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.
R. Craigen (10:13:37) :
I share your sentiments regarding Post Modernism, and its bastard child PNS. Ironically, neither would survive without the open-mindedness of those seeking objective truth. I would hope that objective truth will suvive in a Post Modern world, no thanks to those holding their small PNS beliefs.
This is another specious argument often repeated by the scientifically ignorant. This is better known as appeal to authority and is very closely related to the equally meaningless consensus argument.
Just checked this out, The First Global revolution, by the Club Of Rome, 1991.
Search “uncertainty” and amongst the hits you find a paragraph that could be right out of a PNS textbook. This is the book with the “common enemy of humanity is man” quote.
http://books.google.de/books?id=8RNKHGbzUuAC&printsec=frontcover&dq=The+First+Global+Revolution&cd=1#v=onepage&q&f=false
Wren (12:10:21),
This is the last question from you I’m going to answer in this thread. It’s gotten to the point of pestering.
You ask: “What’s your theory on why average global temperatures have continued to rise even during periods that experienced the natural cooling influences of a down-cycle in sunspot activity and a La Nina?”
First off, I don’t have a theory. But as an explanation, the planet’s natural emergence from the Little Ice Age is sufficient to explain the gradually rising temperatures over the past century and a half.
William of Ockham cautioned: Never increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything.
That’s known as Occam’s Razor, and it means that adding an unnecessary entity, like CO2, to explain the climate will most likely lead to a wrong conclusion.
Bye bye.
Wren,
“Because of compelling evidence that climate is affected by man’s activities as well as know[n] natural, no scientific society of standing disputes GW/CO2AGW.”
Many well respected climate scientists do indeed dispute what you assert nobody disputes. Outside of your polarised black/white universe, the rest of us live in the real universe, where climate is effected by a myriad of interrelating factors. This universe is inhabited by scientists who have a wide spectrum of hypothesis about climate change, and climate sensitivity to forcings. Some, like Roger Pielke sr. argue that man effects climate through land use, aerosols and GHG’s, where the latter is a minor climate driver. Others like Spencer, Christy and Lindzen believe that negative feedbacks predominate and the sensitivity due to CO2 forcing is actually less that that expected from the radiative transfer equations alone.
““Doing nothing” is based on what assumptions and forecasts?”
It follows logically from the IPCC’s own forecasts. Reducing man made CO2 emissions will make very little impact on the climate, but will have adverse impacts on the world economies. Another counter argument to your own “lets destroy our economies to forestall a fraction of a degree of warming in a century,” is that human ability to adapt is strengthened by development and economic wealth, and greatly harmed by poverty. The very opposite of what you seem to be advocating.
Nope, no idea what this has to do with anything.
Post Normal Science. That sounds so much better than what it really is.
How about ‘Lysenkoism Invading the Education System’, or LIES.
Dr R.
I think you will find that the FMD episode was just one of a typical HMG strategy in many cases for the past 25 years at least:
1. Haemophiliacs and AIDS.
2. Gulf war syndrome.
3. Global Warming.
4. The Iraq war mark II. Including Dr Kelly’s death.
Etc etc.
In all cases, facts were suppressed for political/financial benefit of stakeholders allied to HMG.
1. Not wanting to pay out compensation to those unknowingly infected through transfusions.
2. Not wanting to pay compensation to soldiers fighting in Iraq first time around.
3. Looking for a precept for unaccountable supranational rule.
4. Wanting to build relations with Capitol hill for post-PM money-making. Including silencing of dissenting scientist who either killed himself or was bumped off (I know not which, I must say…..)
What you will always see in these scenarios is science taking second place to political expediency. Not to mention decency and natural justice doiong likewise where Gulf War syndrome and haemophiliacs/AIDS was concerned……..
It’s a nice ideal to think that science will win in politics.
But it’s not an accurate judgement at this stage of history in the UK.
Perhaps that will change soon?
I doubt it, but I remain open-minded until shown otherwise.
[snip – getting off topic.]
R Craigen,
I don’t really agree with you as I think your definition of skepticism is a little self-serving. In the first instance I would say skepticism is a broad church which your version doesn’t entirely cover, and the search for truth is not necessarily involved or at least not necessarily the priority. Secondly, and ideally, even when the search for truth is the prioritised aim there is still a necessary conundrum for skeptics, which is that (in my view) an ideal skeptic should logically leave him/herself open to the possibility that he/she has not apprehended it (truth) in any given instance. If he/or she does not allow for that possibility then he or she abandons skepticism in that instance and becomes a believer. Note: This does not mean that there is no truth.
In practice this idealised skepticism is not possible at all times. And among human I suggest that skepticism is more often than not strategically employed, in good and bad ways.
Wren:
So if you can’t do blinded null hypothesis testing on GW/CO2AGW like you do on promising drug treatments, you should do nothing? Nah !
Wren, do underdeveloped countries strike you as being healthy? That experiment involving your treatment has been done. India and China don’t like the results.
But since you are the one who is really worried about CO2AGW to the point of being personally obligated to act, surely you must be doing quite a lot on your own to decrease your own Carbon Footprint, again, simply because you see fossil fuel CO2 as a very threatening disease agent? What are you doing to significantly decrease your own CO2 Footprint?
Vincent (12:35:08) :
Wren,
“Because of compelling evidence that climate is affected by man’s activities as well as know[n] natural, no scientific society of standing disputes GW/CO2AGW.”
Many well respected climate scientists do indeed dispute what you assert nobody disputes. Outside of your polarised black/white universe, the rest of us live in the real universe, where climate is effected by a myriad of interrelating factors. This universe is inhabited by scientists who have a wide spectrum of hypothesis about climate change, and climate sensitivity to forcings. Some, like Roger Pielke sr. argue that man effects climate through land use, aerosols and GHG’s, where the latter is a minor climate driver. Others like Spencer, Christy and Lindzen believe that negative feedbacks predominate and the sensitivity due to CO2 forcing is actually less that that expected from the radiative transfer equations alone.
““Doing nothing” is based on what assumptions and forecasts?”
It follows logically from the IPCC’s own forecasts. Reducing man made CO2 emissions will make very little impact on the climate, but will have adverse impacts on the world economies. Another counter argument to your own “lets destroy our economies to forestall a fraction of a degree of warming in a century,” is that human ability to adapt is strengthened by development and economic wealth, and greatly harmed by poverty. The very opposite of what you seem to be advocating.
===
What this alarmism about destroying the economy boils down to is who cares about how our activities adversely affect future generations as long as we can continue to pollute as usual.
Forgot to say cheers, and that’s all from me.
Jason Calley (08:44:20) : You are completely – – – – RIGHT. The scientists can argue themselves unconscious and it will mean zip, as the policy decisions have already been formulated. This entire exercise has been devised to ensure a largely participative and supportive populace. If that doesn’t go smoothly there are always alternate mechanisms to be employed. Make no mistake the grand plan will move ahead, perhaps more slowly with increasing public resistance, but the goal will remain unchanged.
When considering a business case, there are two important tests that I have learned through experience to judge the business case by:
1. Does the business case rest on unsound or misleading information?
2. Is the behaviour of the author of the business case congruent with the business case?
In the instance of the first question, a solid business case rests on its own merits. If the business case is sound, it requires no misleading information to justify it. The presentation of ANY misleading information, EVEN if it is a small minority of the information, invalidates the business case.
In the second instance, if the author of the business case behaves in a manner contrary to the business case, it is ample evidence that they themselves do not believe it. It is a position that they have decided to adopt or support for their own purposes.
In the climate debate, the evidence presented in favour of CAGW is frequently misleading at best, and often blatantly fraudulent. I observe however, that those who present it do not seem to be acting in accordance with their stated positions. If Al Gore and other wealthy proponents of CAGW truly believed in the case they have made, would they not be investing their wealth in those areas of the world that will benefit from global warming? Would it not make sense for Al Gore and company to buy up as much land as they could in northern Canada and Siberia in anticipation of the enormous profits owning that land will yield due to global warming? Are the climate scientists seeking citizenship for themselves and their families in countries that they deem will be least harmed by global warming? Finaly, if YOU had knowledge of an impending disaster about to beset the human race, would you demand to be obeyed while refusing to explain your reasons, or would you put your evidence on public display in an attempt to get as many people as possible to see the danger?
I submit to you Dr Ravetz, that CAGW is falsified by the use of misleading and fraudulent information, and by the failure of CAGW proponents to act in a manner that would protect themselves and their families from the disaster to which they attest. The business case lacks merit, the proponents themselves don’t believe it, and only by obscuring the business case with with a facade of uncertainty called PNS can the business case be sold to an unwarry buyer.
PNS is nothing more than an attempt to so advance the appearance of magic as to make it indistinguishable from science. PNS exists only to justify that which cannot be justified by any other means. It is a means to instill fear. We have nothing to fear but PNS istelf.
WUWT self help clinic succeeds where the others fail:
“I must work on this. It might relate to my revulsion at the dogmatic and anti-critical teaching”
Self diagnosis is a wonderful talent. Dr. Ravetz has indeed identified his scotoma.
He can not define truth. But it’s not truth you fear, Dr. Ignorance => fear, sir.
More of what made you sick in the first place can not be the remedy (see history of bloodletting, a PNS blast from the past)
You’re lucky as anything to hit the right answer and your eyes should light up like 3 cherries jackpot. Take your winnings. Discover truth- you know you affirm the axiom of it in every decision you take- so take the final step. Define the word. Then you can use it for critical thinking. It will be a completely refreshing change from the alternative fog of undefined fear.
You can negotiate realities a lot better than you can with phantasms. We evolved a whole organ just for that. Every child has to do this. Embrace human nature- think.
davidmhoffer (10:56:27) :
I agree completely with your example of the Nazi quest to remove Jewish genes from the Aryan gene-pool as a case of PNS. I used it myself in introducing a philosopher colleague to the concept. When he told me that PNS sounded like a good idea, because science needed to become more ethical, I pointed out to him that the ethics projected into a science depend upon the scientist(s) who are doing the projecting, and the clearest example of a science based around an ethics came from eugenics, which was intended to improve society by removing the inheritance of undesirable characteristics in future generations, via sterilization, or in the case of Nazi Germany, via death camps. This ethos was internal to the ‘science’ itself, its raison d’etre, and hence eugenics qualifies fully as PNS. The problem with an internal moral vision for science is always – whose morality? The answer, if my encounters with bioethics is any indication, is never ‘traditional’ western morality, because bioethics and I suppose PNS have the goals of creating a new morality. Of course, the other thing to note is that eugenics was not a ‘robust’ science.
Thanks everybody, and especially Scientistfortruth, who always has so much to teach me. I’ve downloaded everything up to this point, and I’ll use that collection as a basis for my replies. That way I’ll avoid being overwhelmed. More soon, hopefully with a better photo.
Dr. Ravetz,
Thanks for coming back. I’m a bit shocked by some of the over reactions to your position, primarily because I hold the same positions but probably have an entirely different political background. Funny. WRT the challenge to illustrate a circumstance where facts are uncertain and stakes high I think its much more difficult to find cases where facts are not uncertain. perhaps it’s a difference in epistemology. Facts are always uncertain, if we take the yardstick of uncertainty to be logical truth. Perhaps I can reformulate
the situation: We have observations which people commonly refer to as “facts.” We have theories about facts, and then we have values. More on that later. For the sake of argument we can grant some priority to “facts” and say that “facts” or observations are rarely uncertain. (We clearly know this is not the case as “observations” are theory laden.) But nevermind that. Let’s reformulate PNS and say that PNS is a condition where:
1. Theories are uncertain ( and the prediction of facts they make)
2. Values are in conflict
3. Stakes are High
3. Decisions are imminent.
On this tightening of the definition its rather easy to find situations where
#1 and #2 obtain. #1 I would argue ( and most would agree ) is ALWAYS
the case. Theories are always uncertain. the other thing we have to recognize is that “uncertainty” is a value laden term. In its mathematical meaning “uncertainty” refers to a number. In ordinary usage, however, it is value laden. And our perception of how important certainty is depends upon the values and the stakes involved. For example, if I tell you that a theory of superconductivity has a 5 percent chance of being wrong, you’d probably shrug. That seems like a good amount of certainty. If I tell you you have a 5% chance of dying if you take a drug, that level certainty seems low.
stakes drive our perception of uncertainty.
So #1 is always the case, but depending on our values and the stakes we consider uncertainty differently.
WRT#2. Values in conflict. I think this needs to be reformulated as Conflicts in interests. The uncertainity of theories is an uncertainty about future facts
and the conflict in values arise when a theory predicts a set of facts that go against my “interests”. for example, in AGW we predict a future world that is warmer. A set of future facts that may be in some people’s interest and against other people’s interest. My Values ( good stewardship) may be sacrificed if they are at odds with my interests. In all the cases I can think of it makes more sense to say, that PNS involves a difference in Interests rather than an difference of values ( a fine point ) Now when we look at it as a uncertain theories and conflicting interests we can see that the vast majority of these cases happen in the “human” sciences and environmental sciences.
A theory of intelligence which holds that mice are smarter than beavers, doesn’t really connect very well with human interests. But a theory of intelligence that holds that men are smarter than women does implicate human interests. On such a theory one could for example argue that women shouldn’t go to school. ( please folks for illustration only) And one can see that if a such a theory was 95% certain that men would point at that as certain enough and woman might argue that more certainty was required according to their interest. This leads to situational skepticism.
#3. Stakes are high. Well if interests are involved then to those interested
stakes can always be “high”, high in their minds. The difficult situation happens when many people share the same interests and other people do not share those interests. As in your example, where you have identified
interest groups. #4 decisions imminent. There are two cases here. cases where the decision is seen as imminent by all interests groups and the cases where its in the interest of an interested party to delay action.
Its clear to me that we have cases where:
1. Theories are uncertain
2. interests are not in conflict
3. Stakes are not high
4. Decisions are not immediate.
Example: particle physics> Go ask Lubos how much certainty is required
to establish the existence of a new particle. The facts this science predicts dont have any clear impact on human interests. I wont die
tommorrow if somebody “finds” ( postulates) a new particle. the interest
involved is purely the interests of the practicing scientists.
And its clear that we have cases where
1. Theories are uncertain
2. interests are in conflict
3. Stakes are high
4. Decisions are immediate.
Take ANY theory about tax rates and prosperity. (last I looked economics was a science.) or take global warming or epidemics almost any science
involving humans. in these circumstance some protocal extending beyond normal science is required. Its required because scientists, being human,
have interests. all the stakeholders need to be at the table. How to do that is the question in my mind. It starts with transparency.
And we have circumstances where
1. Theories are uncertain
2. interests are in conflict
3. Stakes are high
4. Decisions are not immediate.
lets just pick the simple one of evolution.
I find it hard to believe that people dont see that the situation can be characterised as you have. We can OBSERVE that there are cases where the theory is uncertain ( they all are) were interests are in conflict ( in AGW they clearly are) where people perceive the stakes as high, and where decisions are being pressed for. It flies in the face of facts (haha) to say we are not in such a situation.
Now faced with this fact, there appears to be two schools of thought.
1. Just do the science.
2. “extend” the peer review process as you note to include the interested
parties.
I think I can say that WIllis belongs pretty squarely in camp 1. His call to action is really a call on scientists to just do normal science. It’s a fine sermon, but the calls to “just do the science” brought us Climategate. When we call on Mann to do science right, for example, everyone should note his response “do your own science.” So, while I agree that one should encourage scientists to just do normal science, I think its a poor strategy if your interests are at stake.
it seems to me that PNS can be applied to anything, at any time. AS others in the comments have noted….the “stakes” are what people say they are. Can we not take any eventuality to its extreme and claim that the stakes are too high to “do nothing”? Earthquakes, Tsunamis, Meteors, Diseases, Overpopulation, Magnetic pole reversals….you name it.
I blanched at some of the tougher comments but with some further consideration I conclude that Dr. Ravetz is a courageous man with silly ideas. PNS is a struggle for relevance in a crowded field.
My take on the “post normal science” concept regarding the present climate debacle…
You are absolutely correct in that their are times when the stakes are high and critical decisions must be made ASAP, without all of the required facts to back up the decision.
The problem with our climate is that we don’t know what the future holds – it could be headed towards cooler just as well as warmer over the next 100 years. Sites like Realclimate fully admit that projections about the future climate assume “all other things are equal”, meaning all climate forcings other than CO2 over the next century are identical to climate forcings experienced over the last century. But they also admit that they have no idea if this is true!
If we knew that the options were either “stable” or “warmer” that would be one thing, but the option of “cooler” also exists. There is no scientific doubt whatsoever that the earth will be deep in glaciation within 25,000 years. Assuming that an increase in atmospheric CO2 does indeed provide a simple method to increase global temperatures, our descendants have a relatively simple solution for preventing global chaos thousands of years from now. Terraforming via atmospheric parameter controls – they can pump up the CO2.
Are we heading into another little ice age? Does anyone have a clear idea what caused the last one? If CO2 causes the dramatic warming claimed, would vast reductions in atmospheric CO2 be a bad idea for a civilization heading into an extended cold snap?
So yes, there are post normal science situations, but when the possible outcomes are polar opposites I believe it’s ludicrous to rush a decision one way or another.
Let me be very blunt here. Most people on this blog are not intellectually capable of understanding Dr. Ravetz’s point, partly due to a confirmation bias that prevents them from even making the effort. This is harsh but it is true. It is painful to see people being so sure of themselves on such a flimsy, make as you go basis, reducing to slogans and quasi-intellectual postering highly complex issues that the target of their misguided slander has studied for decades.
Wren, a do nothing approach to UFO invasion as policy, implies assumptions and predictions. What are they?
There’s compelling evidence of CO2AGW.
I’ll believe it when I see it. I started looking for it in ’07, assuming it was there.
Still haven’t seen it. Maybe I just need to have more faith. If I want to see it badly enough, I will. Yes, more faith, that’s the ticket.
Seems like PNS is just a means whereby those in power can say the authority, in its broadest term. resides with us and the rest of you should accept it.
These philosophers, such as Ravetz have run so far down the rabbit hole that they are unable to see light anymore.
The policy debate over foot and mouth disease was nothing but a policy action borne out of a debate between competing interests. We call this policy or politics. It is irrelevant to the philosophy of science, or its debasement by such neo marxian, post modernist, relativist clap trap.
The use of the word stakeholders destroys any credibility. It is a leftist term used to find and include hypothetical victims wherever they can be conjured up or imagined.