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.
From:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism
“Lysenkoism is used colloquially to describe the manipulation or distortion of the scientific process as a way to reach a predetermined conclusion as dictated by an ideological bias, often related to social or political objectives.”
So what is there left to understand?
PNS = Lysenkoism = Stalinism
By the way, “Skeptical Science” blog in Oz is the most unskeptical science you will ever see. In fact, taking that name is a bit of a fraud in itself because the blog is there to spin the AGW-the science is settled- line. Lately it has been valiantly spinning the CRU email disgrace into a tiny hicough that has been taken out of context – if the email revelations don’t make you into a sceptic there is nothing that will.
Buddenbrook (00:33:25) :
Willis: “Since science has dealt quite well with these problems for centuries, why do we need a new post-normal “science”?”
That question has no inner logic. We need new frameworks today, because risks that come from futuristic technologies and man’s potential impact on the planet warrant the new frameworks. You failed to answer to this objection in the previous thread. There were no such risks involved with 18th century technology. So to equate the two is merely rhetoric.
———————-
Buddenbrook:
You make a classic mistake here. The modern dialogue has decided that science and technology are ‘mirror image twins’ irrevocably intertwined in their identities. As a historian of science and technology, I find it hard to convince academic colleagues in other disciplines that this is simply not true – but that is the case. Technology (from the Greek word Techné, which means ‘art’) is an expression of human creativity that is far older than science. Science may have added to the building blocks with which creative individuals design new technologies, but it is not fundamental to the creation of new technology. To give one modern example: neither Bill Gates nor Steve Jobs (not Stephen Wozniak, for that matter) had a scientific background. They were just kids playing with the latest bits and pieces of technology and programming tools when they created the new world of personal computing. (I know, I know, these were not the ‘first’: the Altair 8800 was a precursor, etc). While the parts encompass scientific advancements, the technologies of personal computing themselves were designed by individuals who were more like artists. In an older example, James Watt did not have a scientific background: he was an artisan. He had some understanding of science from working with scientists, but the Watt engine, an improvement on the Newcomen Engine (itself an improvement on the Savery Engine) was not a product of scientific study, and ‘old’ science had nothing to say about how it was used. It was a melding of the older technical-artisan tradition with a modicum of scientific understanding about air pressure and vacuums (the extent of scientific input is disputed). There is example after example that could be given, and in addition, examples of inventions that scientists said could never work on scientific principles. This was the experience of Edwin Howard Amstrong, who learned to despise physicists because they proclaimed FM radio to be impossible – after Armstrong had invented it!
What controls how these technologies are used, and newer ones like nuclear reactors (which are purely scientific) is politics, not science. No new version of science will give us directions as to how to use technology: every technology ever invented can be either used or abused (including the shirt on your back), and it is up to society to establish controls. I am wondering exactly what technologies you think require some new idea of science? And if science is redefined to mean something else, does it not then lose its fundamental meaning and the concept become meaningless? Good science of the old fashioned kind, which involves a search for accuracy and (dare I say it, having mislabeled the image at the top of this thread?) truth, can give us solid information upon which difficult decisions may have to be made. Science cannot make our decisions for us. Science is kind of like a computer: it is a tool (and in addition an approach, and a philosophy of understanding) but it lacks sentience and wisdom.
On the issue of quality, companies trying to achieve high quality use 6-Sigma methods. Lubos Motl recently proved that so called climate science research most often only reaches 2-sigma which in means they cannot come to any conclusions because the noise exceeds the signal, and only rarely do they 3-sigma which is still so full of error that it is basically junk.
Motl says they must have 5-sigma results to ever be a real science. You can find his study on his blog “The Reference Frame” which is linked on the sidebar.
Something to think about on the “quality” of scientific research.
DirkH,
Buddenbrooks was Thomas Mann’s first novel, one of my favourites and is generally considered one of the classics.
Your ad homs are a very weak substitute for an argument.
Smokey,
You advocate surveillance on basis of terrorist attacks that killed thousands of people, but you wouldn’t advocate surveillance to avert (as yet futuristic, but eventually inevitable) threats, that could potentially kill billions of people? Isn’t there a disparity?
davidmhoffer,
The likes of al-Qaeda won’t be capable of developing futuristic weapons. Realistically, during this century at least, the PNS framework will apply to USA, China and EU. If these three major powers can achieve mutual understanding and mutual surveillance and restrictions, as deemed necessary, we are a long way towards averting the existential risks. A realistic horror scenario would be a cold war situation of distrust between China and the west. A few rogue states possibly have to be pressured to open themselves up to surveillance in the long term, but generally it would be rather restricted to a few specific fields, and would be something the common man would hardly notice in his life. This is not a joke, it is very much a real question of our survival on this planet. If you read on these subjects, let’s say experts like Bill Joy (the co-founder and chief scientist of Sun Microsystems) these concerns are shared by many people that have pondered and written on these questions, it’s nothing to do with stasi or marxism or taking your pants off. Very much to the contrary something akin to PNS is strongly advocated and substantially argued by some of the greatest thinkers in the business.
Please upgrade your arguments.
I like both Leif’s and Digsby’s responses to the silliness of Buddenbrook. I see this idea of PNS as Stalinism writ large. The truth be damned, actually, in favor of “policy preferences.” It is a way of (politically) overcoming the difficulties of establishing an exclusively technocratic state ruled by so-called “scientists” who are actually just hacks in favor of a particular point of view. And climate science is starting to look more and more like that these days.
Dagfinn (11:38:02)
The misnamed “Patriot Act”, passed by both Conservatives and Liberals (in the American sense) does that, and I’m not fond of that either. However, for a real police state, Marx is the go-to guy …
Buddenbrook, you might have missed my question. I said:
Give us an example of some “new framework” that controlled some new technology. Then (if that framework has anything to do with science), please explain to us why we need some kind of new, post-normal science, why the plain old kind that has served us so well for so long is suddenly inadequate.
Ravetz says we need a new kind of science because the facts are uncertain, the values are in dispute, and the stakes are high … but when in human history has that not been the case?
If I understand you, you say we need a new kind of science because we now have the power to turn the planet into radioactive slag … but when has science ever prevented people from using new weapons, large or small?
Willis,
“for a real police state, Marx is the go-to guy”
Actually it was Lenin that theoretically developed the concepts of vanguard party and revolutionary terror, the corner stones of communist dictatorships.
In comparison Marx was an utopian with good intentions (in the context of 19th European society), but had a horribly misguided understanding of human nature.
“Buddenbrook (13:55:42) :
DirkH,
Buddenbrooks was Thomas Mann’s first novel”
thanks, that’s why i asked you whether you’re german.
“, one of my favourites and is generally considered one of the classics.
Your ad homs are a very weak substitute for an argument.”
You didn’t even get the argument. Read up on the Stasi, the Staatssicherheitsdienst of the GDR to learn more about marxism and how to implement a police state. You know nothing about it.
Willis Eschenbach (14:14:32) :
I agree with you. And you’re not contradicting my point. Marxism has historically implied surveillance, but support for surveillance does not imply Marxism.
Willis wrote: “However, science has not been what controlled and blunted the impact of the new technologies. New technologies have been controlled by new laws, not by some new kind of science. When guns were introduced, there arose new laws about who could use them. When guns made it to Japan, they were banned entirely. When we came up with nuclear weapons, we came up with nuclear non-proliferation treaties. When poison gases started to be used in warfare, we came up with the Geneva Conventions.”
I’m sure the Japanese self defense forces have guns as do the police and the Yakuza so how did the gun ban work out in Japan?
The nuclear non proliferation treaties seem to have been effective in preventing governments which don’t want nuclear weapons from acquiring them. The ones who do want them seem to have acquired them anyway.
Poison gases have been banned? Who knew? Ask the Kurds and all the soldiers of western armies who were issued with NBC suits. Poison gases are much less useful as weapons when war involves manouever instead of trenches.
The real deterrents to misuse of technology are that they might be used against those who would do so.
Love your work, Willis, thanks.
This Ravetz seems to have used up a lot of bandwidth here. After thinking about it for a while and learning more about his background and life I think we can succinctly sum up Ravetz and his ilk with one word – EVIL.
David:
“What is Quality?” that was supposed to be rhetorical.
It is a vast question which could end up sending one to the looney bin; Just ask Robert Persig.
My background is in a mfr’g environment where it is relatively easy to define/use.
When you get into subjective areas such as art, or the exercise I’m going through right now, which is what are good KPIs on classroom instruction in order to determine what is a quality teaching experience, it becomes a bitch.
With respect to Climate, the quality aspect would be applied to the raw data and pretty much everybody on this site knows the diffciulties associated with getting “good” data. It is the ambiguity in the term which provides the opportunity for the manipulation we’ve all seen.
“The simple answer is quality is relative to your goal.” I think you’re saying much what I was referring to when quality is how a product/service measures against stated outcomes.
“If the goal is to understand the cause / effect relationship of anthropogenic inputs into the atmosphere of C02 then science needs to be insulated from politics, not merged within it.”
In broader terms, data needs to be insulated from external influences. Politics being one of, if not the most distorting, amongst many others. Again, the opportunity for distotion to meet one’s political objectives. In addtiion to the data, the process must be subject to quality checks. It
Like I said, “What is Quality?” is a very broad topic and fantastic discussion point. One which cannot be objectively resolved to a simple definition. Because Quality, like beauty is defined by the eyes of the beholder.
@ur momisugly Willis
I realize that it would be difficult for you to rewrite the text of your post to put a stop these endless comments from Scotsmen, who, for some peculiar reason, seem anxious to identify with Dr Ravets (and not so anxious to read the rest of the thread to see that they have been beaten to it many times already), so how about changing the image accompanying it to something more appropriate and less provocative of such comments like this:
http://i42.tinypic.com/15ek83k.jpg
Willis,
Here is what I can do for “Quality” I must say it is a difficult concept, to say the least, and that for those who say they know what it is are ignorant or fools, I must say that I know longer declare I know 100% what quality is, but declare my understanding of the concept. no wonder why quality of science is so poor for climate study.
also declare that there is a correlation to the use of the Prefrontal_cortex
and to use Quality, conscience, durability, Permanence, Integrity, Morality.
Some one at CRU released the info because of this list.
Quality is ,conscience(ko~.sja~s@ur momisugly) , durability, (Permanence by virtue).
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/quality
In common vernacular use, quality means a high degree of excellence (“a quality product”), a degree of excellence or the lack of it (“work of average quality”)
quality (comparative more quality, superlative most quality)
Positive quality
Comparative more quality
Superlative most quality
1. Being of good worth, well made, fit for purpose.
We only sell quality products.
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/durability
Permanence by virtue of the power to resist stress or force.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscience
distinguishes whether one’s prospective actions are right or wrong by reference to norms (principles and rules) . In psychological terms conscience is often described as leading to feelings of remorse when a human does things that go against his/her *moral values, and to feelings of rectitude or integrity when actions conform to such norms.[1] The extent to which conscience informs *moral judgment before an action and whether such *moral judgments are, or should be, based wholly in reason has occasioned debate through much of history.
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality
inverse relationship between religion and crime,[30] with many studies establishing this beneficial connection.[31] Indeed, a meta-analysis of 60 studies on religion and crime concluded, “religious behaviors and beliefs exert a deterrent effect on individuals’ criminal behavior”.[32]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrity
integrity is the quality of having a sense of honesty and truthfulness in regard to the motivations for one’s actions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prefrontal_cortex
Tim L
Willis, mods, Anthony,
What I listed could be an entire post, we all have been involved in this at school, work, bloggs, etc.
Why the Scots Greys (pic)?
“scientific truth was something which we had tried to falsify and had been unable to falsify. Yet.”
Epistemology review-
You seem to be describing ‘weak implication’.
Truth concerns the law of identity, which single axiom is sufficient and necessary for an objective metaphysics.
Examine the nature of truth via a simple example:
If you put sodium chloride in water at room temperature it will dissolve and make salty water.
That’s your weak implication stated as a logical proposition.
If you do not have salty water, you didn’t put in sodium chloride.
That’s the logical falsificaton.
If you put sodium chloride in and get no salty water, that is empirical falsification.
If you put no sodium chloride in and you get salty water AND if you put no sodium chloride in but do get salty water, that is empirical and logical proof that there is no identity.
If you put sodium chloride in and get salty water always AND if you don’t put in sodium chloride and the results is never salty water, then you have proven the existence of an identity, which you then give a name.
Science dies the same way renaissances always have died – enlightenment requires explicit understanding of the principles it depends on.
When you forget what truth is – when it becomes relative –
call it pns or ad hoc or situational or divine revelation – if you can’t correctly define what truth is- you have already lost your grip on reality. This is the historical record. PNS is nothing new; it’s a classic symptom of dereliction.
Any student knows the next phase is consolidation of the many small power groups into a monolithic one.
Mike Borgelt (14:50:22)
The ban was under the Shogunate, in the late 1500’s … worked well back then.
The NPTs have slowed, but certainly not stopped, the spread of nuclear weapons.
Who knew? Well, all of the WWII soldiers who didn’t have to face them as did the soldiers in WWI.
Thanks to you as well. My point was that a new kind of science, or even the old kind of science, has never slowed the spread of destructive technologies. Only laws and agreements have done that. So I don’t understand why Buddenbrook thinks that PNS will stop the spread of said technolgies. (I’m not even sure if that is what he thinks, it’s kinda hard to tell.)
Mike Borgelt (14:52:23)
I never ascribe to evil what is easily explained by the more common human frailties …
Let’s take another example to highlight the point:
Francis Fukuyama, a key Reagan Administration contributor to the formulation of the Reagan Doctrine, and a leading neo-conservative philosopher, is a strong advocate of something akin to a PNS framework (I use this loose concept, as these terms have not been set in stone in any official dialogue, as of yet).
Fukuyama is a fierce critic of transhumanism, and has espoused his views in several articles and in his 2002 book “Our Posthuman Future: Consequences of the Biotechnology Revolution”. In Fukuyama’s view the 21st century technological revolution will force us to the politicization of certain fields of technological research on an ethical and ideological basis alone, even if you discount the existential risks. Questions such as what it means to be human, how could such and such technologies change our conception of what it means to be human, and what will be the larger consequences for humanity will inevitably and inherently be linked with the research.
In such contexts the scientists will be forced to the additional role of spokepersons on such ethical questions of vast societal and political impact.
I’m not sure whether Ravetz would accept Fukuyama’s views inside his framework, but I think the basic challenges to the traditional framework are similar.
Namely, how do scientists communicate to policy makers and the larger society the uncertainty, risks and fundamental social concerns involved. For Fukuyama the main concern is presented by the genetic alteration of the human species that will become possible during the first half of this century. There will be many people advocating such research in the hope of longer life spans, healthier lives, treatment to cancer, depression etc.
Fukuyama opposes open research in this field, because he fears it won’t stop in any one point once the Pandora’s box is opened, and eventually the research will go beyond humanity.
When such concerns are raised the scientists can’t restrict themselves to impassive and neutral observers, but are required as experts to part-take in the larger communication and become politicized.
They no longer are, nor can they remain the popperian figures in their clean white coats busying themselves in their laboratories and nothing else demanded or required of them. In such instances the scientists have to move post normal science.
Bruce (15:11:09)
Man, I never dreamed that the picture would kick up such a firestorm. Ummm … I wanted a picture that exemplified soldiers going “once again unto the breach”. So I used Google Images to search for that, and it returned this as the third image. So sue me … the guys are headed into the breach, that’s what mattered to me.
(Of course, no true Scotsman would sue me …)
Buddenbrook (15:28:14) :
Let’s take another example to highlight the point:
There will be many people advocating such research in the hope of longer life spans, healthier lives, treatment to cancer, depression etc.
Fukuyama opposes open research in this field, because he fears it won’t stop in any one point once the Pandora’s box is opened, and eventually the research will go beyond humanity.
Life will eventually go beyond humanity anyway. Most species only life a small fraction of geologic time.
If post-humans live longer, have fewer diseases, depressions, etc. What is wrong with that?
Buddenbrook (15:28:14) : edit
OK, OK, I give up. When you start talking about people who are “fierce critics of transhumanism”, and about “politicization of certain fields of technological research on an ethical and ideological basis alone, even if you discount the existential risks”, and about “questions such as what it means to be human”, I know when I’m beaten. Whatever it is that all of that means, I concede the entire arena of transhumanism and existential risks and what it means to be human to you.
However, next you say:
That, I’ll have to say “no way” to. There has never, as far as I know, been any way to stop scientists from investigating all aspects of the planet. Even if the US stopped every bit of genetic engineering research, does he think the Chinese and the rest of the planet would stop? Pandora’s box was opened long ago in the time of the Greeks, that’s the point of the legend. We’ve been bitten by the bug of the quest for scientific knowledge, and the only option open to us is to live with the sting …
Using an impossibility (stopping genetic research) as an argument that scientists “are required” to “become politicized” is post-normal science at its best. Don’t concern yourself with the fact that genetic research cannot and will not be stopped, because being concerned with facts is just so last century …
You don’t seem to get it. The danger is not genetic engineering. It is that your new breed of “scientist-politicians” will debase science forever. Politicians lie. I don’t want scientists to be liars or to push political arguments, that the politician’s job. If scientists do that nobody will ever trust them, just as they don’t trust the post-normal climate scientists now.
I don’t want scientists advancing “scary stories” to achieve some political end, as Stephen Schneider passionately argues in the best post-normal fashion. I don’t want them making “little mention of any doubts [they] might have”, as Schneider calls for them to do.
Call me crazy, but I want scientists to tell the truth as clearly as they can, doubts and warts and all, and leave the lying to the politicians. Fukayama is concerned about genetic engineering creating human hybrids … so instead he wants to create transhuman scientist-politician hybrids, which are a much greater danger to our way of life.
Brilliant plan, truly worthy of a post-normal scientist …
Leif,
“If post-humans live longer, have fewer diseases, depressions, etc. What is wrong with that?”
The question is currently too complex for me to offer any definite opinion on it. If you want to know Fukuyama’s objections, I recommend the book, it’s an interesting read. To name one of the objections, such development could potentially create an upper class of super humans, as the genetic treatments would be highly costly and access would initially be highly restricted. Mostly to multimillionaires and other figures high on the ladder.
And we couldn’t know for sure what side effects such treatments could have. If you alter a human specimen to have a 200 year life span, 180 IQ and so forth, what else will you alter as a side effect(s)? How would the new overmen view the lesser of us? And so forth and so forth the philosophical ponderings on the risks and uncertainties involved could go on for thousands of pages. Clearly an intelligent person should acknowledge that this is not merely a paradigm change, but a narrative change?
Bill Joy, I mentioned earlier, has written an interesting article on these questions: http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.04/joy.html?pg=1&topic=&topic_set= (note that it has 11 pages!)
But to get back to Fukuyama. My point was to offer an example of a well known conservative thinker, who is no stranger to “PNS”.
Willis and others were pretty much equating it with marxism, which of course is a lot of nonsense.