From The American, by Kenneth P. Green and Hiwa Alaghebandian
Science is losing its credibility because it has adopted an authoritarian tone, and has let itself be co-opted by politics.
In a Wired article published at the end of May, writer Erin Biba bemoans the fact that “science” is losing its credibility with the public. The plunge in the public’s belief in catastrophic climate change is her primary example. Biba wonders whether the loss of credibility might be due to the malfeasance unearthed by the leak of emails from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in the United Kingdom, but comes to the conclusion that malfeasance isn’t the cause of the public’s disaffection. No, people have turned against science simply because it lacks a good public relations outfit. Biba quotes Kelly Bush, head of a major PR firm, on the point:
Biba says researchers need a campaign that inundates the public with the message of science: Assemble two groups of spokespeople, one made up of scientists and the other of celebrity ambassadors. Then deploy them to reach the public wherever they are, from online social networks to “The Today Show.” Researchers need to tell personal stories, tug at the heartstrings of people who don’t have PhD’s. And the celebrities can go on “Oprah” to describe how climate change is affecting them—and by extension, Oprah’s legions of viewers.
“They need to make people answer the questions, What’s in it for me? How does it affect my daily life? What can I do that will make a difference? Answering these questions is what’s going to start a conversation,” Bush says. “The messaging up to this point has been ‘Here are our findings. Read it and believe.’ The deniers are convincing people that the science is propaganda.”
While nobody would dispute the value of a good PR department, we doubted that bad or insufficient PR was the primary reason for the public’s declining trust in scientific pronouncements. Our theory is that science is not losing its credibility because people no longer like or believe in the idea of scientific discovery, but because science has taken on an authoritarian tone, and has let itself be co-opted by pressure groups who want the government to force people to change their behavior.
In the past, scientists were generally neutral on questions of what to do. Instead, they just told people what they found, such as “we have discovered that smoking vastly increases your risk of lung cancer” or “we have discovered that some people will have adverse health effects from consuming high levels of salt.” Or “we have found that obesity increases your risk of coronary heart disease.” Those were simply neutral observations that people could find empowering, useful, interesting, etc., but did not place demands on them. In fact, this kind of objectivity was the entire basis for trusting scientific claims.
But along the way, an assortment of publicity-seeking, and often socially activist, scientists stopped saying, “Here are our findings. Read it and believe.” Instead, activist scientists such as NASA’s James Hansen, heads of quasi-scientific governmental organizations such as the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, editors of major scientific journals, and heads of the various national scientific academies are more inclined to say, “Here are our findings, and those findings say that you must change your life in this way, that way, or the other way.”
So, objective statements about smoking risk morphed into statements like “science tells us we must end the use of tobacco products.” A finding of elevated risk of stroke from excess salt ingestion leads to: “The science tells us we must cut salt consumption in half by 2030.” Findings that obesity carries health risks lead to a “war on obesity.” And yes, a finding that we may be causing the climate to change morphed into “the science says we must radically restructure our economy and way of life to cut greenhouse gas emissions radically by 2050.”
To see if our suspicions were correct, we decided to do a bit of informal research, checking Lexis Nexis for growth in the use of what we would categorize as “authoritarian” phrasing when it comes to scientific findings. We searched Nexis for the following phrases to see how their use has changed over the last 30 years: “science says we must,” “science says we should,” “science tells us we must,” “science tells us we should,” “science commands,” “science requires,” “science dictates,” and “science compels.”
What we found surprised us. One phrase, in particular, has become dramatically more frequent in recent years: “Science tells us we should.” Increased usage of this phrase leads to a chart resembling a steep mountain climb (or, for those with a mischievous bent, a “hockey stick”). The use of the phrase “science requires” also increases sharply over time. The chart (below) vividly shows the increasing use of those particular phrases. Some of this may simply reflect the general growth of media output and the growth of new media, but if that were the case, we would expect all of the terms to have shown similar growth, which they do not.
read more at: The American
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Science has also generated “LAWS” that MUST be followed no matter if the actual physical evidence and science contradicts this.
After all, jobs and carriers are at stake for government funding.
“The deniers are convincing people that the science is propaganda.”
No. The facts show the “Warm Mongers” use deceitful propaganda.
“While nobody would dispute the value of a good PR propaganda department.”
I hope they are spending thier personal money and not my tax money on their propaganda.
The problem, at least in climate science is that scientists have become cargo cult scientists. They have completely lost their way, losing sight of what is important – scientific truth, instead becoming beholden to grants, careers, and even the spotlight of fame and glory. That is why people are losing trust in them. The authoritarianism while important, is more of a symptom of a much larger problem.
tallbloke says:
July 29, 2010 at 4:46 am
What do you expect when science has become the replacement for religion?
It isn’t an accident that some of the central figures promoting AGW use the same methodology as Creation Science: omitting or denying data; misleading analysis; questionable methodology; ad hominum attacks on any who disagree – “not a Christian” from Creationists isn’t behaviorally different from calling doubters “denialists/deniers.
I believe the public’s devaluing of science has also come from the public display of conflicting results. The coffee is good for you and the coffee is bad for you, “Scientific” studies. Think of how many foods, drinks, lifestyles, You name it, the “Study” groups have conflicted.
The public is also inundated with 24/7 ADs for every product under the sun via all forms of media. People eventually filter out what they want and manage to turn or tune the rest of the stuff out. Same goes for the AGW crowd, there are enough conflicting results that people have turned it off.
People basiclly just want to be left alone.
They are back, its “undeniable”
<a http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100729/lf_nm_life/us_climate_warming;_ylt=Ao4rndACNXDRxxFW64YhlCxzfNdF
Bruce Cobb says:
July 29, 2010 at 5:01 am
Excellent observation!!!
“Science Makes Whoopie”?
😎
More global warming nonsense from Malaysia:
http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2010/7/29/nation/6746036&sec=nation
KUALA LUMPUR: Some 90% of Malaysia’s corals are dead due to global warming, and the reefs may never recover unless the people switch to a greener lifestyle.
brad says:
July 29, 2010 at 3:45 am
“Very interesting take, but I think it is the politicization of science that has led to this, thank Fox News, Rupert Murdoch and MSNBC where every fact is a political one, to be attacked and manipuilated for political gain – not analyzed and thought about.”
That was going on well before Fox and MSNBC. In fact, the entire reason for Fox’s existence is because, well before science went political, journalism did and decidedly left of center, thus journalism created a market for and to the counter of their assertions. If the scientific community doesn’t change back to neutral, and quickly, the same will happen to it.
See this Vanity Fair coverage of last December’s Copenhagen climate summit. It contains the phrases:
-“what science says is required to avoid catastrophic climate change”
-“science says reductions of at least 25 to 40 percent are necessary”
-“consistent with what science demands”
-and talks about a need to “to set a science-based national pollution cap”
There is, of course, a huge difference between what the data reveals and how we, as a community, should respond to it. Do we:
1. conduct more research
2. decide to monitor the matter carefully from now on
3. choose to do nothing for the moment
4. take tentative steps toward emissions reduction
5. turn our society upside down trying to accomplish emissions reduction
6. invest billions in R&D in an effort to discover abundant, clean energy sources
7. start work immediately on 100 new nuclear power plants
8. decide that, 20 years from now, our children will have more, better & cheaper technology to solve whatever problems may arise (remember, the iPod is less than 10 years old, and Google less than 15)
All of these options (& more) deserve to be discussed. We then, as a community, get to choose which one (or combo) makes most sense to us.
The problem with the current climate debate is that so-called scientists (who, as Stefan observes brilliantly above, seem really to want to be pastors or rabbis) think it’s their role not merely to collect the data but to then decide – on everyone’s behalf – how the world should respond to the data.
This is a profoundly anti-democratic impulse. It needs to be challenged.
Government has totally co-opted science through huge grants. Science is now just a political extension of the ruling party in government. With a larger government comes increased control. Of course it all has to be funded so increased taxes are required.
pgosselin says:
July 29, 2010 at 3:53 am
…Today in German newspapers the latest scare is the reduction in phytoplankton. Again the appeal to science is being made.
—————————————————————————————–
Hmmm – I wonder, if the phytoplankton rather is simply reacting to a lack of nourishing minerals (aka: lack of fecals), which in former times used to be released by the megaton by then huge, but now ever-diminishing shoals of fish, due to extreme overfishing done by mankind…?
It’s always the same with Nature: When you look for simple explanations, you look the wrong way…
“And the celebrities can go on “Oprah” to describe how climate change is affecting them—and by extension, Oprah’s legions of viewers.”
Oh I can just visualise it now. (Insert name of Holywood star) pours their heart out to Oprah, about how they’ve had to cut down their use of private jets.
The audience will be in floods of tears, realising that they’ll have to cancel that order for a Lear Jet.
mod feel free to snip this
[snip]
[reply] Thanks! 😉 Try tips and notes. RT-mod
“I believe the public’s devaluing of science has also come from the public display of conflicting results. The coffee is good for you and the coffee is bad for you, “Scientific” studies. Think of how many foods, drinks, lifestyles, You name it, the “Study” groups have conflicted.”
The reason for this, at least in part, is the need to promote new (and in some cases not so new) scientific findings through mass media in addition to the specialist literature. Now while I think we are all aware of the shortcomings of peer reviewed scientific journals (especially in climate science, with the tendency towards gate keeping), at least the published papers tend to use fairly balanced language and the conclusions section normally ends before straying from the scientific field into the area of decision makers. However, the press releases to the mass media (and even to the ‘popular science’ magazines) tend to be less specific and less scientific, with much more on morals and decision making and the almost inevitable call for further research (i.e. the next batch of grant money) to continue the study.
Just remember, when you see something that states ‘science says’, that there’s about a 90% chance of it being disproven or at least modified by future findings. Now, if the statement was that ‘Scientist X says…’ at least it is obvious that it’s a matter of opinion.
Ken says:
July 29, 2010 at 5:25 am
More global warming nonsense from Malaysia:
“KUALA LUMPUR: Some 90% of Malaysia’s corals are dead due to global warming, and the reefs may never recover unless the people switch to a greener lifestyle.”
Anthropogenic water pollution is what I would blame.
Just 8000 more visitors required for the 50 millionth… I wonder who it will be?
We have scientific evidence that driving small light weight cars causes massive increases in deaths per 100,000 miles driven. In fact, we have some freaky control group called the EPA that commonly issues orders under the “endangerment findings clauses”.
Will they issue an order from authority or will they issue an order from politically correctness?
That’s not a hickey stick, that is a “hooey stick”
Science and the studies of causal and correlational relationships.
Did you know that CO2 is claimed to be at the highest levels evah and life expectancy is at the highest level evah?
I have 8 uncles over the age of 80. They were raised with bacon, lard, butter, salt and fried chicken.
John W., good point about the similarity between CAGW theory and “scientific creationism.”
When climate unskepticals complain that skeptics are creationists with a different issue, I always refer back to Australian geologist Ian Plimer, who in addition to taking apart the claims of CAGW, has a long history of taking apart the claims of “scientific creationists.”
It’s also of great interest to me that CAGW theory, and modern ecology theory generally, has deep similarity to the foundation of modern “intelligent design theory.” Both teach that our world’s existence is contingent upon a large number of factors being exactly they are, and claim that if these variables were changed ever so slightly, life would be impossible. Now, on some level this is true. But it strikes me that both intelligent design and CAGW theory are ultimately built on teleological presuppositions. This is a line of thought that deserves more thought.
Incidentally, I am a Christian theist and am neither an antievolutionist nor an anticreationist. I just dislike the prostituting of evidence and logic for predetermined ideological ends.
The modern game of “Simple Science Says”:
“Science says, take one step forward, and five steps back”.
Political elites have been progressively discredited in the public mind over the last 30 years. Realizing this, they came to the conclusion that in order to bolster their influence they needed to capture something more credible to back up their agendas –science.
Except, of course, largely what they have accomplished is instead of increasing their own credibility, instead decreasing the credibility of science.
The history of pseudo-science and mass hysteria over the ages has been a long time interest. It became even more so in the context of the climate hysteria. I published a PowerPoint presentation “A History of Popul;ar Delusions and Mass Hysteria” on my website: http://www.climateis.wordpress.com.
I don’t think there’s necessarily a case to show that it’s the SCIENTISTS who’re doing this. There’s certainly a case for saying that politicians and the media are using scientists for that end.
In the end, scientists must sing for their supper. They are salesmen for grants and sometimes the quid pro quo may be engaging in a little mild politics.
I hope it doesn’t include making rather apocalyptic cancer diagnoses to release a pretty healthy Libyan prisoner, but quite frankly nothing surprises me any more.
But I also think the public should think on this: do you expect people to do science for modest salaries without being passionate about it? And do you only expect them to be dispassionate messengers, unlike journalists, politicians, bankers etc etc etc?
There’s a debate to be had there to be sure.
But I don’t think the sole changes must come from the scientists.
The public needs to change a bit too.