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.
Over three years back, Melanie Phillips published an excellent article decrying thie subject of PNS. It is well worth a read!
http://www.melaniephillips.com/diary/?p=1469
Geoff Alder
Thank you for your post, Dr. Ravetz.
One thing you might consider is that to place science in some sort of sacrosanct category one is assuring that scientists will inevitably wind up in an isolated feed back mechanism. In the case of modern science, where the majority of science dollars comes via government resources, it means the leading scientists tend to be bureaucrats who know how to follow the bureaucratic imperative of expanding empires, expanding funding and expanding mission.
I would suggest that in the case of AGW, this is exactly what is happening.
AGW is not like an epidemic. There is no history of documented disease. There are no symptoms at this time other than those claimed by those who stand to gain from declaring the crisis. I would offer that AGW promoting scientists are more in the position of a pharmaceutical company creating a health crisis to justify its latest drug.
There is no risk from modern CO2 levels other than what those who have made careers and fortunes claim there is.
I haven’t had a chance to read all the comments (bit busy today) but I thought this was a very thought-provoking piece. Thank you Prof. Ravetz.
In some ways, it touches on the critical issues of AGW – the supposed high stakes of action vs non-action. This is where the level of uncertainty is, in fact, greatest in the AGW debate. Notwithstanding the uncertainty over how much the climate is changing and the role of humans in this, there is an almost compete lack of any real understanding of what this will mean. On a local, regional or global scale, “getting warmer” can mean drier or wetter, more extreme or less extreme and – the ultimate abstract – better or worse.
With this level of uncertainty over the impacts, how can there be any discussion of the stakes of action or inaction?
The real message to take from Prof. Ravetz’ article – for me – is that the high stakes we are talking about are ALL political. In this instance, post-normal science may provide us with an understanding, but only in as much as we should send a clear message that political stakes should be left for politicians to bet on – leave the rest of us alone!
CarlPE (20:15:53) :
I could be completely off base, but I found it difficult to pull the main points out of this post. I always found that a paper written in the format of Summary, Conclusions, Recommendation and Discussion works best when trying to cover a complex subject.
Hey, it’s Post Normal Argument Style. I’m actually serious. No need to make much sense, perhaps just as my post just above yours was trying to say. No, when you are self or group-annointed as of an untouchably enlightened intelligence, no one can really understand you, and you get to rule!
Geoffrey Alder (03:45:50) :
Over three years back, Melanie Phillips published an excellent article decrying thie subject of PNS. It is well worth a read!
http://www.melaniephillips.com/diary/?p=1469
Thanks, Geoffery. Yes, she’s got it all right there. Climate Science is not real Science but instead only a gigantic Propaganda Operation whose controllist, Totalitarian aims bode nothing good for Humanity.
@ur momisugly brent (22:02:14) :
It is still not clear as to why the World Health Organisation (WHO) raised its alert on swine flu to pandemic levels last June.
Swine flu was a textbook case of a scare
WHO= World Hoax Organization?
Is the WHO any better than the IPCC?
They share some common characteristics as sister UN agencies
————-
Aha, another post in my area of expertise!!
Here’s the quick one: flu viruses are RNA viruses (orthomyxoviridae) that mutate and re-assort their genes aggressively. When a host is infected by more than one flu virus, they can swap genes & become more virulent….the process in its extreme is called “antigenic shift.” Flu viruses infect people, swine, birds, tigers, all sorts of critters.
The public health community has been on tenterhooks for years about the H5N1 avian influenza virus, which is endemic in poultry flocks throughout Asia and spreading worldwide via wild fowl. It is now in Egypt, Czech Republic, etc. but hasn’t been found in the USA yet. H5N1 can cause a rapid, often fatal human illness, so WHO and others worry that the virus might mutate enough for efficient human-to-human transmission. Personally, I’m not that worried based on the research coming out of CDC, but hey, I’ve been wrong before.
The recent H1N1 “swine” flu is actually a mix of genes from swine, human, and avian sources and apparently had been in circulation for some time. When it first became known in Mexico, the public health community freaked (I didn’t by the way) and anticipated a repeat of the Spanish Flu pandemic of 1918, which killed millions. This bug was freaky because it seemed to target the young and pregnant women vs. elderly, so at the beginning, the public health folks didn’t know WTF we were dealing with.
Therefore, WHO went with a very conservative approach and triggered the in-place mechanism for reporting and declaration of a pandemic. A pandemic isn’t measured by the deadliness of the agent, but rather by its worldwide spread…..therefore, this novel H1N1 was a true pandemic, although loss of life was considerably less than originally anticipated by some.
I’m glad we have the WHO network, it worked very well during the SARS outbreak and is vigilant against all sorts of bioweapons and emerging tropical viruses. WHO is not without fault, but for a UN agency, they do damned good work. Unlike the IPCC, their science is sound and reporting very open to the community of scientists.
However, if you’d rather have smallpox again….
David (03:44:42) :
steven mosher (13:10:11) :
““Normal science” includes openess in methods and medadata. I have never seen anything Willis advocate that would not enforce this as “necessary”, so I do not see how what Willis advocated “brought us climategate”. Corruption is an inherent part of all human nature to various degrees, and can and does manifest in every “group”.”
My point is finer, as always. Merely calling for openness ( as Willis and I both have done) isn’t enough. Sermonizing on it ( as we both do ) isnt enough, and it brought us climategate simply because talk is cheap.
And they simply ignore our talk or find creative ways around it. and carry
on as usual. Further, I’m not sure normal science IS open. some is. Now of course we argue it SHOULD BE.
“Secondly the very name “Post Normal Science” is a horrible name, insulting to a true practice of science, which has brought vast benefits to billions.”
As an observationalist the only science I can speak about is the science
AS PRACTICED. Science is what scientists do. Just like art is what artists
do. The post normal name doesnt bother me.
“Science as applied to society has a long history. As science advances in power, it effects impact more people. If AGW was truly catestrophic, then the vast majority of conflicts of intrest would be disolved, as who wants to destroy the world? However many have wanted to, like Blackbeard, “rule the world”. We need a resuurection of classic science, where full openess is “ENFORCED”, before it goes to policy makers.”
Well yes of course. Not sure what classic science is. Not sure if it’s always
been practiced. Not sure conflicts of interest would be resolved. But
the operative question is how to enforce openness. Talk about it? that’s
easy. Enforce it? you need some protocal. If you dont want to call that
protocal post Normal, then fine. Perhaps what I am saying is this:
NORMAL SCIENCE as PRACTICED is often closed. In my mind open science
is post normal.
“Of course there should be international diplomacy in policy in regard to how scientific applications within society affect other nations. But by fusing the “science” into the political process, instead of isolating and protecting it from the political process, one runs a high risk, nay a certainty of corrupting it. This is just as true of the corrupting influence of Rome on Christianity, when the two were fused and it became the official religion.”
One problem is enforcing transparency. the IPCC is committed to openness. They are accountable to no one. I’m not impressed by flaccid comparisons
with Rome. They carry no weight.
“Steve, I hope you can give concrete examples of how you think the good Doctor’s post normal science would have prevented AGW becoming the lighning rod to worldwide political change.”
I judge Dr. Ravetz work as being a good begining to DISCUSS the issue.
that’s it. Not to trash him with the kinds of things people are saying, but rather to make a fair assessment of the situation, to discriminate between various types of situations scientists face and then discussing solutions.
So, ya, I pound my pulpit for openness and transparency, but I think we should move beyond that.
Simply: The Dr is right. There are circumstances were Theories are uncertain, interests are in conflict, stakes are high for some, and decisons perceived as immediately necessary. When other have tried to argue against him by attacking these points I think they deny some rather obvious facts.
The question is, given these situations exist, what should “one” do?
pounding the table for openness ( willis, me etc etc ) and pounding the
table for “normal” science, and even FOIAs ( hey willis did the first in
2007) didnt prevent climategate ( thats a better way to put it) and wont
prevent a misleading AR5.
Jeez,
“Steven, you yourself have said on many occasions that what Mann and CRU were doing was not Science but stating opinion since they withheld data and methods.
willis is right
Just do the science. That means sharing data and methods.”
Actually, I’ve made a somewhat finer point than that as usual. I’ve stated that their work is AN ADVERTISEMENT for science but not the science itself.
and I’ve said that I’m not rationally compelled to believe ads. The more I look at what “science” really is ( as opposed to people’s idealized notions)
the more I’m convinced that open science is Post normal.
here’s a suggestion I’ve made before.
If you call for people to “just do science” share data and methods,
then don’t post articles that dont supply data and code. lead by example.
Even excel spreadsheets can be uploaded to googlecode.
Michael Larkin (19:03:22) :
steven mosher (13:10:11) :
If I am reading you rightly, your reformulation that applies to CAGW is:
1. Theories are uncertain
2. interests are in conflict
3. Stakes are high
4. Decisions are immediate
I would ask, what was the primary driver? Why was CAGW even put on the table? If the theory was uncertain, how did it come to pass that decisions were deemed immediate or urgent?”
All theories are uncertain. In the case of AGW its a theory that predicts a
disaster. Being creatures of worry and fear of course it gets put on he table.
Being creatures of greed of course people with interests are involved.
“I think we are getting things arse about face. It all started with a manufactured urgency, not a theory, uncertain or otherwise. The manufactured urgency of those who wanted environmental interests to quickly gain powerful global influence, projected onto the putative urgency of the “problem”.”
The theory was initiated well over 100 years ago. All sense of urgency is manufactured. That’s really besides the point. the point is, given the sense of urgency that some people feel, what do you propose. a calm rational argument that these people feel differently? good luck with that.
“If post normal science were a way to stop this kind of shenanigans, I’d be all for it. However, in my opinion, it’s all part of the problem because it holds the pursuit of truth in contempt, substituting for it the concept of quality. Why, I wonder? I think it’s a form of hubris – quality can be controlled, and by extension, nature. Somehow, man is in control of nature, and just as he supposedly started the problem, he can stop it, if only we can get the stakeholders fired up and suppress any of those who might rock the boat.”
A theories quality is what we are really pointing to when we talk about it’s “truth”
“It goes back to Willis’ null hypothesis. Normal science works just fine if the null hypothesis (any putative changes in global temperatures are overwhelmingly natural rather than anthropogenic) is considered. ”
I’m not sure that Willis’ Null hypothesis has any meaning. It’s not a quantitive statement. It’s a nice rhetorical trick and one Im surprised people fell for.
Dr. Ravetz uses the FMD outbreak as an example of PNS in action. This gives me even less confidence.
From http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/lest_we_forget.htm
Vaccination would have shut the disease down quickly & even if those vaccinated had to be slaughtered for some mythical FMD free status, the number of animals saved would have been more than sufficient compensation.
DaveE.
I just wish to voice my support for Dr Ravetz’ position. Like Steven Mosher, I was shocked (but not surprised) by the reactions. I posted some comments to Dr Ravetz’ first post under my name Mike (unfortunately it seems there are several Mikes here) when that post found little sympathy on this site. I wont comment further except to say I do appreciate what Dr Ravetz has to say, and fully agree with all Steven Mosher has added to the discussion. Thanks to both.
Well argued comments from Steven Mosher. Nice to see such informed contribution.
Dear Dr Ravetz – thanks so much for joining in the discussion. Through all of this argument (in the classic sense – of exchange of information and learning) – have you reached any new understanding?
I mean (and not to be disrespectful, honestly) – as I try to read your prose and decipher your arguments – and compare them to the arguments presented here by bloggers and posters – I think that there has to the realizatiuon that you are on the wrong track for society. It must be hard to come to that realization, granted – it takes stronger EQ than IQ – but do you hear us?
Imagine if your frame of reference weren’t western and white – what if you were from Paua New Guinea or idk -whereever. What would ‘truth’ consist of? What could be agreed?
Data, observations, reproducible results. Open commentary.
Its called science. The old-fashioned kind. Your fathers’ science. It works. Really.
And we know it. Thanks again for weighing in – brave strong soul.
Post normal science means little to me,it means more to those in and around government.The thing that is important to me is that my understanding of science is not limited by censorship imposed by an elite who believe that their morality and ethics are more important than truth. The previous decade in the UK the media refused to give any coverage to the argument against man-made global warming,it seems it even extended to the peer review process, I see this as very similar to the burning of Jewish books in Nazi Germany.
Dr.Ravetz got the FMD disease!. All his discourse is not even a sophism but pure craziness. Historically there have been many conspirations, as I said before, to lead astray science, knowledge, reason and logic itself. Many of his kind have alienated knowledge into randomness in an attempt to destroy from the roots all what we have inherited from our predecessors, being their sole aim to confuse up to the level of making a GOSPEL OF CHAOS.
We should reject all that kind of theories as utterly agnostic, we must not even pay attention to them. There is neither uncertainty nor relativity and no randomness or chaos in the cosmos, but definite laws to discover.
They count on human weaknesses as the one which makes believe the fool ones intelligent and superior when dealing with complicated matters, so they provide them with such “esoterically complicated” matters. The universe it is not complicated and it is possible for man to know it and truth is within the human spirit reach, it is definetly achievable.
You people are aware when making your comments that the good doctor is over 80 years of age? I mean is that a way to talk to your elders? People here have called him very nasty things, like the person above suggesting he has caught FMD himself and is crazy. Others have made fun of his looks and his picture. And so on, every variety of slur on top of the more common ones such as commie and evil. That is way out of line. Ravetz has come here in good faith to have a discussion, and I can detect no such nastiness on his part. Ravetz I’m sure is a strong character and can take the criticism, and it’s never my intention to patronise him with this, just to direct attention to the simply unacceptable way in which some people seem to personalize scientific/ideological disagreement.
I don’t know how things are in America, but at least here in Europe we have a tradition to respect elderly people and to be polite towards them. Even when we disagree with them strongly.
As a climate skeptic, it is also a worry that if such vulgar behaviour is more widespread, it will make it more difficult to convince the neutrals and undecided of the credentials of the skeptic cause.
Ravetz’ ideas are ideas – sensu strictu.
They may be debated, etc, but remain as intellectual artefacts, in the ethereal realm of imagination.
However they cannot be tested in physical reality, for their origin is in the imaginal.
Buddenbrook (14:43:03):
I write to applaud your very fine post.
I, too, strongly disagree with Prof Ravetz (and have again posted my disagreement of him above at (09:46:43) on 12.042010), but I take severe objection to the smears and insults of him.
In addition to the unacceptable manner and nature of such behaviours, I completely share your view that you state as:
“As a climate skeptic, it is also a worry that if such vulgar behaviour is more widespread, it will make it more difficult to convince the neutrals and undecided of the credentials of the skeptic cause.”
I disagree with Prof Ravetz for the reason I have repeatedly stated, but – for what little it is worth – I offer him my apology and sympathy for the improper treatement some have given him here. And I am sure that the ‘silent majority’ of those here who disagree with him concur with your and my sentiments.
Richard
Ooops! My post that disagrees with Prof Ravetz was at (08:46:43) on 12.04.2010. But that typo in no way diminishes my support of Buddenbrook’s comment at (14:43:03).
Richard