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
“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.”
They left out “The power of science compels you. The power of science compels you.” 😉
KPO: @ur momisugly July 29, 2010 at 4:20 am
You’re not alone, that is something that constantly triggers my B.S. detector as well.
Another thing is the precise figures that are always quoted for atmospheric CO2 concentrations.
I’m not saying that my B.S. detector is faultless, just that those two things (amongst others) constantly set it off.
I keep hearing the Wizard of Oz shouting at Dorothy and friends shouting “Silence!………before being discovered as a fraud.
Brendan H says:
July 29, 2010 at 11:34 am
899: “THINK: How is it that almost all of the MSM —newspapers, radio, TEE VEE, major magazines, journals, etc., all seem to reflect the VERY SAME THOUGHTS?
It’s NOT by coincidence: THEY ARE OWNED by the same small cadre of insiders.”
I’m very sceptical of these types of claims, which strike me as bordering on the paranoid, especially given the existence of the fair and balanced media.
What I think is much more likely is that both the rank-and-file scribblers and the MSM insiders are themselves subject to control by a third force.
Just what form this third force takes is speculative, but most likely it’s some sort of direct electronic mind control emanating from a single source, probably foreign, or at least foreign-influenced. Find that source, neutralise it, and you’ve solved the problem.
How to achieve that? Well, the fair and balanced media are obviously not victims of this electronic mind control, and nor are they foreign. Clearly, they have found a way of blocking the mind rays. So what is Anthony not telling us?
Brendan,
You seriously deceive yourself as to the facts of the matter, but I understand because at one time I held the same opinion as yourself.
But after reading a bit of history, it became quite obvious as to just what the truth of the matter is.
Here are a few quotes from the horse’s mouth:
———————
“Our job is to give people not what they want, but what we decide they ought to have.”
— Richard Salent, Former President CBS News.
Excerpted:
Asked to give a toast before the prestigious New York Press Club in 1880, John Swinton, the former Chief of Staff at the New York Times, made this candid confession [it’s worth noting that Swinton was called “The Dean of His Profession” by other newsmen, who admired him greatly]:
” There is no such thing, at this date of the world’s history, as an
independent press. You know it and I know it. There is not one of you
who dares to write your honest opinions, and if you did, you know
beforehand that it would never appear in print.”
Go here for the full quote:
http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/LIE/lie.html
See also:
—————
But who owns the media, which are the companies or people that shape our values, beliefs and decisions? The media is basically dominated by five major companies they are:
Time Warner
VIACOM
Vivendi Universal
Walt Disney
News Corp
Those 5 companies own 95% of all the media that we get every day. They own the major entertainment theme parks, entertainment movie studios, television and radio broadcast networks and programing, video news and sports entertainment.
Source: http://hubpages.com/hub/Mass-Media-Influence-on-Society
So the propaganda didn’t work so we need more propaganda? Climate science? That would be nice. When might we see some? The authors suggested remedy is a perfect reflection of the mindset of the nitwits who believe they can live our lives better than we can. Basic problem for the team, propaganda is never science. JRR
Dan in California says:
July 29, 2010 at 11:35 am
[–snip for brevity–]First I was bored, then nauseated listening to my classmates endlessly discussing the merits of different flavors of socialism. Now, 30 years later, I’m afraid of my government for the first time in my life. Administrations and congresses have come and gone; I have agreed and disagreed with them, but I have never before been afraid!
“When the government fears the people there is liberty, when the people fear the government there is tyrany.”
~ Thomas Jefferson ~
Henry chance says: (July 29, 2010 at 5:55 am) I have 8 uncles over the age of 80. They were raised with bacon, lard, butter, salt and fried chicken.
Which highlights how a silly scientist and an impressionable public can seamlessly make total idiots of themselves:
The problem is not restricted to climate science, see here:
http://www.cathodixx.com/pdfs/B1-Modern physics is rotting.pdf
Here’s a similar article, “The Tyranny of Science”:
http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/4275/
Can’t wait for the ads starring Leo [DiCaprio]:
“I’m not a climate scientist, but I play one in the adaptation of Pacchuri’s Harlequin Romance…”
I realize by now that probably the only person who will read this will be one of the moderaters, but it occured to me the other day we perhaps need to define science….
Granted what I’m saying here is a “what science isn’t” perhaps more than what it is, but if a person publishes results that can not be duplicated by someone else performing the same process on them, then he doesn’t have ‘science’ he only has something that might be interesting.
For it to be science there must be reproduceable results by others doing the same experiement as the original person. And a peer review without reconducting the experiment doesn’t confirm anything about about it.
I am sure that part of the reason for public rejection of CAGW is the arrogance you have discussed here Antony but it has occurred to me that another reason for the Man On The Clapham Omnibus rejecting the continual screams of the CAGW crowd is that they scream loudest when evidence comes up that they may be wrong. A rational person worried about CAGW would be delighted to discover that they might be wrong – wouldn’t they? – and the MOTCO is generally regarded as being rational, as you have noted. Certainly hiring a great PR organisation will, in the end, be self defeating. Talk about painting yourselves into a corner!
CodeTech says:
July 29, 2010 at 11:05 am
Gail Combs:
Thanks for the link to Learn, about the Delphi process. I’m not sure it directly applies here, but I believe that everyone should take a look. It describes a process that I have personally witnessed in operation several times now….
______________________________________________________
Farmers found it very useful to be aware of the Delphi process.
It was used in the USDA “listening sessions” on Animal ID a couple of years ago. Thanks to the internet farmers were warned ahead of time so it did not work. The USDA was so frustrated they started having armed police at the “listening sessions” Unfortunately the USDA and Congress did not take NO, HELL NO and why can’t you understand NO, seriously so they are still trying to ram the World Trade Organization’s traceability down our throats.
Brendan H says:
July 29, 2010 at 11:34 am
899: “THINK: How is it that almost all of the MSM —newspapers, radio, TEE VEE, major magazines, journals, etc., all seem to reflect the VERY SAME THOUGHTS?
It’s NOT by coincidence: THEY ARE OWNED by the same small cadre of insiders.”
I’m very sceptical of these types of claims, which strike me as bordering on the paranoid, especially given the existence of the fair and balanced media……….
___________________________________________________
you are kidding right??? Right???
The wholesale purchase of the news media for purposes of propaganda was recorded in the Congressional Record in 1917, why would you think today was any different?
U.S. Congressional Record February 9, 1917, page 2947
http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/Morgan-Buys-Newspapers9feb17.htm
If you want conspiracies here are some of the “real conspiracies” in a well documented article.
http://www.crossroad.to/articles2/006/conspiracy1.htm
President Woodrow Wilson, 1913: “Some of the biggest men in the U. S., in the field of commerce and manufacturing, are afraid of somebody, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it.”[1]
President Franklin Roosevelt, 1933: “The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the larger centers has owned the Government ever since the days of Andrew Jackson… “[2]
I was afraid this was going to happen, though not for the reasons cited. I’ve been more worried about science becoming discredited, because scientists were saying things that weren’t based in science, but people wouldn’t understand the difference, and so when their prognostications turned out to be wrong, people would come to distrust the scientists, and the discipline they represent.
Y’M INDIGNETION IT NOFAVORIT MAKE WHAT…