cages and dispense with the politics? ~ Evan]
One could argue that religion driven ‘science’ education [Kansas comes to mind] is very much in line with the tenets of PNS, so we are right on topic.
All this talk about PNS and “democratization of science” reminds me of a very old Soviet-era Russian joke…
Chairman of the Examination Committee asks:
“Ivanov! How much is 2 + 2?”
Ivanov: “Five!”
Chairman: “Think again?”
Ivanov: “Five!”
Chairman writes down: “True Russian, firm in his convictions.”
Chairman asks:
“Petrov! How much is 2 + 2?”
Petrov: “Five!”
Chairman: “Think again?”
Petrov: “Well… Three!”
Chairman writes down: “True Russian, demonstrates adaptability.”
Chairman asks:
“Sidorov! How much is 2 + 2?”
Sidorov: “Four!”
Chairman: “Think again?”
Sidorov: “How can it be otherwise? Is this a joke?”
Chairman writes down: “Refer his case to KGB; check his ancestry.”
On the other hand, as R. A. Heinlein was fond of saying, “most “scientists” are bottle washers and button sorters.”
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.
Leif Svalgaard (22:15:11) : “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.”
The second sentence of this statement is certainly true (note that our Ubiquitous Leif says “many” but not “all”).
The first sentence strikes a discord in many ways. I would like to believe, for example, in the evolutionary origin of “morality”; unfortunately, evolutionary psychology and sociology are in such an embryonic state that nobody could call them “sciences” with a straight face.
Not to mention that a definition of “morality” per se varies wildly, depending on the definer.
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.
Religion is not needed in the conduct of science.
Science is not needed in the conduct of religion.
So why mix them?
End.
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.
Does the English translation come with a translation into English as well please? Example: ‘The cat sat on the mat’.
Or should I wait for the movie? I have a hot date coming up…………
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):
— Sir Isaac Newton
Henry@Leif
Leif, you started this. This now becomes another type of lesson…. a lesson in non violence….
Many a war or armed response has been justified by quoting the Bible from Matthew 10:34 and at a first glance it does look like Jesus contradicts himself here.
I have found contradictions in the writings of many people, and that includes such great people as Luther, Calvin, Moses, the apostle Paul, and other writers. I have always accepted that as normal. We are all fallible human beings – we can make mistakes and the Scriptures clearly teach that none of us mortals are without sin or ignorance. (e.g. Romans 3:23, Hosea 4:6 etc.). I also believe that one must always understand the laws and teachings of the Bible in the time where it was written.. John testifies that Jesus is the Word (John 1:1) and he also says ” For the law was given through Moses but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.” (John 1:17)
For quite some time now I have taken the view that any law or teaching that cannot be brought back to Jesus and His commandment: “Love comes first” must be looked at with suspicion. If you look at it carefully, and if you do not have the Spirit of Jesus in you then you can use the Bible to justify any injustice! In the 1830’s slavery was justified by Mr. Morse (yes, it was indeed the man who invented the Morse Code) by quoting from the Bible! I am sure that everybody now agrees that slavery is darkness. Similarly, during the apartheid era certain rightwing groups used text and verse from the Bible to justify apartheid. It is therefore important to remember that we test every teaching that we hear on the word of Jesus.
But there is no contradiction in anything that Jesus says. Jesus simply predicts that our obedience to Him will cause some people to hate us and this may well disrupt our otherwise peaceful existence.
So, although Jesus brings a message of peace – indeed some of the prophets have most appropriately entitled Him the ‘Prince of Peace’ – the reaction of some people to this peace message could sometimes appear to be quite hostile. Jesus then teaches that we must confront this hostility by showing love for our enemies. I know, this may sound quite naïve but this is a fundamental Christian truth that cannot be ignored. The fight is over. Jesus has crushed death and He has stated quite categorically that he has entered the eternity to prepare a place for us (John 14:2). Therefore death holds no fear for him or her that has faith in Him (1 Cor. 15:54; Isaiah 25:8). And that totally changes our perspective: Why would you take up the sword? (Matt. 26:52) It strikes me now that Jesus made his biggest statement against violence just before he died on the cross. I think that too underlines its importance.
Years ago when I was being confronted with conscription into the army I simply asked His Spirit to guide me in my decision. Shortly after that I woke up with a dream still vivid in my mind: I had seen a battle and in this battle I saw Jesus with an automatic rifle shooting at the soldiers. I was very disturbed by this dream. Almost at the same time I realised: This is not the Jesus that I have come to know! This is exactly the opposite of what He is and what He claims to be. It is interesting to note that even without much knowledge of the Scriptures, I stumbled onto an important truth here and I think it was because I really relied completely on His Spirit to guide me.
If we really want to be like Him, we must disarm ourselves; even if it means having to face death (vs. 52). Not only must we never kill, we may not even hate another person! He is the Samaritan who cares for his enemy. He is the good Shepherd who is really interested in that one person who has gone astray. He, the God of all creation, is prepared to kneel down in front of us and do the job that nobody wanted to do: wash our feet. On the cross, He forgave the criminal whom we had condemned to death. He is the one who prayed for those that killed Him: “Father forgive them for they do not know what they are doing.” This is my God! I want to be like Him. More and more. If this is the truth then I must accept that there will be times when I get hurt and that I will stand alone. But it will be worth it.
Jesus commands us to make peace. ‘Making’ peace specifies some sort of action!
I suppose then we have to identify and oppose the greed and/or ambition that is the root cause for that war. Or eliminate and resist whatever else it is that is causing the strife. It is said that if you can get the fighting parties to agree to listen to one another, the battle against war is halfway won. The point is: we cannot sit back and relax while people are killing each other. The fight for peace is a never-ending spiritual war.
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!
The article lost me when it threw in the terms “normative” and “self-reflexive”.
It was explained above that post-normal science is invoked “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”.
I agree that sometimes leaders have to act before all the data is in, but when they do, let them be clear that what they are doing is acting on a “best estimate” and don’t glorify it with the lie that they are acting on full scientific evidence.
The science is never “settled”.
“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.
I’m closing this thread till the morning. This is not a site to debate the morality of religion, which religion is good and which bad, or how many angels can dance of the head of a pin. It’s too late in the morning for me to sort it out.
Anthony can sort it out in the morning.
Sorry Anthony.