Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
Dr. Ravetz, welcome back to the fray with your new post. My congratulations on your courage and willingness to go “once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more …”
You are putting AGW supporting scientists to shame with your bravery, most of them (with some conspicuous exceptions like Dr. Meier and Dr. Curry) post on some site where people will agree with them and pat them on the back and tell them how right they are. Here, nobody is right, everyone gets attacked (including me), and that is the strength of the site.
Onwards to your issues:
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.
My thanks in turn to Dr. Ravetz for providing the example. I now see the difference between his view and mine. What he sees as an unusual situation (facts uncertain, values in dispute) I see as everyday life.
Facts are rarely certain. Life is like that. Science is like that. It is very, very uncommon that we have scientific certainty about any complex real-world question. Despite that, throughout its history science has been of inestimable value in exactly these situations. This is because, rather than being based on something vague like beliefs or myths or “quality”, it is based on hard evidence and falsifiability and replicability. When facts are uncertain, we need more science, not less.
Regarding values, as long as there is more than one person involved (that is to say all of the time) values will likely be in dispute. Again, so what?
Since science has dealt quite well with these problems for centuries, why do we need a new post-normal “science”? How is the example different from any of the other public issues where science plays a part? Yes, as Dr. Ravetz clearly articulates, science often gets lost in the play of power politics … but that is a political issue, not a scientific issue.
Dr. Ravetz continues:
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.
I would put all of this under the heading of “transparency”. Again, this suppression and hiding is nothing new, nor is it a problem with science itself. Throughout history the people in power have sought to make their decisions in a way that is shielded from the public eye. See my discussion of the CRU Freedom of Information Act (FOI) debacle for a modern example.
I do not, however, see this as requiring any kind of “post-normal” change. It simply requires transparency, transparency, and more transparency. That’s why we have “Sunshine Laws” in the US requiring public meetings of governmental bodies. Thats why we have FOI laws. Not because of any problem with science, but because of a problem with humans and their power games. Sunlight is the best disinfectant for that disease, not a new kind of “science”.
Dr. Ravetz then discusses a couple of issues that had been raised by commenters in his previous posts.
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.
Well, despite his warning of inevitability, “democracy” as a prophetic message seems to have done pretty well. “Liberty” hasn’t fared too badly either. “Marxism”, on the other hand, led to the death of millions of people. Post-normal “science”, like the Marxism that Dr. Ravetz followed for much of his life, is rife with possibilities for corruption. This is because it preaches that, rather than following a hard line of evidence and scientific replicability, we should follow a very soft mushy line of something called “quality”. Me, I agree with Robert Heinlein, who said:
“What are the facts? Again and again and again-what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what “the stars foretell,” avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable “verdict of history”–what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!”
Or as Homer Simpson said:
Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that’s even remotely true!
It is only when people don’t like facts proving something that is remotely true that they start clamoring for a judgment based on something like “quality”. Dr. Ravetz goes on to discuss this problem of the vague nature of “quality”, saying:
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.
Although Dr. Ravetz claims that “we all know what Quality is”, count me among the ones who don’t have a clue what it is. Dr. Ravetz seems unable to define it, despite my repeated requests for clarification. I disagree entirely that “quality” is the “best we have” as a foundation for the sort of knowledge we need, as Dr. Ravetz categorically states. I don’t want something undefined (and perhaps undefinable) as the foundation for my knowledge. I prefer to build my edifices on data and evidence and mathematics and facts and replicability and falsifiability and the usual scientific foundations, rather than on “quality”, whatever that might be.
Dr. Ravetz then reveals his aversion to the concept of “truth”:
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.
I can see why, if that is his reaction to the word “truth”, he might be averse to science. For me, a scientific truth is merely something which we have not yet falsified. And until it is falsified (as most “truths” may be in time), it is our best guide. For me, scientific truth should be the “foundation for the sort of knowledge we need”, as Dr. Ravetz puts it.
Dr. Ravetz then defends himself against a straw man, viz:
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.
I neither think nor have I said that Dr. Ravetz intentionally laid the foundations for the corrupted science of the CRU. However, what he calls “Steve Schneider’s perversion of scientific integrity” fits perfectly into the framework of post-normal “science”. For those unaware of Schneider’s statement, it was:
To capture the public imagination, we have to offer up some scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements and little mention of any doubts one might have. Each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective, and being honest. This ‘double ethical bind’ we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.
Call me crazy, but I prefer scientists who are scrupulously honest, regardless of whether or not they are effective. I don’t want “scary scenarios”. But post-normal AGW scientists seem to have no problem with Schneider or his claim. For them, “scary scenarios” are their bread and butter.
Next, as ScientistForTruth pointed out in his comment on Dr. Ravetz’s earlier essay, the influence of post-normal “science” on climate science does not trace to “a single footnote by Steven Schneider”, nor did it come into the discussion “long after the worst excesses at CRU had been committed.” To the contrary, Dr. Ravetz himself linked the two back in 1990, and the link was cited by Bray and Von Storch in their 1999 paper, “Climate Science: An Empirical Example of Postnormal Science”. So the idea that it all came to pass after the CRU excesses is nonsense, it was in play a decade before that. ScientistForTruth provides further examples as well, his comment is worth reading.
As to whether post-normal “science” is totally in tune with and accepted by the AGW proponents, consider the list of recommended blogs in the blogroll at Post-Normal Times. Post-Normal Times is the main website espousing post-normal “science”, and Dr. Ravetz is listed as one of the Editors. Here are the blogs that they think represent good, honest science:
Science & Policy Blogs
A few things ill considered
Al’s Journal [Al Gore]
CEJournal
Climate Progress
ClimatePolicy
ClimateScienceWatch
Deltoid
deSmogBlog
Dot Earth
EcoEquity
Effect Measure
Environmental Economics
Hybrid Vigor
James’ Empty Blog
jfleck at inkstain
maribo
Neverending Audit
Only in it for the gold
Rabett Run
RealClimate
Resilience Science
Skeptical Science
Stoat
The Intersection
Other Science & Policy Links
Network for Ecosystem Sustainability and Health (NESH)
NUSAP Net
Real World Economics Review
SciDev Net
Stephen H. Schneider, Climatologist
Union of Concerned Scietists [sic]
We have Steven Scheider’s link, and links to RealClimate, Rabett Run, Skeptical Science, Stoat, deSmogBlog, Deltoid, and the rest of the un-indicted co-conspirators. Many of these blogs ruthlessly censor opposing scientific views, in what I suppose is the best post-normal fashion. We have the blog of the noted climate scientist, Al Gore.
But not one blog which opposes the AGW “consensus” is listed. No Watts Up With That, which was voted the Best Science Blog last year. No ClimateAudit, voted the Best Science Blog the year before that. Not one real science blog, just dissent-suppressing apologists for AGW pseudo-science. Color me unimpressed, that is as one-sided a list as I can imagine. How is that scientific in any sense?
So while Dr. Ravetz may disavow any responsibility for the AGW debacle or the CRU malfeasance, it is quite clear that the concepts of post-normal “science” are central to the anti-scientific philosophy espoused on those AGW blogs, and by the AGW movement in general. Coincidence? You be the judge …
Yes, I agree that Dr. Ravetz did not, as he says, “personally and intentionally [lay] the foundations” for the nonsense that passes for science in the AGW camp, from the CRU on down. But his philosophy has most certainly and quite consciously been used as a guiding star by those who would prefer that we do not look at the man behind the curtain … and that is no coincidence at all. Like Marxism, post-normal “science” is a perfect philosophy for those who would propound their own ideology while hiding behind a pseudo-scientific shield of “Quality”.
Finally, you may have noted that I have called it post-normal “science” throughout this essay. This is for a very good reason.
— It may be post-normal … but it is not science by even the most expansive definition of the word. —
Let me close by saying that despite my (obvious) distaste for Dr. Ravetz’s philosophy, he has my highest admiration for putting his ideas out on this forum. That, to me, is real science. Science progresses by people making claims in a public forum, whether in journals or blogs or other media, and other people trying to falsify the claims. At the end, what is left standing is “truth” … at least until it is falsified at some future date. In this manner (if in no other), Dr. Ravetz is following the scientific method, and has my respect for doing so.
davidmhoffer (17:33:08) : When I gave you your pants back, I had no idea you would wear them on your head while walking blindly in circles and declaring yourself the winner of the race.
Simply to note that such a sentence should not go unremarked. David: that’s a classic!
Buddenbrook (00:23:43) :
I think you’ve identified an area that fits well into the “extremely high stakes, extremely high uncertainty” category identified as the target of PNS. Identifying such issues is probably the easy part. The difficulty lies in thinking about solutions. Before we even think about anything like PNS, or even begin to conceptualize the solution as “scientific” or otherwise, we need to ask whether *any* generalized, systematic solution is possible. You are discussing specific proposed solutions to one specific area of risk. Unless there are commonalities in the kinds of solutions one might want in different areas, the answer to the previous question is no, and there is no room for PNS or anything with equivalent aims. The controls you discuss might make it easier to handle the specific problems you mention, and might make it more difficult to deal with something else.
The PNS writings speak of “ignorance of ignorance”. Is there any answer to such problems, except openness and humility and the willingness to prepare for different scenarios as long as the preparations involve no major harmful present-day consequences?
I want to stress that I’m not intending to be categorical. I’m exploring this hoping to learn something.
Perhaps the third time is the charm …
April 15
PNS Headquarters
Department of Thought Control
Scientist Surveillance Division
Commander; “Report Mr Buddenbrook.”
Buddenbrook; “Sir! We are advancing aggressively in a rearward direction and soon will have ourselves surrounded. I sense victory sir.”
Commander; “Excellent Buddenbrook. One question though.”
Buddenbrook; “Sir?”
Commander; “Why do you have your pants on your head?”
Buddenbrook (00:23:43) :
You haven’t “destroyed” “my position”. The problem is, that you haven’t even begun to understand the argument, but have substituted for it your own pre-conceptions and strawmen. It’s ghosts and phantoms that you have chosen to chase, instead of dealing in logic and substance.>>
Response: You, who have no expertise in the technology or the science or the military applications, presume to know what I do and do not understand. Having nothing more than the cherry picked opinions of scientists whose science you do not understand to draw upon, I presume your conclusion is derived from the obvious inherent superiority of your intellect versus mine.
Buddenbrook;
You have failed to understand the crucial difference between 20th century and 21st century techonologies. You make direct analogies between the two, while they are crucially dissimilar for 20th century approach to work in the 21st.>>
Response: I had intended to shout “liar liar pants on fire” at this point, but given that your pants are still on your head, I fear for your safety. For starters, I fully understand the difference between the brute force destruction of a nuclear bomb versus an engineered virus that can selectively kill its host based on racial genealogy parameters or an airborne nanobot device that can be inhaled and programmed to take additional actions once in the blood stream. I made no analogies at all between the technologies. What I did was explain the low levels of technology required to make some very nasty things, and I pointed out to you that when scientists can’t do what they do because of rules and surveillance, then they go somewhere where they can, and they do it for some potentially nasty people. You complain about logic and substance, but still have not addressed this point.
Buddenbrook;
Rest of your posts consist of increasingly aggressive and juvenile personalization of what should be a philosophical discussion, which doesn’t make you any more convincing even if you think you are being witty, which you are not.>>
Response; I always know when I’ve hit a nerve when people accuse me of being juvenile and not witty. First, I take considerable pride in my juvenile wit. Second, if it is a purely philosophical discussion you want, go argue the sound of a tree falling in the forest or try and figure out if the temperature really went up if there was no one to read the thermometer. You have proposed real world solutions to real world issues, but when I point out real world practicality constraints to you, you either change your position, ignore my point, claim that I don’t understand the science you have no expertise in, or that I am not playing by the rules of a “philosophical discussion”. On a hike once I slipped and fell down an embankment and wound up nose to nose with a black bear. When you are nose to nose with something that is capable of killing you, the rules of a philosophical discussion aren’t nearly as much value as a fist sized rock to the nose. There are nasty people out there, and they want to kill you. Well to be accurate they want to kill me. They have “uses” for people like you, which you seem to be fulfilling on a voluntary basis.
Buddenbrook;
I’m firm in my position, as it is constructed on substance and logic.
Response; It has shifted repeatedly, which I have documented. You refuse to even acknowledge half a dozen issues I raise, let alone refute them. You continue to both reprobate and approbate and call it logic. You have not answered my direct challenges, nor Willis. You have reversed yourself on most comments and when faced with the voice of experience and expertise whine about the rules of philisophical debate. Your arguments are like a chocolate easter bunny. Looks great, tastes great, but in the end it is hollow, and not healthy for you.
Buddenbrook;
Your “solution” of an arm race and free hands for the private sector in techonologies far more dangerous than anything mankind have unlocked so far is irresponsible and unacceptable.>>
Response; I never suggested a “solution”, I didn’t even try because I don’t have one. I suggested that the solution you propose is not practical, that the cure is worse than the disease, and that the only real defense against those who would do you harm is superior offensive and defensive capabilities. If I had a solution to this, trust me, I would propose it. I don’t, and neither do you. Free reign may be unacceptable to you, but your solution is unacceptable to me. It has been tried in the past before and failed miserably at controlling much of anything other than torture, extermination, and repression. You wish to repeat history on the assumption that “this time” it will be different becuase the stakes are different. How much higher than Russia, China, EU and US lobbing a few thousand H-bombs around during a one day war do you think the stakes can get?
Buddenbrook’
USA, China and EU are the key players to avert this risk world wide. Not just in USA, China and EU, letting others to be free to do how they please as you have wrongly interpreted it. It’s far more difficult for “the Al-Qaedas” you keep referring to, to be making their own nano assemblers in a world where the techonologies are being controlled, than in a world where research in both governmental and private sectors would be non-restricted, competing against each other, spreading like mushrooms.>>
Response; They’re growing ‘shrooms? How many did you have? There is not a single thing you can do to stop the research from being done. The only thing you can do is get the research done yourself so you know what you are dealing with. You can figure out the materials and processes involved and attempt to bar access to them, you can build defensive strategies, you can decide to get them before they get you. But stop the science itself? In a world full of people who will sell to the highest bidder? In a world where technical knowledge can be dispersed across the globe in milliseconds? You need more ‘shrooms.
Buddenbrook;
And again, contrary to your pre-conceptions and assumptions, this wouldn’t halt all research and for an example prevent multinational and supervised joint projects that would develop defenses against the risks and potentially hostile threats. Risks and threats that would now be considerably smaller, when the research would be approached and controlled with the caution and prudence necessary.>>
Response; You agreed previously that break through science comes from individuals and small groups. When government or anyone else “controls” the research, the innovation dies. Fiefdoms emerge that fight for control of available funds. What happens to the losers who don’t get funded? “Honey, I’m home. Good news bad news. Bad news is I got fired today. Good news is I got this great job offer and we’re moving to Lybia!”
Buddenbrook;
There, of course, are no perfect solutions here, solutions without their faults. A 100% tight surveillance network is of course an impossibility.>>
Reponse; Oh. So its impossible. But let’s do it anyway. And who will your surveillance network control? Why the people who aren’t doing anything wrong of course. But it will do a fine job of that what with all the petty informants and everything and dedicated interrogators getting answers out of the accused and being certain to “find” something because if everyone investigated is innocent then there must be a problem with the investigator. In the meantime, the people you are really concerned about are doing what ever they are doing quite outside your surveillance network. In Lybia. Which doesn’t even have a surveillance network. Which part of the logic chain is escaping you?
Buddenbrook;
Yet, when the research is prevented from being easily accessible, the risks that are potentially posed by lone unabomber type madmen, which I personally think would pose a bigger threat than “Al Qaeda”, would be less likely to become reality.>>
Response; Al Qaida figured out how to kill a few thousand people with a handful of volunteers and a few box cutters. You can’t control the world wide supply of box cutters, you can however prevent them from getting onto airplanes. You can’t stop the research and if you try you are pretty much guaranteeing that someone who was told “no, you can’t do that” will go somewhere that says “sure, what do you need?” Constricted supply creates a very profitable black market, the opposite of what you want to achieve because you can neither surveille it nor control it.
Buddenbrook;
The USA of your ideals armed to its teeth in bio- and nanoweapons dictating from a position of strenght is a ridiculous concept in this regard. It would probably only spur on the lone mad scientist, it would do nothing to stop him, but the access to these technologies would be made far easier to him.>>
Response; I said negotiate, not dictate. There was a period of time when only the US had nukes. They did not take the opportunity to reduce Moscow to rubble. If only Russia had nukes at the time, what might they have done? If only Iran had nukes, what might they do? Being the toughest kid on the block doesn’t mean you go and beat the daylights out of everyone else because you can. You are right though, if you do beat them up, eventually one is going to sneak up behind you with a baseball bat. A better strategy is to not beat them up in the first place. But if one of them does pick up a baseball bat anyway, you will be glad you came up with those bionic eyes in the back of your head and carry that new pocket howitzer you designed.
Buddenbrook;
And how would you use that position of strenght against any hostile powers either, which now, unsupervised in a world of no surveillance network, would be developing their own weapons in haste?
Response; You admitted earlier that getting hostile powers like North Korea and Iran to submit to surveillance would be impossible to do, that surveillance could not possibly be effective, and now you ask what will happen if we don’t have surveillance? The answer is surveillance that doesn’t work is precisely the same as no surveillance. Well except for the completely innocent people who get surveilled and jailed for petty crimes so the police can show everyone what a good job they are doing. Congrats. You have implemented a police state that prevents anyone from doing anything innovative and chased all the brilliant scientists out of the country to the places that you admit you cannot control or even keep under surveillance and now you wring your hands and ask me what to do about it? Well I assume the brilliant scientists escaped, or did you decide that building a wall around the country to keep them in topped with snipers who shoot to death anyone who gets out anyway was the way to go?
Buddenbrook;
This is where you go wrong when you fail to notice the dissimilarities between 20th and 21st century techonologies of mass terror. The latter can be developed in single labs, impossible to tract unless societies are opened up for free surveillance.
Response; So you’re going to “open up” for “free surveillance” Iran, Lybia, Syria, North Korea, how?…. oh, and you keep bringing up China. If you think they will allow one single webcam in one of their secret facilities you are delusional to a point that no amount of psychotherapy will cure. They may be able to get you to take your pants off your head though. Not to mention that you already admitted that a surveillance network wasn’t actually possible. DO YOU EVEN LISTEN TO YOURSELF?
Buddenbrook;
Today you can notice nuclear facilities which are huge, and it’s impossible of course to make nuclear tests without a notice. And it’s difficult to stockpile vast stores of these weapons for countries like Iran or North-Korea.
But with the 21st century weapons, when you have the technology you can produce billions upon billions of them from basic raw materials. And self-replicators would of course be even more dangerous as they would replicate themselves, a genie that would be impossible to put back in the bottle.
Response; Iran’s nuke program was set back by years when one of their key researchers defected to the United States. There is no one answer to dealing with these things but creating a police state that would result in key researchers defecting from the United States to Iran is insane.
Buddenbrook;
The paradigm, and the narrative have changed. It’s an entirely new framework.
I have tried to get you to see this, but you keep going back to your 20th century cold war paradigms, which are entirely inadequate here.
Response; The paradigms are the same because though the science has changed, people have not. You have constructed in your mind an artificial world subject to logical processes that yield obvious solutions that you propose to implement. The real world with real people in it does not obey the same logical processes, which have been implemented multiple times with disastrous results. It doesn’t matter if you are trying to control science, the number of children people can have, or what religion they may believe in. The outcome is always not what you expected, control of what you set out to control never achieved, and the damage to society orders of magnitude beyond intention, even comprehension. Those things will happen again and it doesn’t matter if you are suppressing Solzhenitsyn’s Cancer Ward or someone’s cool new nanobot. The control systems will fail to control what you set out to control, they will confer power on a handfull of thought police who will become forever corrupted by it, and deliver the technology you fear most into the hands of the people I fear most.
They will liquidate me, but they have uses for fools. I have to tell you though, they may draw the line at people who wear their pants on their head and can’t maintain their position on an issue from one post to the next while screaming the whole time about logic.
Just in case anyone’s interested, I’ve now read about half of a 1992 book chapter on PNS by Funtowizc and Ravetz. I find it solidifies my previous impression that they have the right diagnosis and the wrong medicine.
They mention “elevating experts’ guesses to the status of scientific facts” and “how mathematics functions as a means for dogmatism and elitism, little changed in principle since the Pharaos”. Does this seem familiar? The mathematical sophistication of climate models posing as validity? I think they’ve aptly described some problems that we happen to see in the climate controversy, but are not new.
They also take exception to “radical social reductionism, implying that ‘pollution is in the nose beholder'”.
But I’m less impressed by their proposed solution to these problems. In fact, I think Willis has hit the target pretty well. “Post-normal science” is a contrived and misleading term. It’s lacking a proper logical relation to Kuhn’s normal science, and using the word science in the context seriously muddies the waters. In calling for the “democratization of science” they are actually not radical enough. The issues and principles that need “democratization” are just politics mislabeled as science. They should be identified as political, and therefore democratic by definition in a democratic society. The precautionary principle would be an example. It’s political, not scientific, and should be the subject of political debate. It can be discussed empirically, but only by studying how it’s worked in the past.
“Extended facts” is another failed concept. Don’t extend the concept of facts; instead allow non-factual information to inform the debate whenever appropriate.
Dagfinn;
The precautionary principle would be an example. It’s political, not scientific, and should be the subject of political debate.>>
Agreed with your whole post and this piece in particular. I have noticed that the concepts of PNS and the precautionary principle are being promoted in the climate debate but no where else. Why only the climate debate? Are there not other facts uncertain, stakes high issues facing the world?
Iran may be on the verge of a bomb, and has threatened to wipe Israel off the face of the map. No discussion of precautionary principle and Israel taking pre-emptive action.
Israel taking pre-emptive action would inflame the Arab world with unknown consequences. Ought to be a precautionary principle discussion in that.
If Iran hits Israel with a nuke and Israel craters every Arab capital in the region so that they aren’t faced with a conventional war while they recover from the nuke attack, what will be the consequence to world oil supply and for how long? Ought to be a precautionary principle discussion in that.
We’ve had several “near misses” from asteroids in the last few years in the “end of human race” size range. One would think a discussion of precautionary principles in the context of detection and defensive strategies ought to be in order.
A lot of the older Soviet nuclear reactors have the same design flaw as Chernobyl. One would think this would spark a precautionary principle discussion.
But no, it is only climate where the facts are uncertain, the stakes high and the matter urgent enough for Phd’s in philosphy to weigh in.
@Buddenbrook
Give me liberty or give me death. As for the death, it matters not to me whether it comes by way of butter knife or ultimate nullifier.
You can keep your PNS.
Dagfinn,
I’d rather talk of a broader framework than of solutions, of an approach rather than any exact answers. The postulation is that: Something akin to a PNS framework is initiated when a field of research has to confront phenomena, that potentially, with considerable probability, poses vast negative, unpredictable or ethically troublesome consequences for the larger society, for mankind. When this occurs it is the moral imperative for the scientists to become scientist-activists, to become politically active, to communicate the risks and the uncertainty to policy makers and the public. As a result the field of research will be politicized and will be a subject to wider political and societal discourse in which the scientists will be key participants. This is not a normal role for a scientist, so it can be seen as “post normal”.
The popperian figure in his white coat, when becoming avare of potential risks of huge magnitude, has to become aware of the responsibility that comes with this awareness. What I mean with a moral imperative is that he can’t hide behind his lab desk and insist that his responsibility is only to do the research. He is in a unique position to understand the risks and to communicate them. And it is his responsibility.
This is the context in which the popperian figure has to stop for a moment, throw away his white coat, grab a megaphone and become a scientist-activist out of moral responsibility.
If the scientist won’t communicate the risks and the uncertainty, who then? Who else will be in a position to understand the research and the risks potentially inherent in it? No one is in a better position than the scientist to understand it. And the scientist carries an aura of authority that is invaluable.
Someone akin to a post normal scientist is the person who out of necessity combines his role as a researcher with the role as a public spokersperson and activist.
He will out of necessity deal in uncertainty, and not in the pure, pristine popperian ideals of verification and falsification. As the very tests to falsify/verify whether experiment X could lead to a self-replicator nightmare or something equally dreadful are the very thing he has stood up to confront out of moral necessity, very likely with no scientific certainty to support him.
He can’t deal in this exact research because he understands that the prudence and pre-caution that follow from the moral imperative place restrictions on this very classical framework itself and it’s traditional freedoms.
So it is very much a narrative change. Science with the inseparable dimension of in-built risk-awareness, risk-analysis, communication of the risks and risk-avoidance. The post normal scientist-activist as the initiator of this process and it’s central participant.
Risk avoidance meaning the concrete intervention on the part of the legislative power, as deemed necessary on basis of the communication and analysis in which the scientist-activists have taken part.
Something akin to this I would picture as the new framework, that is activated whenever deemed necessary on basis of the science/technological research itself.
The solutions of global surveillance and global restrictions placed on research by the co-operating superpowers of USA, China and EU in the case of the potentially fatal 21st century technologies is a hypothetical answer to a specific case that “post normal scientists” on their part will have to confront. The hypothetical solution to a specific challenge naturally doesn’t define the general framework, rather the case-specific outcome that could result from the ‘post normal’ process.
One more word on this specific proposed solution to a specific science(technology) related existential risk. The solution is not perfect. I don’t think there are perfect solutions. A round of Russian roulette I see as inevitable. But still the precaution that prudence commands while it cannot completely avert the dangers it can, and this is crucial, remove a number of the bullets before the world, man, in our feverish madness pull the trigger.
(The folly and fallacy of davidmhoffer is that the pants he insist wearing on his head would shield him against the bullet.)
April 16
PNS Central Command
Department of Thought Control
Scientist Surveillance Division
Commander; “Buddenbrook, have you got this Hoffer dissenter under control yet?”
Buddenbrook; “Easily sir. First I said the problem was controlling scientists in the US, China and EU, then I told him the problem was rogue scientists who could be anywhere. Then I hit him with importance of a surveillance network, followed up by explaining it was impossible. His last set of points I totally rebutted using nothing but complete silence. Then, to cap it all off, I convinced him that wearing his pants on his head would make him bullet proof. Totally under control sir.”
Commander; “Excellent work Buddenbrook. But why are your pants still on your head?”
Buddenbrook; “Well sir, he said I could be bullet proof too…”
Buddenbrook;
The folly and fallacy of davidmhoffer is that the pants he insist wearing on his head would shield him against the bullet.)>>
I would like to congratulate you on your first attempt at humour. I rate it a slight chuckle and encourage you to continue improving.
Buddenbrook;
If the scientist won’t communicate the risks and the uncertainty, who then? Who else will be in a position to understand the research and the risks potentially inherent in it? No one is in a better position than the scientist to understand it. And the scientist carries an aura of authority that is invaluable.>>
In 1986 scientists testing proposed modifications to a reactor shut down system proceeded with a new experiment despite three earlier failed attempts, and went forward under different conditions known to be outside the operating parameters of the reactor. The experiment not only failed, it caused the reactor to melt down. The number of deaths due to the Chernobyl disaster is still unknown.
Scientists make mistakes. They have egos. They become so over confident in their theory that they risk the lives of others to prove it, even if it means bypassing the safety systems of a nuclear reactor. How would surveillance have helped prevent this? No one was in better position than them to understand it. They used their aura of authority to show that it was safe. Excellent. The surveillance footage would be very valuable in stopping them because someone would have noticed that their auras were missing.
The engineers who designed the shuttle warned that a cold weather launch was dangerous. They were asked to PROVE that is was dangerous, and as they could not prove it, the launch went forward, killing everyone on board. Though it was their own design, their aura just wasn’t big enough.
The framework you propose relies in the honesty, integrity, and competence of scientists who may or may not have it. It relies on others to decide when to listen to them and when not and that they will have the competence to know which is which. It confers powers on the state that cannot control anyone that is determined to evade control. Powers that once granted, cannot be revoked. Powers that once given, seek to force scientists to produce the results that those with power want. That’s how shuttles get launched when they shouldn’t. That’s how reactors get melted down. That’s how we get climate graphs shaped like hockey sticks from computer programs that draw the same hockey stick regardless of the data. That’s how we get taxation systems designed to create a new world order, to solve a problem that can’t be proven, justified by an aura of scientific authority built of science that is fraudulent. Fearing the exposure of their fraud, the collapse of their aura, those who would seize power cover the fraud up with science post normal.
Power sweeps the aura aside when it is inconvenient. Power raises the aura to defy reality when convenient. Science proved the superiority of the Aryan race. Science proved that the Sun circled the earth. Science proved that disease could be cured by draining blood.
Your framework relies on honesty, integrity, competence and a complete lack of selfishness. These traits are not reliable in the human population. Sad that they are not, but they are not.
In any event, it may interest you to know that I once shot myself. I was trying to prove that I could knock a tin can off one rock by ricocheting the bullet off another rock. The possibility of a second ricochet not having occurred to me, I was startled to have shot myself in the chest, knocking myself over backwards. This resulted in momentary concern from my friends, followed by extended laughing once they determined I was OK. So you see, I’m already bullet proof, I have no need to wear my pants on my head. You may do as you wish.
Buddenbrook (15:45:50) :
For now I’ll have to go with davidmhoffer’s version of caution, at least in this last part of the discussion. In fact, your proposed framework looks to me more like the Stalinist strawman of PNS used by some in this thread than PNS itself.
But let me walk with your logic part of the way: A scientist who discovers unexpected and unrecognized danger has a moral imperative to come out of the lab, I can follow that. And then “He is in a unique position to understand the risks and to communicate them. And it is his responsibility.” Sure, but will he do so honestly or in a way that manipulates the public to support whatever measure he himself “deems necessary”?
You keep saying “deemed necessary”. Leif Svalgaard asked “deemed necessary by whom?” It’s an essential question.
“No one is in a better position than the scientist to understand it.” Well, the risks, but not necessarily the course of action needed to avoid them. And will the scientist try to empower others to understand the risks, or over-simplify them as it’s been done with climate change?
Stalinism? Scientist-activists = Stalinism? In Stalinist Russia scientist-activists would have been sent to the gulags. Scientists were not active political subjects but under strict state control.
“Deemed necessary by whom”? By the democratic decision making process, in which the scientist-activists would participate. No one is proposing a technocracy.
What comes to climate change and PNS. The “consensus” scientists have not openly and honestly discussed the uncertainties. They have been more like covert-activists, or rather boastful, corrupted and self-serving “normal scientists”. They have often tried to hide and disguise their political activity.
“Science is settled” does not imply uncertainty, so in the first place they have been rather reluctant to admit this PNS criteria.
If they had been honest normal scientists instead of corrupted normal scientists, doubt there would exist a scientific basis to argue for huge risks and political urgency.
And even if we hypothetically assume the premise of huge risks is valid, then: If they had been honest post normal scientists instead of corrupted normal scientists, openly political, open about the uncertainty, there would exist a much more healthy basis for an honest scientific and political dialogue than there now does.
Stalinism? There’s only so much stupidity a thinking person can tolerate before it becomes pointless.
Buddenbrook (07:08:27) :
Thanks for clarifying. It wasn’t obvious from your previous comment that you were calling for honesty and democratic decision-making rather than stealth activism and elitism. Re-reading it, I find that you did mention communicating uncertainty, but that’s about the only clue I can find.
Buddenbrook (07:08:27) :
Stalinism? Scientist-activists = Stalinism? In Stalinist Russia scientist-activists would have been sent to the gulags. Scientists were not active political subjects but under strict state control.>>
And yet you continue to propose strict state control, complete with surveillance networks, failing to understand that the inevitable result of what you propose is, in fact, Stalinism.
Buddenbrook;
“Deemed necessary by whom”? By the democratic decision making process, in which the scientist-activists would participate. No one is proposing a technocracy.
You have proposed strict government control of technical research. Despite your good intentions, what it will evolve into is not what you intend or envision.
Buddenbrook;
What comes to climate change and PNS. The “consensus” scientists have not openly and honestly discussed the uncertainties. They have been more like covert-activists, or rather boastful, corrupted and self-serving “normal scientists”. They have often tried to hide and disguise their political activity.
“Science is settled” does not imply uncertainty, so in the first place they have been rather reluctant to admit this PNS criteria. >>
So you present as evidence the utter failure of a large group of scientists to act in accordance with any semblance of the integrity, honesty and competence required to make your proposal even remotely viable. Do you listen to yourself? I mean really. DO YOU LISTEN TO YOURSELF?
Buddenbrook;
If they had been honest normal scientists instead of corrupted normal scientists, doubt there would exist a scientific basis to argue for huge risks and political urgency.>>
If only they had been, but they weren’t. If only corrupted normal scientists only existed in climate science, but they don’t. If only this meant that those who lust for power, having been thwarted in the realm of climate science, would only put aside their dreams and not pursue a different science to support their quest, but they won’t.
Buddenbrook;
And even if we hypothetically assume the premise of huge risks is valid, then: If they had been honest post normal scientists instead of corrupted normal scientists, openly political, open about the uncertainty, there would exist a much more healthy basis for an honest scientific and political dialogue than there now does.>>
And yet you propose government authority (that you admit won’t work) informed by a surveillance system (that you admit won’t work) and judged by honest post normal scientists (which, having no scientific credentials you cannot differentiate from the corrupt ones) instead of corrupted normal scientists (which you not only can’t differentiate from honest ones, but which thrive in the authoritative government controlled environment you propose).
Buddenbrook;
Stalinism? There’s only so much stupidity a thinking person can tolerate before it becomes pointless.>>
I think you may be correct. My capacity to tolerate stupidity is very low, hence my sarcasm and ascerbic juvenile wit in response, though the facts and logic are always part of the answer. I believe you meant perhaps capacity or patience to deal with stupidity not being infinite, the discussions at some point becomes pointless for one side or the other. While my tolerance remains low, my capacity and patience have not yet been so much as dented. If you wish to continue to spout drivel, could you at least come up with new drivel, you have been repeating yourself of late not to mention providing the very examples that defeat your own arguments. Your last volley, to dismiss your detractors with the devastating criticism that they are stupid and unworthy to continue to debate you is an admission that you have no arguments left to table, and so walk away in a huff, declaring yourself the winner, angry that those with lesser intellects than your own cannot percieve the logic and reason so obvious to you.
Frankly, and in all seriousness, I think you are a bright guy. You lack real world experience, rely on an education that appears to be entirely theoretical, and live in fear of the predictions of Bill Joy, a brilliant man, but a person who made those predictions quite outside his field of expertise. I suggest that you take steps to broaden your perspective:
1. Get a job in a Fortune 500 size technology company. Observe for yourself the emergence of fiefdoms that protect and promote themselves even at the expense of the company they work for. Observe for yourself that those who do most of the work and those who take most of the credit are frequently not the same people. Observe for yourself what happens when brilliant researchers, thwarted by the beauracracy and the power of the fiefdmons, become frustrated and leave for places where they will be appreciated.
2. Read history. Not the clash of civilizations, but the rise to power of the people who controlled them. Investigate in detail the rise to power of people like Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Kruschev, Putin, Ahmadinijhad and Mao. Understand what the levers of power are, and what the stepping stones and usefulness of idiots are in achieving it.
3. Read the classics of Science Fiction. I am serious. The issues you raise have been dealt with by some of the most astute obervers of the human condition who ever lived. Though the stories they tell were intended for entertainment, they were informed by real life experience by people who frequently lived through massive human conflicts themselves, and more often than not were scientists in their own right. My recommended reading list, by no means authoritative or complete, and in no particular order, follows:
Isaac Assimov
The Foundation Series
John Wyndham
The Chrysalids
Ray Bradbury
Fahrenheit 451
George Orwell
1984
Robert A Heinlein
The Past Through Tomorrow
The Moon is a Harsh Mistress
Starship Troopers (don’t judge the book by the movie)
James Blish
Black Easter
Orson Scott Card
Ender’s Game
Ender’s Shadow
Children of the Mind
Larry Niven
Ringworld
Joe Haldeman
Forever War
Forever Peace
Kurt Vonnegut Jr
Slaughterhouse 5
Ursula K LeGuin
The Left Hand of Darkness
Something Wicked This Way Comes
Pournelle (?)
Man of Steel, Woman of Kleenex
Buddenbrook : “If the scientist won’t communicate the risks and the uncertainty, who then? Who else will be in a position to understand the research and the risks potentially inherent in it? No one is in a better position than the scientist to understand it. And the scientist carries an aura of authority that is invaluable.”
Who then? Someone else. Someone with a grasp of politics and the way that the relevant people think and act. These are skills that the scientist might not and typically does not have. If the scientist does get involved in this activity (beyond providing an alert and information) then there is an immediate conflict of interest between this and the ongoing scientific research. History tells us that with such a conflict of interest, almost inevitably the research will be corrupted.
Buddenbrook (15:45:50)
I have to confess, when somebody says that there is a “moral imperative” for scientists to become activists because something is “ethically troublesome”, I have to call BS.
It is precisely these kind of overblown claims that Schneider makes above, that scientists “have to” offer scary statements, that they “have to” make simplified, dramatic statements, that they “have to” conceal their doubts. In other words, Schneider says they have to lie.
“Have to” lie? Is there a “moral imperative” to lie? That’s the most immoral imperative I’ve heard of in a while. It is absolutely immoral for a scientist to lie and conceal as Schnieder and Buddenbrook recommend.
I absolutely don’t want research to “be politicized” as Buddenbrook recommends. That is exactly what brought us the CRU email and the scary stories and the dramatic statements.
I want scientists to warn us of all of the things that Buddenbrook discusses above. I want them to discuss all of the ramifications of their work. But I want them to do it as scientists, not as politicians. That way lies the path of James Hansen, who is living fat on my taxpayer dollars and is advising people to break the law on one hand, and advising that those who disagree with him should face criminal trials on the other hand.
Finally, I keep asking Buddenbrook for a PRACTICAL EXAMPLE of what he is waving his hands about. No answer yet, he just goes off into another philosophical fantasy. The same is true of Dr Ravetz. I’m not easily discouraged, however, so I’ll ask again. This is the fourth time I’ve asked for an example … Buddenbrook, you do understand what an “example” is, don’t you?
You know, an example like “In 19XX, the brand new technology of YY was a problem. Post-normal science solved this problem by ZZ. It could not have been solved by normal science because of RR, SS, and TT.”
Still waiting …
Buddenbrook (15:45:50)
I don’t mind the scientists talking about the risks and the uncertainty. I see that as part of their job. However, that is very, very different than the “advocacy” that you and PNS are recommending for scientists. As a very relevant example of what happens when scientists get into advocacy, we have your new breed of “scientist-politician” like Stephen Schneider saying DON’T MENTION THE UNCERTAINTY. Exactly the opposite of what you claim will happen from your gorgeous philosophizing … and there are dozens and dozens of other examples, equally bad, and equally obvious … or at least obvious to everyone but you and Jerry Ravetz.
Like Ravetz, you are so far into your theories that you have failed to notice what happens when those theories come into the real world. The only thing that I want scientists to be advocates for is scientific truth. Period.
What has happened from the application of PNS theories is that climate scientists have lost the “aura of authority that is invaluable.” They had it when they were advocates for the truth. When they became scientist-politicians as you and Ravetz have repeatedly advocated, they started dodging FOI requests and making up “scary scenarios”.
So while your beautiful theories are quite wonderful in some ivory tower abstract sense, wake up and LOOK AT WHAT HAS HAPPENED WHEN THEY HAVE BEEN PUT INTO PRACTICE! They have been an unmitigated disaster, leading an entire field of science into disrepute and destroying the trust that people had in those scientists.
Sorry to shout, but dang, it’s hard to get through to you, Buddenbrook …
Willis Eschenbach;
What has happened from the application of PNS theories is that climate scientists have lost the “aura of authority that is invaluable.” >>
Buddenbrook started out by proposing surveillance and ended with scientists as advocates with an aura of authority. If we are to trust in their advocacy and aura of authority, what value the surveillance? Let alone that neither strategy has ended in anything but disaster in the past. It strikes me that PNS amounts to no more than a mental exercize on the part of “philosophers” trying to make a name for themselves. It has no practical value and when asked to show it, the PNS proponents enter into either circular arguments, or run and hide. The argument itself seems to have value to them, the arriving at practical solutions to real world problems does not seem to be on their agenda, and they are either ignorant of, or just don’t care about, the harm they are doing.
During the cold war, the US and Russia through various agreements like SALT managed to increase the destructive capacity of their arsenals by trading in A-bombs for H-bombs. There were of course other complexities, but one of the arguments by scientists on both sides related to the massive difference in radiation fall out between the two. By moving to H-bombs, both sides felt that they were in a better position of both deterrance and offensive capacity, but that the reduction in A-bombs increased the chance of “survivability” for both sides. While that is a hypothesis I would not want to see tested, it is interesting that both sides looked at one aspect of nuclear weapons and agreed that some of the scary things were TOO scary. No PNS involved, just determined resolve and tough negotiations.
If PNS had any real world value, we would see its proponents applying it to something of practical value that could show real world results (or failures). Where is PNS in the debate over NASA’s program directions? One would think raising the spectre of an asteroid collission and having a space program that was in concert with its other goals, preparing a mitigation capability would be a good application of PNS principles. Where is PNS in the discussion of a potential middle east arms race that may well end [in? – willis] nuclear war, cutting off half the worlds oil supply? Again, a case of the facts uncertain and the stakes high, but nary a PNS advocate in sight.
Politicians come in many different stripes, but I have always divided them into two types. Leaders, and bandwagon jumpers, and far more of the latter. Absent from the PNS advocates are any real leaders. They seem comprised instead of bandwagon jumpers who, once aboard, want to both stear the wagon and choose the music, despite having no experience with either. For them, victory is achieved by convincing people to let them, not by choosing the right tune or keeping the wagon on the road.
[in? – willis]
yes
Let me start from a different angle: Michael Crichton had a hypothesis about how the global warming scare originated, tracing it back to SETI and the idea of nuclear winter.
http://www.michaelcrichton.net/speech-alienscauseglobalwarming.html
In this excellent piece, Crichton explains how unknowable things come to appear knowable, and how you can have bogus calculations of numerical quantities and probabilities. The kind of uncertainty that PNS places in the post-normal category instead comes to appear as normal, quantifiable uncertainty or even near-certainty.
Where does PNS fit into this? First, Crichton makes it unnecessary to blame PNS, since he offers an alternative explanation of why all this happened. No philosophical theory like PNS is needed to support it. But the question remains whether PNS can make it worse. I’m in two minds about this. On the one hand, PNS pointing out the problem–that some uncertainties represent “ignorance of ignorance”–is potentially helpful. On the other hand, the PNS notion that there is a way to manage these uncertainties and act in spite of them may tempt scientists and politicians to try when they shouldn’t.
But it seems to me recent history shows that they have to take the issue out of the post-normal domain to achieve that. They need to put error bars on the average global temperature for 2100, even though that’s meaningless. (More specifically, it’s a case of acknowledging only the most immediate, superficial uncertainty and ignoring all deeper ones.)
Dagfinn;
Crichton’s essay makes considerable sense (though I disagree with the solution). What Crichton fails to do is identify root cause. He cites many examples of a consensus based on fiction over ruling actual science, and notes correctly that these are just a few of many. Without root cause, we can only treat the symptoms, a cure will elude us in all but a few cases of happenstance. The blood letters of medieval Europe became wealthy practitioners of “medical science” though most of their patients died. Had I been alive at that time, they would have in fact saved my life. I have a rare condition for which blood letting is the only treatment. I would have been one of their success stories, but only by accident.
So what is the root cause? I remember the first reports of “nuclear winter” emerging. I asked at the time why only the cooling effects of increased dust were included in the study and warming ignored, but I was shouted down by my peers and high school science teachers. Years later “nuclear winter” had evolved to autumn and then summer. I remember the fear mongering used to fight nuclear power, and I note the techniques were not dissimilar to the fear mongering about global warming. I explained how to properly approximate the burst radius of a nuclear device by including the square/cube law in the equations to show that the combined nuclear arsenals of the world had not even a fraction of what was required to destroy the world 24 times over as was often cited at the time. I was dismissed, people would rather believe the worst, and THAT is the root of the problem. I even remember when the accident happened at the Three Mile Island reactor. A rumour circulated in one of my university classes that if the worst happened and the reactor melted down, it would trigger all the other reactors in the world to do the same. A poor understanding of physics at best made all that much sadder in that it was a second year engineering physics class that I was attending. People have a natural affinity for hysteria that is much stronger than their affinity for physics.
My own observation is that the human condition is not only fearful of the unknown, but that we have a psychological need to have something to fear. When there is nothing to fear but fear itself, we have, throughout history, invented something for ourselves to fear. We’ve invented ghosts and goblins and bandersnatches and UFO’s and nuclear winter and global warming, and none of these have any more evidence to support their existence than Santa Clause. But I cannot find a single adult who believes Santa Clause. They believe in ghosts and nuclear winter and global warming for one reason. They need something to fear, and who would fear Santa Clause? They need something to bind them and the rest of the tribe together in a common community committed to mutual survival. Without that bond, the tribe would fragment, rendering it incapable of a unified response when a real threat appears. It is little wonder that those who seek power invent conspiracies to fight and enemies to hate. In the absence of a real threat, something must hold the tribe together, and human beings gravitate to that more easily than they gravitate to science. When the purse strings to science are held by government, they become just another tool in the hands of those who seek power to sew fear and unite the tribe behind them. Useful idiots will, in their desire to have something to fear, leap to support them.
My own solution is slightly different from Crichton’s. I think that science, climate models in particular, must be put back in the private sector. Put up a $1 billion prize to the company which can produce the most accurate climate model over the next 20 years. I guarantee that the models that emerge will not have a single ounce of anything but pure science in them. The fear of losing the prize, and the investment made to win it, will guarantee that. Anyone building a model using company cash and resources based on PNS will soon find themselves looking for a job. I am certain they will find one though, UFO’s have not yet been entirely discredited, there are plenty of conspiracy theories left to leverage, evil corporations to fight, and usefull idiots to recruit to fictitious causes.
davidmhoffer (15:00:36) :
Yes, the tendency to believe in scare stories is widespread. So is the opposite, the tendency to be in denial of them. You make that point well yourself when discussing the Chernobyl operators. Over-confidence can cause either to happen.
I have a slightly different idea at about the same level of generality: communicating uncertainty is almost a contradiction in terms, since the core value of goal-directed communication is typically clarity. Can you be clear and unambiguous about ambiguity and lack of clarity? It’s hard.
Your idea about a prize for the most accurate climate model presupposes that accurate climate models are possible, and that if one is invented, it’s possible to confirm its accuracy. If you’re thinking in terms of long-term forecasting, I don’t see how you could confirm it without waiting several decades.
2 degrees of global warming will definitely not definitely happen. You didn’t get that? What I mean is that it’s absolutely certain that it’s uncertain. Right? 😉
Dagfinn;
Perhaps I should have said move it to the private sector and just left it at that. But consider:
1. We need to separate the collection of data from the analysis. By having the same researchers do both, we open the door for political agendas to influence the selection, bias, and analysis. The complexity of working backward from the final result to expose the cherry picking and misused analysis is enormous. By separating the two, we can make the sole criteria for each accuracy. Those who build models will insist on accurate data, and will discard any they consider suspect as a risk to their work. The providers of data will meet high standards, or find themselves irrelevant. Models rewarded financially only for the accuracy of their results will discard political influence as a matter course. With your investment on the line based on the accuracy of your results, whose data would you rather use? CRU or Surfacestations.org?
2. By funding climate science through the public research system, we have not only exposed it to political agendas, we have confined it to environments that specialize in theoretical research. Our goal being the development of models with practical application, we should be noting that the development of practical applications is the domain of the private sector. The Manhatten Project is perhaps the only example I can think of which tests the rule. For the most part, when your air force is being decimated by Messerschmidts and Zeros, you don’t put in an emergency call to the University of East Anglia or plead with Harvard and Oxford for advice. You put in calls to Pratt and Whitney and Rolls Royce and Allison asking for better engines. You call Browning for better machine guns. You call Lockheed and NAA and ask for better air frames. You start building the P38 Lightning, dubbed the “fork tailed devil” by Germany and the P51 Mustang.
3. Do not underestimate the creativity and pace with which the private sector can solve problems provided that there is a financial incentive to do so. Who do you suppose knows more about fluid dynamics and heat transfer? The average climate scientist or the average automotive engineer designing cooling systems for engines? I don’t know the answer. What I do know is that there is a tremendous amount of knowledge in the heads of people who have track records of successfully solving complex problems through multi-disciplinary teams, and the preponderance of them are in the private sector where results are rewarded, not the serving of political agendas. The private sector, with financial incentives driving them, actively seek out the research path that everyone else missed. The public sector excludes those paths that lie outside the accepted narrative as a threat to the status quo and political agenda that must not just be discarded, but discredited lest it take root elsewhere.
4. I don’t know how long it would take to demonstrate that models are practical (or impossible) or the time period required to show their accuracy. What I do know is that the current state of affairs is held hostage to political interference and is producing both data and analysis that is suspect in many cases and fraudulent in some. Good work is being done within the system, but who can separate it from the garbage? Have NASA and other government organizations collect the data and make it available. Outsource the work of analysis to the private sector and reward them on the quality of their results. Create an environment that is by nature competitive with the greatest rewards falling to those who produce the best results. This does not require a climate model of the earth as a whole as its first or only goal. For example, base funding could be provided to a half dozen contractors to provide a predictive model of the gulf stream with a bonus for accuracy over two years. Make the same data publicly available to anyone who wants to take a run at it on their own, with a prize for outperforming the contractors. Put up another contract for modelling the jet stream. Another for hurricane prediction. Do I know what the results will be? Not a clue, and that is the point. When the RAF approached North American Aviation to build Tomahawk fighters for them they knew what they wanted and what the results would be. NAA proposed instead a new fighter that was cheaper, faster, better, and could be in production sooner. Had the goals, research, and funding been confined to the RAF, it would have been more Tomahawks that they spent their money on. By allowing the creativity of the private sector to come into play, they received instead the Mustang, arguably the dominant fighter of WW2.
When you throw money at a problem that is constrained by politics, you get results constrained by politics. When artificial fears drive research funding, the research can only reinforce the fears lest the funding dry up. Are my proposals practical? I don’t know. But find some that are practical in moving analysis to the private sector and I guarantee results based on science. I guarantee results that are faster, better, cheaper, and available sooner. If in fact the stakes are high, the facts uncertain, then why would we be so insane as to put our future in the hands of a system that by its nature is incapable of producing anything but an affirmation of the status quo? I suspect that we indeed have nothing to fear but fear itself when it comes to climate change. When a private company, with its long term investment and financial viability on the line, based on rigorous and verifiable data, with no vested interest in any actions that may be taken as a consequence of their analysis, says there is something to fear, I shall pay attention. All else is just ghosts and goblins and UFO’s and secret conspiracies being held at bay by the caped crusader named PNS. My personal belief is that he is the evil twin brother of Santa Clause, has acolytes who wear their pants on their head, and for whom the outcome is only a theoretical exercise in which they have interest in the process, not the result.
Dagfinn (21:48:29) :
2 degrees of global warming will definitely not definitely happen. You didn’t get that? What I mean is that it’s absolutely certain that it’s uncertain. Right? ;-)>>
Certainly. I see no uncertainty about it. I am steadfast in my certitude, which is absolute with the sole exception of the part that is definite.