Jerome Ravetz, of Oxford University in the UK.
First I must apologise for the long delay in my making a contribution to WUWT. I confess that I was overwhelmed by the quantity and quality of the comments on my first posting; and then I was discouraged by the hostile response to my second posting. By then I was in serious arrears with other work, and so I had to give WUWT a rest. A lot has happened since then, and I am very pleased and encouraged that a spirit of dialogue has taken hold.
Now, many thanks to Willis for reminding me of the challenge to give an example of uncertain facts and high stakes. Let me try. In early 2001 there was evidence of an incipient epidemic of foot-and-mouth disease in England. It was not at all certain, how infectious it would be, or what sorts of containment measures would suffice. There were conflicting values, although these were not made clear to the public at the time. These reflected the interests of the different stakeholders, including beef exporters, other farmers, non-farm users of the countryside, and politicians.
For each of them the stakes were high. The best-known stake at risk was the status of British beef exports, as certified FMD-free; this was worth some hundreds of millions of pounds in the increased price for such beef on the world market. But there were other stakes at risk, including the pedigree herds of cattle and sheep built up by farmers, and (largest of all, as it was later realised) the possible harm to all the non-farm activities in the countryside. And what was eventually realised to be the overriding stake was the political fortunes of Tony Blair, with an impending General Election which he didn’t want to have in the midst of an epidemic.
Coming back to ‘the facts’, these were to be determined by experts; but there were two opposed groups of experts. One was the government scientists, who generally had a conservative approach to the risks and to the science. The other was a group of academics, who had developed an expertise in epidemiological modelling. They made ‘pessimistic’ assumptions about the infectivity of the disease, and so their recommendations were on the side of a very aggressive approach. This suited Tony Blair’s political agenda, and so there was a severe quarantine and very extensive slaughtering. However one might criticise the government’s actions, the decision was indeed urgent, and there was a situation of high stakes, disputed values and uncertain facts.
I believe that epidemics of any sort provide examples of PNS. The uncertainty of the facts does not prevent the stakes from being high; there are always historical precedents to go on. Perhaps it would help if we distinguished between the ‘facts’ about causes, and the ‘stakes’ about effects. Only if both causes and effects are so poorly known as to be speculative, does an apparently PNS situation collapse. Even then it is not ‘normal’ science but something else.
There is another lesson for PNS in the ‘foot and mouth’ episode. It was presented to the public as ‘normal science’: “here’s an epidemic, let’s apply the science and stop it”. The uncertainties and value-conflicts were suppressed. More to the point, the ‘extended peer community’ was nonexistent. Divisions among the scientists were kept under wraps. Damage to the rural communities was revealed piecemeal, and then as incidental to the noble effort of quarantine. Only the investigative journal Private Eye published the gory details of the exterminations.
Again, after it was all over, Private Eye published an analysis. However rough and violent debates might be on the blogosphere (as we have seen!) still that is much better than the sort of blanket of silence that has been thrown over scientific scandals in the past.
Having cleared that point to my own satisfaction, let me now engage further with the debate. One reason for my long silence is that (amidst other obligations) I have been reflecting on what all this means for my doctrines of Post-Normal Science. I believe that I already said that this was developed rather in isolation, and did not enjoy the criticism that can come from students or colleagues. So inevitably, some issues were not raised and addressed. I am now grappling with them. Here they are.
Possible corruptions of PNS. These are inevitable. After all, what prophetic message ever escaped being converted into a battleground between priests and demagogues? But I should be more clear about which corruptions are most likely to emerge in PNS, and then to analyse and warn against them. It will painful, since I will be criticising colleagues who have been well-intentioned and loyal.
Quality. On this I find myself reduced to arm-waving, that ‘we all know what Quality is’. But I can say that I am well aware that Quality is not a simple attribute, but is complex, influenced by history and context, recursive (who guards the guardians?), fundamentally a matter of morality (if the people at the top are crooked, the whole edifice of quality-assurance collapses), and of course fallible. This may seem a very insecure foundation for the sort of knowledge that we need, but it’s the best we have. And if one looks for better guarantees of truth even in Pure Science, one will be disappointed.
I should report on a problem that took some decades to solve, relating to quality-assurance. In my old book, I made the point that quality in science depends on the ethical commitments of its leaders, for there is no effective external system for assessing quality. (I spoke from my experience as a researcher in pure mathematics – perhaps a half-dozen people would be competent to assess my work). A student pointed out that this seems to contradict my calls for greater participation in science (I then called it ‘critical science’). I thought I had covered my tracks on that one, observing that in the antagonistic debating context of that sort of science, noone would be allowed to get away with shoddy work. I even gave the example of Dr. Stockman of Ibsen’s Enemy of the People (incidentally exposing how Political Correctness led Arthur Miller to make a crucial modification of the text). But the student observed that I had assumed that the antagonistic debate would itself be of high quality! Eventually I got to some sort of resolution of the problem, admitting that the quality in PNS might indeed be very low, but giving a principle for testing its procedures. This would be ‘negotiating in good faith’, which I remembered from New Deal labor legislation, and which is now a standard criterion for negotiation. This certainly doesn’t ensure quality in PNS, but it provides a criterion. And, incidentally, it could be used to characterise the sorts of discussions that are now emerging on WUWT.
There is another unsolved problem, Truth. I realise that I have a case of what I might call ‘Dawkins-itis’ in relation to Truth. Just as Prof. Dawkins, however learned and sophisticated on all other issues, comes out in spots at the mere mention of the word ‘God’, I have a similar reaction about ‘Truth’. I must work on this. It might relate to my revulsion at the dogmatic and anti-critical teaching of science that I experienced as a student, where anyone with original ideas or questions was scorned and humiliated. I happily use the terms for other Absolutes, like ‘beauty’, ‘justice’ and ‘holy’; so clearly there is something wrong in my head. Watch this space, if you are interested.
Finally, for this phase of the dialogue, I would like to defend myself against a charge that has been made by various critics. This is, that I personally and intentionally laid the foundations for the corrupted science of the CRU, by providing the justification for Steve Schneider’s perversion of scientific integrity. First, there is no record of the guilty scientists ever mentioning, or even being aware, of PNS during the crucial earlier years. Also, shoddy and corrupted science in other fields did not wait for me to come along to justify it. My influence is traced back to a single footnote by Steven Schneider, citing an essay by me in a large, expensive book, Sustainable Development of the Biosphere (ed. W.C. Clarke and R.E. Munn), (Cambridge, University Press, 1986). PNS first came into the climate picture with the quite recent essay by Mike Hulme in 2007. That was a stage in his own evolution from modeller to critic, and came long after the worst excesses at CRU had been committed. I should say that I do not dismiss conspiracy theories out of hand, since some of them are correct! But this one really does seem far-fetched.
Thanks for your patience and good will. I look forward to further exchanges.
First I must apologise for the long delay in my making a contribution to WUWT. I confess that I was overwhelmed by the quantity and quality of the comments on my first posting; and then I was discouraged by the hostile response to my second posting. By then I was in serious arrears with other work, and so I had to give WUWT a rest. A lot has happened since then, and I am very pleased and encouraged that a spirit of dialogue has taken hold.
Now, many thanks to Willis for reminding me of the challenge to give an example of uncertain facts and high stakes. Let me try. In early 2001 there was evidence of an incipient epidemic of foot-and-mouth disease in England. It was not at all certain, how infectious it would be, or what sorts of containment measures would suffice. There were conflicting values, although these were not made clear to the public at the time. These reflected the interests of the different stakeholders, including beef exporters, other farmers, non-farm users of the countryside, and politicians. For each of them the stakes were high. The best-known stake at risk was the status of British beef exports, as certified FMD-free; this was worth some hundreds of millions of pounds in the increased price for such beef on the world market. But there were other stakes at risk, including the pedigree herds of cattle and sheep built up by farmers, and (largest of all, as it was later realised) the possible harm to all the non-farm activities in the countryside. And what was eventually realised to be the overriding stake was the political fortunes of Tony Blair, with an impending General Election which he didn’t want to have in the midst of an epidemic. Coming back to ‘the facts’, these were to be determined by experts; but there were two opposed groups of experts. One was the government scientists, who generally had a conservative approach to the risks and to the science. The other was a group of academics, who had developed an expertise in epidemiological modelling. They made ‘pessimistic’ assumptions about the infectivity of the disease, and so their recommendations were on the side of a very aggressive approach. This suited Tony Blair’s political agenda, and so there was a severe quarantine and very extensive slaughtering. However one might criticise the government’s actions, the decision was indeed urgent, and there was a situation of high stakes, disputed values and uncertain facts.
I believe that epidemics of any sort provide examples of PNS. The uncertainty of the facts does not prevent the stakes from being high; there are always historical precedents to go on. Perhaps it would help if we distinguished between the ‘facts’ about causes, and the ‘stakes’ about effects. Only if both causes and effects are so poorly known as to be speculative, does an apparently PNS situation collapse. Even then it is not ‘normal’ science but something else.
There is another lesson for PNS in the ‘foot and mouth’ episode. It was presented to the public as ‘normal science’: “here’s an epidemic, let’s apply the science and stop it”. The uncertainties and value-conflicts were suppressed. More to the point, the ‘extended peer community’ was nonexistent. Divisions among the scientists were kept under wraps. Damage to the rural communities was revealed piecemeal, and then as incidental to the noble effort of quarantine. Only the investigative journal Private Eye published the gory details of the exterminations.
Again, after it was all over, Private Eye published an analysis. However rough and violent debates might be on the blogosphere (as we have seen!) still that is much better than the sort of blanket of silence that has been thrown over scientific scandals in the past.
Having cleared that point to my own satisfaction, let me now engage further with the debate. One reason for my long silence is that (amidst other obligations) I have been reflecting on what all this means for my doctrines of Post-Normal Science. I believe that I already said that this was developed rather in isolation, and did not enjoy the criticism that can come from students or colleagues. So inevitably, some issues were not raised and addressed. I am now grappling with them. Here they are.
Possible corruptions of PNS. These are inevitable. After all, what prophetic message ever escaped being converted into a battleground between priests and demagogues? But I should be more clear about which corruptions are most likely to emerge in PNS, and then to analyse and warn against them. It will painful, since I will be criticising colleagues who have been well-intentioned and loyal.
Quality. On this I find myself reduced to arm-waving, that ‘we all know what Quality is’. But I can say that I am well aware that Quality is not a simple attribute, but is complex, influenced by history and context, recursive (who guards the guardians?), fundamentally a matter of morality (if the people at the top are crooked, the whole edifice of quality-assurance collapses), and of course fallible. This may seem a very insecure foundation for the sort of knowledge that we need, but it’s the best we have. And if one looks for better guarantees of truth even in Pure Science, one will be disappointed.
I should report on a problem that took some decades to solve, relating to quality-assurance. In my old book, I made the point that quality in science depends on the ethical commitments of its leaders, for there is no effective external system for assessing quality. (I spoke from my experience as a researcher in pure mathematics – perhaps a half-dozen people would be competent to assess my work). A student pointed out that this seems to contradict my calls for greater participation in science (I then called it ‘critical science’). I thought I had covered my tracks on that one, observing that in the antagonistic debating context of that sort of science, noone would be allowed to get away with shoddy work. I even gave the example of Dr. Stockman of Ibsen’s Enemy of the People (incidentally exposing how Political Correctness led Arthur Miller to make a crucial modification of the text). But the student observed that I had assumed that the antagonistic debate would itself be of high quality! Eventually I got to some sort of resolution of the problem, admitting that the quality in PNS might indeed be very low, but giving a principle for testing its procedures. This would be ‘negotiating in good faith’, which I remembered from New Deal labor legislation, and which is now a standard criterion for negotiation. This certainly doesn’t ensure quality in PNS, but it provides a criterion. And, incidentally, it could be used to characterise the sorts of discussions that are now emerging on WUWT.
There is another unsolved problem, Truth. I realise that I have a case of what I might call ‘Dawkins-itis’ in relation to Truth. Just as Prof. Dawkins, however learned and sophisticated on all other issues, comes out in spots at the mere mention of the word ‘God’, I have a similar reaction about ‘Truth’. I must work on this. It might relate to my revulsion at the dogmatic and anti-critical teaching of science that I experienced as a student, where anyone with original ideas or questions was scorned and humiliated. I happily use the terms for other Absolutes, like ‘beauty’, ‘justice’ and ‘holy’; so clearly there is something wrong in my head. Watch this space, if you are interested.
Finally, for this phase of the dialogue, I would like to defend myself against a charge that has been made by various critics. This is, that I personally and intentionally laid the foundations for the corrupted science of the CRU, by providing the justification for Steve Schneider’s perversion of scientific integrity. First, there is no record of the guilty scientists ever mentioning, or even being aware, of PNS during the crucial earlier years. Also, shoddy and corrupted science in other fields did not wait for me to come along to justify it. My influence is traced back to a single footnote by Steven Schneider, citing an essay by me in a large, expensive book, Sustainable Development of the Biosphere (ed. W.C. Clarke and R.E. Munn), (Cambridge, University Press, 1986). PNS first came into the climate picture with the quite recent essay by Mike Hulme in 2007. That was a stage in his own evolution from modeller to critic, and came long after the worst excesses at CRU had been committed. I should say that I do not dismiss conspiracy theories out of hand, since some of them are correct! But this one really does seem far-fetched.
Thanks for your patience and good will. I look forward to further exchanges.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“One was the government scientists, who generally had a conservative approach to the risks and to the science”
Government scientist have a history of exageratiing risks and cherry picking which risks to ignore. All this to buffer the political agenda.
The H1N1 virus scare is a great example of messed up heads working together in greater numbers create greater fears and false claims.
And for Ravetz. The corporate world hires some of the greatest minds and the Universities/government get the left overs.
What is the incentive to prevent corrupt business practices at the CRU?
I have some friends who live on a farm in England, about a mile walk across a pasture to the pub. From 2001-2003, Customs agents always wanted to confiscate my shoes when I came back to the US.
I guess they didn’t want American cattle to explode.
http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=81185&page=1
http://www.outdoorsmagic.com/outdoors-news/exploding-cows-cause-mayhem/747.html
Going on at length about foot and mouth disease is irrelevant to the climate debate. We know that it is viral and the options are clear. The extent and/or spread of the disease and the implications of Vaccination are well known, there is no scientific or lay dispute about cause and effect.
There is a case perhaps to be made for political intervention, but this intervention is made on the basis of known and undisputed scientific fact. The rest is political expedience and self interest.
The rest is waffle. Sorry but your dismissal of conspiracy theories is incorrect. The evidence is clear.
Very interesting and thouht provoking article. Thank you.
I remember the FMD epidemic – and how the Netherlands contained theirs quickly, safely and cheaply with a vaccination program whilst our government followed “the scientific consensus” (as they wanted to see it) and slaughtered millions of animals needlessly, ruined lives and cost the country billions.
Beware of politicians citing scientific justification or rationale!
I’m beginning to see a relationship between post normal science and ‘popular delusions and the madness of crowds’.
=====================
I come out in a rash when ever I hear the word Dawkins, or variations thereof …such as Dorkins! Dawkinisms, Dorkinisms. Too late. Gotta go get some cream.
Am I alone in having no idea what Dr Ravetz is talking about? I’m not being rude, I have read it three times, and just can’t get the point(s). What are they?
Dr. Ravetz –
This is a simple question that has been bugging me since I read your previous essays on WUWT. Why should we accept that climate science should become, in your words, a post-normal science? Should we not, instead, hold it to the same high standard that we normally hold science?
I can understand that there could be situations where there might be an immediate need that if not addressed would have significant deliterious effects in the near term, ie mad cow disease or similar phenomena, that a proactive approach by the individuals who discover it can and should, proverbially, scream at the top of their lungs: “We have a imminent crisis!”
However, when we have an issue like climate science, where our understanding of the topic has only really begun, should we treat that as a post-normal science as well? Without demonstrable evidence (models are not evidence, the are programs that can only output a given data set due to their inputs / assumptions / code) that can only be attributed to AGW, should we not hold climate science to that same high standard?
Thank you for posting on WUWT again. I hope this post and its associated comments will remain civil.
Cordially,
Timothy
To complement the search for truth, it is also important to address the “common good”.
Prabhu Guptara refers to the upcoming Zermatt Summit
Addressing this standard of the “common good” appears to be equally applicable to public policies based on science. Ravetez’s example of the UK “foot in mouth disease” incident reveals the corruption of academia, government and the press to the detriment of the “common good”. EPA is trying to regulate carbon dioxide as a “pollutant” rather than an essential plant fertilizer
The Zermatt summit’s proposed standard of the “common good” should be an important foundational issue to address these foundational issues of liberty vs tyranny that involve controlling every small and large business based on highly questionable projections of chaotic climate. Especially when the controlling parameters of clouds and water feedback are highly uncertain or unknown. e.g. see Roy Spencer’s discussions
@ur momisugly bushy
I would have to agree with you. I am taken back by the continued distractions. Perhaps this story is interesting on its own merit, but I fail to see any correlation to the current climate debates, and/or correlation to those events and actions that have transpired at CRU. This yet another distraction. I believe this little story a good portrayal of what is wrong with this science. It is NOT science, and that is the problem. This is advocacy, politics, PNS, voodoo, alarmism for agenda, opportunists, con artists, self indulged authoritarians, the end justify the means…
This discussion has convinced me that there is nothing normal about PNS… Thanks, but no thanks… It’s time to return to rationality.
Mike Bryant
http://www.condellpark.com/kd/fmd.htm
If I could sell a critter from my herd for 60 pounds when the market for uninfected critters was 30 pounds, I would have great conviction that my herd was infected and was worth 60.
The FMD epidemic also had some bad math and a hockey stick.
By the way, using the “two opposing groups” label as being Academics with expertise in epidemiological modeling and Government interests.
You left out farmers and folks that eat meat.
It is just as bad in America where the home owner, citizen and energy consumer is irrelevant. The Gubment claims to know best and the academic claims to know more.
Sorry to be abrasive, but this reads like the kind of babbling essay that is only acceptable within Academia.
In future, summarize your subject in the first paragraph and conclude it in the last.
There is science, which being incomplete, always remains fallible to some extent depending on the area of science involved.
There is judgement, which seeks to apply the available science in a way which takes account of risk and cost.
Democracies employ scientists for the former and elect politicians for the latter.
Second guessing from an ‘extended peer community’ (whatever that is) which is unaccountable to the electorate can only derogate from a relatively impartial exercise of judgement by the elected representatives. It introduces pressure from lobby groups with their own agendas that will tend to conflict with those of the electorate at large.
Such second guessing is not likely to improve the quality of the judgement being applied. Indeed the judgements are likely to be far worse.
PNS is a step back from democratic process and is wide open to corruption and abuse.
Excellent post, Dr. Ravetz!
Using a completely different issue (FMD) as and example should help one better understand another issue in which that individual has a stake or belief (AGW).
bushy (07:30:40) missed the point. It is relevant to understand the nuances of an issue mired in complexities and controversies when politics, economics, and science are co-mingled. When bushy commented “intervention is made on the basis of known and undisputed scientific fact,” was he referring to climate science based on computer modeling? The axiom goes: All computer models are wrong; some are useful. Never confuse modeled scenarios with actual data.
You know Doc, most of us are just tired of it all. Tired of the lies, exaggerations, manipulations……..
And tired of the lame justifications and analogies that have nothing to do with the subject.
You say (additions to your quotes in CAPITALS are mine)
“There is another lesson for PNS in the ‘foot and mouth’/GLOBAL WARMING episode. It was presented to the public as ‘normal science’: “here’s an epidemic/DISASTER IF YOU DO NOT CARRY OUT OUR RECOMMENDED ACTION, let’s apply the science and stop it”. The uncertainties and value-conflicts were suppressed.”
and then
“Divisions among the scientists were kept under wraps.”
The style of presentation to the general public fits AGW extremly well, and we all know that unchecked, it led to sloppy science and publication of quasi religious dogma as fact by the professionals.
The deliberate suppression of uncertainties and scientific discrepancies effectively mean that the government has lied to the UK voters leaving them unable to make any reasonable analysis of the problem. With little modification the above arguments (security instead of science) could also be used to describe their behavior when attempting to suppress publication of expenses. Presumably the same methodology has been used for many other large scale incidents including climate change.
Is it any surprise that commentary on the current UK election campaign has shown that there is very little trust in the honesty or motives of mainstream politicians.
Too many words. Too little content. Not BS but close. Its simply irrelevant.
When you see the solution to every problem presented as more government, more control over the individual, more extorted wealth from the producers of the wealth, more failure to perform but continuance on the same path, there is something very wrong. The 20th Century saw this pattern end in total failure many times. There is no reason to expect any difference in the 21st. The plea that “our gang” is better than “their gang” because “our gang” has good intentions is simply BS. Intention has nothing to do with creating the consequences.
There is a very simple explanation. Reality is what it is and pays no attention to what anyone wants, needs, intends, or demands. Human connection to that reality is also not optional but the contents of his mind are. If the contents of his mind don’t map onto reality, the human fails. If this pattern is repeated in the society at large, the society fails. It’s be coherent with reality and live or become extinct.
There is no third alternative.
The content of one’s mind is totally, irrevocably, a matter of continuous and life long VOLUNTARY choice. The network of choices add up to knowledge and success or error and failure. Force cannot change that equation. Even if a benevolent dictator attempted to force the “truth” into the minds of the population, it would fail. It would be a “truth” without the network of choices forming all the necessary connections in the mind to become effective knowledge. It would thereby be useless for any further action. An individual or society thus forced would have no rational bases for action and would necessarily fail.
Hence, “the solution” is hardly ever, if ever at all, more government, more control over the individual, more extorted wealth from the producers of the wealth to be used without account by the political elite. The history of man and governments stand in direct testimony to this fact.
“The plan” appears to succeed only as long as there are victims left to sacrifice to “the cause” and wealth to steal to pay for the overhead. When the government runs out of those things, it falls and the society dependent upon it also falls. See the current global political situation for instructive detail.
It’s an interesting view point on this PNS i must say. It’s reality is evident in AGW although I think it more a criminal money making scheme more than ‘AL GORE didn’t realise the scientists were bulling him as he doesn’t understand a dot of science himself’ waffle. The same can’t be said for the IPCC, nor Mann, Hansen. But special critisicism for CRU’s JONES. The pope of PNS…golden golf cart, et all. The Doyen of PNS.
Because at the heart of it all is the ‘falsifiable’ component. Circumventing that, by say, not handing over the bible, allows for all kinds of abuses!!!
bushy (07:30:40) :
Au contraire! The interesting point about the history of the F&M in the Uk, was that an “academic” was brought in under the “old pals” act, (who had left Oxford under a cloud of “no confidence”), who with a couple of other colleagues, built a computer model no less to deal with the infection rates & contageon strategy. It was to all intents & purposes “bloody useless”, leading to a”bloody mess”, & the most apalling animal carnage in the history of UK farming, most of it unnecessary! A lesson we still seem to be having difficulty in grasping, as the UK hurtles toward a similar precipice over AGW & CC & energy policy! That’s what you get from listening to twats with PhDs eminating from every orifice without an ounce (0.28N) of common sense to be seen. The sight of & stench from the funeral pyres on practically every horizon was an abomination.
Sorry, I also lost what this was all about.
Anyways, the one thing God did understand is our quest for truth, as His discussion with Pilate (just before He was crucified) would reveal.
Religion and science are just two different ways to find the truth. The end result is the same; people ruled by money will bend the truth with whatever means available and people ruled by Christ seeking the (real) truth will find it, no matter how long it takes or how far it takes them. Ask me.
Glad to see you back, Dr. Ravetz. Your posts have spawned some of the most interesting threads at WUWT as they challenge participants here at the most fundamental levels of science.
My concern with your current discussion concerns the ‘quality control’ aspect of Post Normal Science. The history of science affirms your contention that ‘quality in science depends on the ethical commitments of its leaders, for there is no effective external system for assessing quality.’ There are numerous cases of intentional fraud – for example, Jan Hendrik Schön, the physicist at Bell Laboratories who used identical graphs on unrelated topics in publications relating to nanoelectronics, and whose massive and suspicious publication output was then investigated and found to be based on fraudulent data. These frauds are obviously caught after the perpetrator has achieved some successes and gained a good reputation based on non-science. While sometimes frauds are not detected within the lifetime of the perpetrator – eg. Dawkins of the Piltdown Man fame – fraudulent science does not generally gain permanent assent (as far as we know).
While I put in these caveats, fraudulent science, in areas that are not marginally scientific (eg psychology) is exposed because science does have an effective external system for assessing quality, and that is replicability. This obviously requires time, expense and effort on the part of other scientists who find anomalies in the claims and outcomes of fraudulent science. This kind of work is often carried out by scientists who are concerned with that quality with which you have the most trouble, truth. As you point out, the problem is exacerbated when there are few experts qualified to critique that work, and you note that a student pointed out that this was a weakness in your call for greater participation in science by non-experts, because that element of quality control would then be lost, due to the low level of scientific debate that would follow.
Then you concede that with the quality of Post Normal Scientific debate might indeed be very low, its procedures would be ensured by the participants ‘negotiating in good faith’, which you argue “doesn’t ensure quality in PNS, but it provides a criterion’ and you provide as an example ‘the sorts of discussions that are now emerging on WUWT.’
Frankly, I’m not sure what process you are endorsing here to assure that PNW would be worthwhile. “Negotiating in good faith’ requires the ethical commitment that you admit a few sentences earlier might be missing in normal science. Why would embarking on PNS suddenly guarantee that greed, the quest for recognition, the fear of failure, the temptation to elide lacklustre experimental results, would now disappear because scientists would be ‘negotiating in good faith’? Surely this is pure naïveté?
The high quality of comment at WUWT is in part due to the participation of scientists and other academics, qualified and experienced engineers, and expert amateurs like Willis Eschenbach who often put the rest of us to shame. But it is mostly due to a concern that unites many of us who are regulars here – a desire to know the truth. Sometimes our desire to prove the global warming catastrophists wrong might cause some intemperate advocacy for certain positions on the part of some participants, but generally there is a real desire to find out just what exactly is going on in the real- world climate and in climate and related science.
You make a number of comparisons of Post-Normal Science (PNS) to religion.
When one considers PNS and religion together, it becomes obvious that, infact, PNS is dangerously close to being a religion itself.
Religion: based on unproved, unproveable tenants.
PNS: dismisses the need for Scientific Method where causation is not understood, quantifiable effect are lacking, and experimentation is not possible.
Religion: Divided into clergy, laity
PNS: Divided into PN Scientists and Extended Peer Reviewers
Religion: Promises salvation or damnation
PNS: Talks of ‘high stakes’ and ‘urgent decisions’
Religion: Historically, persecuted heretics and non-believers
PNS: Followers talk of prosecuting sceptics and ‘deniers’ as war criminals committing Crimes Agains Humanity
Religion: Sins forgiven.
PNS: Mistakes are acceptable, given importance of long-term prognosis if immediate actions is not taken.
Squidly says at 7:39 — “It is NOT science, and that is the problem. This is advocacy, politics, PNS, voodoo”.
Exactly, and this is one of the most important (and frightening) points about the current debate on AGW. The bulk of the people on the skeptic side are discussing the science of the matter, but the people who will make the decision on governmental response have no interest in science. I am not exagerating when I say “no interest.” Anyone who has risen to be the head of a governmental agency, a Representative, Senator, MP, President, Prime Minister, etc. is a 100% political animal and ALL decisions will be based on political expediency. Science is not a factor. Just as the Salem witch trials were not decided on the basis of scientific investigation, the current governmental response to “Global Warming” will not be based on science either. A political decision will be based on political justifications and after the decision is made, there will be soldiers and police with guns to insure that the decision is enforced.
Anyone who expects to derail an implementation of carbon cap and trade (or some similar money-transfer scheme) had better have a politically desirable reason for the derailment. Science is good for debate here at WUWT, but the politicians don’t care.
Prof Ravetz:
I sincerely appreciate your attempt at dialogue. However, my disagreement with both your previous articles on WUWT remains after your having written the above. Indeed, you have confirmed that my disagreement is correct.
Previously, I disagreed with your attempting to introduce “quality” as a replacement for scientific ‘truth’ (i.e. the interpretation that most closely agrees with now available empirical evidence by adoption of least assumptions.) The replacement would be a fundamental alteration to the scientific method that has stood the test of time since the Enlightenment. And it would be substituting the scientific method (that has served us well) for an unknown method because you failed to define what you meant by “quality”.
Your article above confirms that replacing scientific ‘truth’ with “quality” would be a displacement of the scientific method by something that is not defined so cannot be known in terms of its practical application. Your above article says:
“Quality. On this I find myself reduced to arm-waving, that ‘we all know what Quality is’. But I can say that I am well aware that Quality is not a simple attribute, but is complex, influenced by history and context, recursive (who guards the guardians?), fundamentally a matter of morality (if the people at the top are crooked, the whole edifice of quality-assurance collapses), and of course fallible. This may seem a very insecure foundation for the sort of knowledge that we need, but it’s the best we have. And if one looks for better guarantees of truth even in Pure Science, one will be disappointed.”
The scientific method or an alternative based on “arm waving”?
For me there can be only one choice.
But there is a more fundamental reason to deny the argument in your paragraph that I quote.
The best guarantee of scientific ‘truth’ has been comparison of hypotheses and theories with the evidence and having complete disregard for the sources of the evidence. Indeed, scepticism and distrust of all data are inherent in any scientific investigation, and part of that distrust is because data are provided by fallible human beings all of whom may make mistakes and some of whom may be dishonest from time to time.
But your view of “quality”, you say, is “fundamentally a matter of morality (if the people at the top are crooked, the whole edifice of quality-assurance collapses)”.
No thanks! I will accept the data.
I will assess how the data was obtained, and I will assess its reliability, accuracy and precision with a view to assessing what it can and cannot tell us. If it is not sufficient to tell us anything (as is the case with most data concerning AGW) then I will say, “I don’t know what that means if anything”.
PNS “quality” or scientific ‘truth’? Give me the ‘truth’.
Richard