Reply from Jerome Ravetz
As usual I am nearly overwhelmed by these replies, and I only wish that I could respond to each of them.
Let me try to handle some issues that came up repeatedly.
First, we can find it very useful to look at the correspondence in today’s London Independent newspaper between Steve Connor and the eminent physicist Freeman Dyson (here described as an ‘heretic’), on http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/letters-to-a-heretic-an-email-conversation-with-climate-change-sceptic-professor-freeman-dyson-2224912.html?action=Gallery.
Dyson makes a very basic point, that the uncertainties are just too great for any firm policy decision to be made. Connor, by contrast, presents a number of scientific claims, all of which he believes to be solid and factual. Then the argument shifts to more general issues, and Dyson eventually pulls out.
Now some people on this blog may believe that Connor is some paid hack or prostitute who is peddling alarmists’ lies; but it is also possible that he really believes what he is saying. For Dyson, it could be (and here I am mind-reading, on the basis of what I would do in similar circumstances) that he saw that short of taking a couple of crucial issues and digging ever deeper into the debates about them, he was on a path of rapidly diminishing returns. That left him looking like someone who didn’t want to argue, and so leaving the field to the expert.
For me, that is a reminder that before one engages in a debate one needs to be sure of one’s ground. And that requires an investment of personal resources, taking them from other commitments. That is one reason why I do not engage in detailed discussions of scientific issues, but try to do my best with the issues of procedure. Of course, that can seem cowardice to some, but so be it.
Now there is the fundamental point of the sort of science that ‘climate change’ is. The big policy question is whether there is enough strength of evidence for AGW to justify the huge investments that would be required to do something about it. That is not a simple hypothesis to be decided by an experimental test. There are the ‘error-costs’ to be considered, where those of erroneous action or inaction would be very large. The decision is made even more complex by the fact that the remedies for CO2 that have been implemented so far are themselves highly controversial. Therefore, although the issues of: the policies to adopt; the strength of the scientific evidence for AGW; the behaviour of the AGW scientists – are all connected, they are distinct. People can hold a variety of positions on each of these issues, and they may have been changing their views on each of them. This is why I tried to argue that the situation is best not seen as one of goodies and baddies.
As to Post-Normal Science, I was recently reminded of an example that was very important in setting me on the path. Suppose we have an ‘environmental toxicant’, on which there is anecdotal evidence of harm, leading to a political campaign for its banning. Such evidence is not sufficient, and so scientific studies were undertaken. But these used test animals, over short timespans with high doses. On the basis of those results a dose-response curve was obtained, which in principle should lead regulators to define a ‘safe limit’. But those results were from a temporary acute dose, while the policy problem related to a chronic low dose. And then (and here’s the kicker) it was realised that in extrapolating from the lab situation to the field situation, the method of extrapolation was more important in defining the dose-response relations in the field than was the lab data itself.
So Science was producing, not a Fact but an artefact. That for me became a good example for the PNS mantram. For that sort of problem, there was a classic paper about policy for environmental toxicants’, by A.S. Whittemore, published in Risk Analysis in 1983. In any real situation of that sort, there will be plenty of experts on both sides of the value-conflicted policy process, who really believe that their data is conclusive (children with unusual symptoms on the one side, lab rats with LD50 doses on the other). In practice, there is a negotiation, where scientific evidence is introduced and contested as one element of the situation.
Reflecting on that sort of problem in relation to PNS, I came up with point about science now needing to relate to Quality rather than to Truth. That was rather neat, but also a cause of much trouble, for which I issue another apology. My critics on this issue (notably Willis) have provided me with much food for thought. I don’t resolve these things in a hurry, and there are still others in the pipeline, but here’s how I see it now. In a recent post, Willis gave his definition of truth, which is a very good one relating to scientific practice. But for him (and I agree) it means that a scientific truth is a statement that might actually be false. From a scientific point of view, that’s good common sense; to imagine that any particular scientific statement ranks with 2 + 2 = 4 is the most arrant dogmatism. However, that means that our idea of scientific truth is quite different from the ordinary one, where there is an absolute distinction between ‘true’ and ‘false’.
One way out of that problem is to believe that scientific truth is indeed absolute. On that there is the classic pronouncement by Galileo: “The conclusions of natural science are true and necessary, and the judgement of man has nothing to do with them.” This is echoed in practice by generations of teachers, who present the facts dogmatically and discourage any questioning. I was one of those who reacted against that authoritarian style of scientific indoctrination. Now, if one is doing routine puzzle-solving research, the issue of truth is not too pressing; one can know that somehow, somewhere, one’s results will be superceded in one way or another; but that’s all over the horizon. But in cases of urgent policy-related research like the toxicant example I mentioned above, to believe that one’s anecdotes or one’s lab-rats give the truth about the danger of the toxicant, is mistaken and inappropriate. For when such conflicting results are negotiated, what comes into play is their quality.
Having said all that, I now see clearly that Truth cannot be jettisoned so casually. I have two paths to a rescue. One is to make the issue personal; to say ‘this is the truth as I see it’, or ‘to the best of my knowledge it is true’, or ‘I am being truthful’. This allows one to acknowledge a possible error; what counts here is one’s competence and integrity. And of course this has been at the core of the Climategate dispute, arising out of the CRU emails, the question of the correctness of their results is tangled with the morality of their behaviour.
The other path brings in broader considerations. Our inherited cultural teaching mentions a number of absolutes, including The Good, The True, The Just, The Holy and The Beautiful. These provide the moral compass for our behaviour. Now we know that these are goals and not states of being. Those who believe that they have achieved them are actually in a perilous state, for they are subject to delusion and hypocrisy. Perhaps someone reading this will take offense, for they might be sure that they have achieved perfection in one of these, and (for example) be perfectly good or just. If so I apologise, on a personal basis, for giving offense.
For the rest of us, life is a struggle, always imperfect, to achieve those of the goals that define who we want to be. Now, if we say that science is mainly devoted to achieving the goal of truth, and that every real scientist realises that as much as possible in his or her imperfect practice, then we have something that works. All this may be obvious or banal to those who never had this problem; I am inflicting it on you all because I have been exposed to so many scientists who sincerely believed that Galileo’s words settled the issue forever.
As usual, this is going on and on. Let me deal with my Quaker friend. I never said that I am a Quaker, only that I attended Swarthmore. I have looked up the site for Quaker Business Practice, and find it very inspiring. Although I do not express my beliefs in the same way, I find there an approach that expresses my own commitments. In particular, there are some recommendations about practice, which I shall quote (for brevity, out of context).
*A Sense of the Meeting is only achieved when those participating respect and care for one another. It requires a humble and loving spirit, imputing purity of motive to all participants and offering our highest selves in return. We seek to create a safe space for sharing.
*We value process over product, action or outcome. We respect each other’s thoughts, feelings and insights more than expedient action.
And, just as a reminder of the issues I discussed above,
*Friends would not claim to have perfected this process, or that we always practice it with complete faithfulness.
It might seem all too idealistic, to expect such attitudes to survive outside a rather special (and small) group of dedicated people. But I recall that some have seen the life of science as an approximation to just that. In the interwar period there were two distinguished scientists who involved themselves in public affairs, one on the far Left and the other on the Right; they were J.D. Bernal and Michael Polanyi respectively. Their disagreements were urgent and profound. But they both loved science, and saw in it an example, imperfect but still real, of the ideal community of selfless sharing in which they believed. I should say that the motivation for my first book was to see whether, and in what ways, that essential idealism of science could be preserved under the ‘industrialised’ conditions of the postwar period. What happened in that quest, and after, is quite another question; but the commitment is still there.
And finally. What I said about Sarah Palin was not about her but about me. It is one of the complexities of life that issues are there in a variety of dimensions, not all of our choosing. I have friends in the critical-environmental movement who are really grieved at my defection; and as I have seen all too clearly, there are those in the anti-AGW camp who think very ill of me. So be it.
Thanks for bearing with me through all this, and thanks for stimulating me to a better understanding.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Jerome Ravetz;
Thanks for bearing with me through all this, and thanks for stimulating me to a better understanding.>>>
And thank you Dr Ravetz, for responding, and demonstrating once again for all those who are still following this thread and the previous, just who and what you are.
Your long, well written, articulate and sometimes even poignant response speaks directly to all that is hollow and false about PNS.
You continue to present PNS as some logical, ingenious construct designed to deal with the complexities of the world in an effective manner, driven by processes you articulate so well that they seem almost a logical outcome that gives credence to the notion of public policy being set on matters of science by those who are not scientists and based on the opinion of scientists who have… NO SCIENCE TO ACTUALLY SUPPORT THEIR OPINION.
When pressed to address the gaping hole…nay chasm… in the sheer audacity of your position, you beat a hasty retreat, claiming that you are not a scientist, that you do not have the expertise to judge matters such as these, and point to actual scientists like Connor/Dyson in which one withdraws for reasons of their own, and thus this justifies you yourself declining to engage the scientific facts yourself. “well mom, my brother peed in the bath tub so obviously its OK for me too”
May I summarize Dr Ravetz?
You know nothing about science per your own statements.
You have no clue what science is fraudulent and what science is sound as a consequence.
And yet you argue that you, and others like you, have some sort of magical, mythical, refined and carefully thought out construct by which you should be granted some level of influence and authority over the science you do not understand.
You provide a smoke screen of words, logic fragments, unrelated stories and fables tied together in a meaningless fashion from which conclusions equally divorced from the stories and fables as they are from each other are drawn. And you use the influence and authority you have granted yourself, to in turn use that smokescreen to enable the fraudulent science to not only continue, but advocate public policy be implemented in favour of the fraudulent science you admit you don’t understand.
Then, with a perfectly straight face, claim the moral high ground, present yourself as a neutral party, a conciliator, who will build a bridge to allow the two warring sides to make peace and shake hands with one another as friends, standing in the centre of the bridge. To you, the victory has everything to do with building the bridge and being the one responsible for the former combatants to cross it and reach their hands out to each other.
Tell me Dr Ravetz, please. Will you be the first to set foot on the bridge? And as you walk alone to the centre of the bridge, looking down at the deep chasm below, will the thought cross your mind…
Who built this bridge I am trusting my life to?
The aggrieved scientists and engineers who demanded that designs, conclusions, construction and policy be based on properly collected data, accurate measurements, proven designs, tested components and solid, practical, real world decisions?
Or was it built by PNS scientists and engineers who were not constrained by the need for such discipline and accuracy, because your PNS enabled them to build the bridge without the need for proven data or theory.
Sadder still, you can’t tell which group it was, because you admit you don’t understand any of the science they are arguing about, so you don’t know what a well built bridge should look like. You have no idea if the bridge will stand your weight or not, you have no idea if you will plunge to your death because it turns out it was a PNS designed and built bridge and worst of all, you don’t care.
Because you aren’t setting foot on that bridge, are you Dr Ravetz? You will proudly proclaim that it was your work that enabled the bridge to be built, but you are too humble to take the spotlight and walk the bridge yourself. And when the first few scientsts begin to cross, and the bridge collapses because it is a PNS bridge, what does Dr Ravetz say as he watches them fall to their deaths?
“Well, there goes THEIR credibility, they did it to themselves, and I’m glad I’m not associated with them”
Chutzpah, Dr. Ravetz. The man who, having been convicted of mudering his parents and then asking the court for mercy because he is an orphan, will have to step aside as the centuries old example of unmitigated gall that is the definition of Chutzpah.
We shall replace it with Dr. Ravetz and PNS.
psi says:
February 26, 2011 at 7:02 am
psi, your post is excellent, too. I’ve wondered about the links between PNS and post-modernism and you are very enlightening re. the latter. Perhaps I should be grateful that a series of really awful high-school English teachers scared me away from the subject.
davidmhoffer,
You’re not looking at the political scene the right way. What you should be asking yourself is: if the choice comes down to Palin vs Obama, how will you vote?
Palin isn’t my choice as a candidate. There are a couple of others I would prefer, such as Ron Paul. But if the choice in a general election is between Obama and Palin, she gets my vote. I dislike the Saul Alinsky tactic of demonizing an individual, which is what happened within 2 hours of Palin being named.
No doubt the Dems had a hit piece ready for every Republican politician in the country. Thoroughly dispicable – and I’d hope you would be somewhat immune from being manipulated like that. It’s not so different from demonizing “carbon,” is it? [I do agree with you that Ravitz gratuitously used her name in this instance, which further diminishes his already weak arguments.]
Paul Brassey,
The conniving climate click led by Michael Mann and Gavin Schmidt began the practice of calling themselves “the Team.” They started labeling themselves by that term, so it’s not a pejorative like the sleazy use of “denialist,” etc.
I would prefer calling them “the Syndicate.”
I remember reading articles in once prestigious magazines arguing that we should take action on climate not because the science is clear, but because it isn’t. Had I not read your explanation of “Post Normal Science” on this blog, I would have thought it just a very odd leap of logic that coincidentally was mirrored in more than one journal. But I’d read your PNS theories, and having done so, recognized those articles for what they were. Nothing more than a justification for a political position with no facts to support it, and the spectre of fear (yes FEAR) of the unknown dressed up as some sort of next generation science. A new kind of science in which the frauds who demand action, having been exposed as frauds, can continue to demand action under a smokescreen of pseudo science called PNS. Nothing but a fraud to cover a fraud.
It was you, Dr. Ravetz, who urged taking action because the situation was urgent, the stakes high, the facts uncertain. But whose recommended actions did your attempt to convince the public that there was some sort of next generation science upon which to base decisions support? The fraudsters sir. Instead of demanding quality work from them, you provided a cleverly worded argument to instead implement their hysterical ravings as policy because despite their fraud, they might be right. You argued to give legitimacy to the shoddiest science in decades, perhaps centuries, and so advanced the arguments of the alarmists who could now with the pseudo science of PNS behind them, continue to push their case with NO SCIENCE AT ALL to justify their position.
For shame.
Dr Ravetz,
I posted several harsh criticisms of your article in the previous thread. As I expected, none of them answered, and I will repeat one of them here. You article above was a response to the criticisms against the previous article, much of the thrust of which was in regard to reconciliation between the warmist and skeptic camps. I repeat:
And then the worst sin of all. The call for reconciliation with the “Protestant Bigot” and the “Republican Terrorist” not only ceasing their hostilities, but becoming friends held out as the model for what could be if only we could put aside our hate. How much warmer and fuzzier could it get? All hail the reconciliator, the peacemaker, the anti-violence crusader, Dr Ravetz. Having urged us all to act on the recommendations of the conformist clique, Dr. Ravetz now throws the worst of them under the bus, justifies the actions of the rest as some sort of acceptable human flaw, and presents himself as the peace maker working hard to bring both sides together.
The example is just as much a sieve held aloft and presented as a pail of water as was the science of those who you cleverly distanced yourself from and threw under a bus. The bigot and the terrorist both acted out of their beliefs. Their ACTUAL beliefs. They reconciled because their beliefs changed. They reconciled because they each arrived at a belief system sufficiently compatible with the other’s that there was no longer need for them to be mortal enemies, and even room for them to be friends.
Do you suppose they would have reconciled if it turned out that the terrorist just liked killing people, he’d never actually believed in the Republican cause? Do you suppose their would have been reconciliation if it turned out the Protestant bigot wasn’t a bigot at all, he just said he was to get a position at a bigger church and agreed to preach bigotry as part of the deal? Neither of them would be seen for anything than criminals guilty of fraud and murder and rightfully convicted and jailed if that had been the case.
Which brings us back to reconciliation within the science community. Note, I didn’t say within the climate science community, I said the science community. The sins committed in the name of alarmism, the presenting of fraudulent science as undisputed fact, the smokescreen of PNS used to support the alarmism in the face of unsubstantiated and unwarranted claims, is not some sort of unintended consequence of two groups of climate scientists with differing belief systems. It is a sin of fraudulent misrepresentation committed against science as a whole, and nothing more than a deliberate scam to fleece the entire world of their wealth.
Incompetent science cannot be tolerated. If a bridge should collapse because the engineer was too lazy to calculate all the shear planes correctly, the lives of those who died are on his head. There can be no reconciliation. Fraudulent science cannot be tolerated. If a bridge should collapse because the construction manager saved money by using a fraudulent bill of materials knowing it would result in a collapse, the lives of those who died are on his head. There can be no reconciliation.
But the most egregious sin of all is when he, who having defended the incompetence and justified the fraud, rises up at the criminal trial and begs the judge to stay proceedings to give reconciliation an opportunity to succeed, and then, to quote another saying Mr Ravitz, the CHUTZPA, to present himself as the conciliator who will bring the aggrieved families together with the criminals and ask them to love one another, for is it not as obvious as the fable of the Sun and the Wind and the man with the coat that they should?
For every scientist in every field of science who has been appalled at the incompetence, fraud and deceit of the alarmists and their charlatan enablers, for every hard working tax payer dedicated to building a better place for their family and community who has been taken in by the charlatans and their Post Normal Science enablers, if I had the authority to speak for them, I would say this about reconciliation:
No.
And if I had the authority to speak for them, I would say this about he who proposes himself as conciliator:
No. Stand in the docket with the rest of the accused whom you defended and enabled, you deserve to be judged as much or more as they. A thousand times:
No.
I still think, having read Funtowizc and Ravetz 1992 on PNS, that they do in fact point out some problems that are in fact relevant to the climate controversy.
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.
What they are lacking is a clear solution, but they coined a term (PNS) that looks like it’s supposed to be a solution, and most of the problems stem from that.
Smokey: “Climate Syndicate”. Very apropos.
As a physical organic chemist of 40 years, I put myself in Dyson’s shoes. I would have walked away sooner, were I he. But when the “journalist” mentioned “trapped heat”, that would have been the clincher, as it was for Dyson. There is no such thing as trapped heat. Heat flows to lower heat. Heat always “gets out.” Thermodynamics. Dyson’s field. Oh, yes, there are temporary heat inversions, but they solve themselves rapidly, with fury, because they are highly unstable and ephemeral. How long can one hold two north poles of a magnet together?
As soon as the unscientific phrase “trapped heat” was sounded, Dyson checked to see if Connor was wearing oversized shoes and had tufts of orange hair behind his ears. And he then calmly, and politely, walked away. How long must we suffer fools gladly? It is not a debate between lawyers and physicists. It is science.
Hypotheses are always in flux, and always to be questioned. I’ll go a step further. My scientific education demanded that all of my hypotheses should be offered up earnestly for falsification. Not only by others, but that I should actively pursue the falsification myself. Why? Because I wanted to find the truth that Nature (not the magazine, LOL!) was trying to teach me. And because a cover-up never gets you anywhere.
The “Syndicate”? “They can’t (won’t) handle the truth!”
Re Bomber_the_Cat says:
February 26, 2011 at 6:29 am
David,
Describing a question as a “Child’s question” (4.14AM) and then failing to answer it does not does not really constitute a sound scientific argument. If the question is easy (which it isn’t) then answer it.
I did answer it…”Bomber it is a Childs question, and a quite insulting simplistic and false statement, the very words of which are not an attempt at dialogue. ““The mainstream estimate suggests that doubling CO2 from pre-industrial levels would increase global average temperatures by about 3C.” This is completely false. The premise is wrong and Connor knows it. The LWIR radiant effect from doubled CO2 is not 3 C, it is about 1C and all moderately informed proponets or skeptics of CAGW know this, including Connor. (Apparently you are not even moderately informed) This garbage premise shows complete lack of sincerity in dialogue.” Here was the answer Bomber…”Any one with minor knowledge knows the issue is feedbacks and other aspects of physics besides straight radiation, like cloud formation, location, and convection, and their affects on SWR and heat loss, evaporation and hydrologic system latent energy transport effects, etc, which can easily overwhelm the straight radiant CO2 effects.”
You did not like my answer, but it was a childs question, and a childish assumption that 3 C of warming results from a doubling of CO2, when most everyone knows it is far more involved then that. Dyson had already alluded to the complxity and lack of knowldge of the current state of science several times. Connor was neither listening or responding to the answers. It is almost like when Judith Curry finaly gave up on Gavin’s “Black Night” attack, and said to Gavin, “Brilliant Response”. My take was that she was actually giving up on him, saying words to the affect of the poem in “Hound of Heaven”, paraphrased here…
“Strange pitieous futile thing, wherefore should any set thee love apart, seeing none but I make much of naught, of all mankinds clotted clay, certainly thou hockeystick is the dingiest clot, shattered in shard on shard, shadow of Judit’s hand; outstrtched caressingly, ah fondest, blindest, weakest, the scientific method is what thou seekest.”
Such is the sad state of climate science today.
Smokey;
You’re not looking at the political scene the right way. What you should be asking yourself is: if the choice comes down to Palin vs Obama, how will you vote?>>>
Being Canadian, it is a moot point. But the point I made stands. If you wish to expand the list of politicians, then of course the scale of doubt would increase, leaving more room to plot various data points.
Were I to find myself on the same side as Dr Ravetz in regard to any opinion expressed by Obama, I would not be uncomfortable. I would be astounded, shocked and dismayed. The only opinion expressed by Obama that I have ever found cause to consider in any way credible is that he is black. And on that one, I think he is only half right.
‘facts uncertain, values in dispute, stakes high and decisions urgent”
———————————————-
Having spent my working life close up and personal with decisionmakers (politicians) and their advisers, please be advised – as we say – that almost all decisions are taken in that context, even now.
I don’t want to start a wargames discussion here. Elizabeth I and Philip had practically no information. Napoleon had bugger all maps. Let alone Alexander …
The fact is, political leaders have always functioned in the absence of certainty. That is their job. The notion that climate is somehow more important than Spain taking over the world, or Napoleon or Hitler taking over the world, is just an artefact.
The caravan is already moving on. But the harm at State and local levels will take many years to get rid of.
DJ says:
February 26, 2011 at 8:31 am
“Ravetz continually embeds subtle digs and insults into his epic tales, and even supposed apologies. Perhaps Willis was not so offended, but I was on his behalf. Ravetz wrote:
“The climate issue is not a simple normal-scientific one of verification or refutation of an hypothesis. It has become a ‘total’ issue, involving policy, politics, investments and lifestyle; and it has a history.””
We had a guy in Germany talking about a lot of “total” things as well… (No, i don’t care about Godwin’s law). Some thoughts.
1.) When somebody says his issue is a total issue, he’s a totalitarian.
2.) PNS is totalitarian.
3.) Ravetz is a totalitarian.
4.) AGW is used as a tool to enforce a totalitarian regime.
5.) Fight them on the beaches; fight them on the hills.
Galileo: “The conclusions of natural science are true and necessary, and the judgement of man has nothing to do with them.”
I do not know exactly where this discussion will end.
The political and philosophical aspects are inadequate in this debate.
Let the hateful thought experiment.
Ptolemy’s model (described using the language … …. PNS high degree of certainty.)
Kepler’s model (described using the language … … PNS high degree of certainty.)
The basic difference between the two models is simply where to place references. (or rearrange the system).
If the political and philosophical aspects are placed in this discussion. Necessarily the discussion starts to be another way.
This mode is not science, so naturally in the course of discussions the phrase “scientists say ….”. will be used to legitimize political agendas (I think that philosophers also contribute to the political agenda in the form of service … “according to the philosopher Ravetz …..).
It is common fact that scientists and philosophers are discarded when the answers provided by them are not exactly those that politicians wanted.
Of course no guarantee that will be well received by the other “side”
johanna says:
February 26, 2011 at 10:13 am
You got that right…
From Wiki:
The Piltdown man fraud had a significant impact on early research on human evolution. Notably, it led scientists down a blind alley in the belief that the human brain expanded in size before the jaw adapted to new types of food. Discoveries of Australopithecine fossils found in the 1920s in South Africa were ignored owing to Piltdown man, and the reconstruction of human evolution was thrown off track for decades. The examination and debate over Piltdown man led to a vast expenditure of time and effort on the fossil, with an estimated 250+ papers written on the topic.
The Piltdown fraud’s black mark has never been totally alleviated. The perps were never found and went unpunished. The setback of science by the warm-earthers, I hope, will not so endure. What will endure, more importantly, is the hardship perpetrated upon the poor and unprivileged. That is the crying shame of it all.
“Messin’ with Sasquatch” is nothing compared to Messin’ with food supplies.
Paul Brassey said:
Dr. Curry recently posted on her blog, linked on WUWT, that members of the AGW “team” were “dishonest.” Famously, “team” members refer to AGW “skeptics” as “deniers” or “denialists.” None of these are scientific terms, but emotionally-charged, value-laden labels. Thus when Curry labels Schmidt “dishonest,” this enables Schmidt to puff up his righteous indignation and defend himself from an attack upon his character, rather than defend his scientific reasoning.
————————————————————–
Paul, there is a big difference (in scientific circles) between calling someone a ‘pinhead’ and describing them as dishonest.
Being described as dishonest is the worst accusation that can be made to a scientist. Someone being described as a ‘pinhead’ is more in the nature of banter over morning tea, or biologists scrapping about taxonomy.
Charles Dawson, the Piltdown Man hoaxer, was never called out by his fellow scientists. In fact, they all profited by his hoax, with over 250 scientific peer-reviewed papers emanating from that claim.
The few “deniers” were overridden. I don’t know, for sure, but I guess that they were branded by allegations they were paid by the Pope on behalf of Creationists.
At any rate, Piltdown was the culmination of his life’s work, consisting of 38 fabrications and major hoaxes that he was proven to perpetrate. I doubt if anyone called him dishonest during his lifetime. But he was. Two scientists at the time stated unequivocally that the skull was a composite fabrication of an ape and a human. But they were shouted down, and the consensus prevailed for 40 years!
He utilized a lot of nifty schemes in order to prevail. Here is an imagined dialog based on the historical record:
Query from anthropologist: “Can I see the skull?”
Dawson: I’ll make a model.
Query: Can I see the original?
Dawson: It’s proprietary.
Query: But I need the original to confirm.
Dawson: You do not have the credentials as an antiquarian to handle it.
Query: Where did you find it?
Dawson: I didn’t. A workman found it.
Query: Can I talk to him?
Dawson: I forget which worker it was.
Query: Where was it found, exactly?
Dawson: I forget exactly.
Query: General area?
Dawson: Piltdown village
Query: Hundreds of scientists have pored over the area, and found no other bones.
Dawson: Just lucky, I guess.
Query: I went to your associate, Woodward, the Keeper of the British Museum, and he said you told him not to talk to me.
Dawson: No, I didn’t.
Sound familiar?
This following excerpt is from Bournemouth University, Archaeology Centre:
“Those who defend Dawson against the charge of hoax often cite his impressive archaeological credentials noting also that, as a well-respected solicitor, he did much to benefit his local community. [my emphasis]”
I slogged through this article and the earlier one. I can’t say as I have come away with any greater understanding or enlightenment. At least the comments have been entertaining.
“As usual I am nearly overwhelmed by these replies, and I only wish that I could respond to each of them.”
Are you overwhelmed by what’s in the replies or the amount of replies?
If it’s the latter there is a simple trick, but of course this trick is actually researched by observation and not by some cheesy post-modeled-science crap, so one doesn’t really need to believe it to work it, and I digress it might seem rather strange but reiterated tries actually proves IRL that it, works, and it works as follows: engage your e-mail’s auto-reply feature with a general message that has something about you’re in chock and can not understand how they could fit all them sex toys up “there”!
If anyone send you messages after that, they’re some deranged people and you should set up a filter that pipe’s ’em to null. :p
Then you’re not overwhelmed by the amount any more, at least. Of course won’t get any at all, and some people thinks that is negative. o_O
Haha!
What a Troll—what a dandy troll!
johanna says:
February 26, 2011 at 10:13 am
“The fact is, political leaders have always functioned in the absence of certainty. That is their job. The notion that climate is somehow more important than Spain taking over the world, or Napoleon or Hitler taking over the world, is just an artefact.”
Yes, and the real threat to peace and to humanity today is nuclear war. Nuclear war in the Mideast is all but inevitable in the next three years. And the USA will definitely be involved, unless we have a president who is willing to turn his back on the total destruction of Israel. All these chicken-littles crying that the sky is falling because of global warming lack even a basic clarity of vision to see what the real threats are.
johanna;
I don’t want to start a wargames discussion here. Elizabeth I and Philip had practically no information. Napoleon had bugger all maps. Let alone Alexander …
The fact is, political leaders have always functioned in the absence of certainty. That is their job.>>>
Enjoyed your comments johanna, and support almost all except this one.
By current standards, those leaders had little information. But by the standards of the time, they had lots, and carefull reading of their historic victories invariably shows that superior information carried the battle in many cases. Alexander paid royaly for quality information from spies, and used it without mercy. The centre piece of Sun Tzu’s Art of War is the advantage gained by having superior information compared to your opponent.
And what did these legends of world history do when it came to light that through deliberate subterfuge or gross incompetance their trusted advisors had misinformed them?
Why that is in fact where the expression “heads will roll” comes from.
Eliminates the hazards of taking advice from that particular source, and makes certain that the remaining sources understand clearly that it is in their personal best interest to work to the highest possible standards.
Of course we’ve made much progress since medieval times. We no longer actually cut people’s heads off. Now, guided by the enlightenment of PNS, we understand that these people are working on a completely different plane of existance that the great unwashed cannot comprehend, that we should not cut off their heads or fire them, we should instead give them all our money, give in to all their demands, and should it be demanded of us for the good of humanity, let them cut our heads off.
Perhaps the only thing saving us from these post medieval philosophers and their twisted world views that defy both fact and reason is that they are so divorced from reality, so completely governed by a reality that can be dealt with only through the written word, that even if we were to hand them the guillotine, they’d never figure out how to operate it.
Not being keen to give the not so Independent a hit, I finally looked at the article.
Connor ignored every point Dyson made. It’s no surprise Dyson decided that, (as he had previously stated,) the Independent wasn’t, he did not want to continue.
DaveE.
Ravetz – “In the interwar period there were two distinguished scientists who involved themselves in public affairs, one on the far Left and other on the Right; they were J.D. Bernal and Michael Polanyi respectively. Their disagreements were urgent and profound. But they both loved science, and saw in it an example, imperfect but still real, of the ideal community of selfless sharing in which they believed.”
It’s now February 2011, how have you been able to make such a statement when your own discovery of Polanyi showed to him to be an insecure follower of fashion, science consensus, rather than the man of scientific integrity you present here?
You said, on May 30th 2010 at 9:48 pm:
“I recall discovering that Michael Polanyi believed that if a scientist advanced theories that didn’t fit with the ‘tacit knowledge’ of the field, the scientists were justified in dismissing him unheard.” http://enthusiamscepticismscience.wordpress.com/2010/03/05/revolutionary-science-post-normal-climate-science-and-neo-marxism/
So which is he? And knowing this about him, and knowing it for a long time, how do you justify presenting him as an example of Quaker moral values?
From that page, an examination of Hulme’s book and his attack on Singer and Avery – the defining feature of which is Hulme accusing these of precisely what he himself is doing, and the method employed by AGW promoters for quite some time now, the cloaking of real motive by pukkha scientific method sounding basis, including, Hulme says, “citations to peer-reviewed articles, deference to numbers, and adoption of technical terms”. And he claims for himself and AGWScience the antidote to such skullduggery which in actual fact, as we here know perfectly well, the skeptics use successfully against AGW: “deploying the machinery of scientific method allows us to filter out hypotheses … as being plain wrong.” Where Hulme puts Singer and Avery, insert all the manipulators of science data to fit the agenda of AGW ‘scientists’.
So, Dr Ravetz, two interesting technique on show here. In you as specimen example, giving us a straight forward falsehood by presenting Polyani as other than not even a pygmy standing on the shoulders of giants such as Newton and then hiding it, and yourself, in the shelter of the generally accepted moral standing of the Quakers, and, in Hulme as specimen, the oft seen technique of accusing scientists anti the AGWScience mangling for an agenda, which is the known characteristic rather of AGWscientists. (We here know that it’s the claims of AGWscientists which have proved to be wrong, corrupt and nonsensical through the looking glass imaginary.)
So, let me see if I now have a better understanding of what you’re pushing here.
Post Normal Science then is the death of real Science which is now deemed as irrelevant as revolutions and art and everything new determined impossible in the black hole of depression which is Post Modernism, PNS however differs in one respect.
It can still see the sliver of light at the event horizon and still desperately wants to survive being sucked into oblivion, and how better to do this then by taking control of the lives of others to counter its lack of creativity in itself and whatever other depressing lack its adherents add to the black hole it is; blaming the other for its own lack of integrity, moral and scientific, and meaninglessness of life. Instead of the Post Rational depressive’s way out of suicide as the only rational alternative we now have it replaced by the positive thinking PNS way out of petty insecure tyrants, the destruction of those who point out that this philosophy is still bereft of value are added to the list of those to be considered superfluous numbers to a ‘sustainable ecology’ by it masquerading as the holder of true value judgement and to be achieved by the tried and tested method of generating fear and urgency.. So what’s new about PNS..?
And whence your mantram of ‘science is value’: it has none, as Hulme so clearly demonstrates the technique to those familiar with it, as the majority here are, regardless how cleverly you misappropriate the values of others by using their terms which have specific meaning for them.
And hence?
Sorry folks, missed a close italics after Ravetz quote: “….justified in dismissing him unheard.”
Here at WUWT Jerome Ravetz has provided his view of; AGW, science, philosophy of science, history of science and of his advocated PNS. For that, we can thank him sincerely.
Let’s applaud him for bringing his thinking to us in person.
I profoundly disagree with him at virtually every essential point.
NOTE to tallbloke – if you are monitoring this, I sincerely suggest that you could help Mr. Ravetz by doing pre-edits of his postings. I think you have a collegial relationship with him so it may be possible for you to provide some editing support for him. I am saying this to you in good will because I respect you from your openness and energy here in past years at WUWT. I think you have a collegial relationship with him so it may be possible for you to provide some editing support for him. With your editing help perhaps he would then come across as less of a pedantic academic with a condescending tone.
John
Wow, I was completely censored. A comment of mine (calling out the sincerity of this article) no longer exists. No snip; no warning; no courtesy email to my provided address. Just gone. It passed initial moderation, and now it’s gone.
Oh well, I guess WUWT is not as different as I thought.
REPLY: Please send it again, I did not see your previous comment, but I’ll look at it personally. Sound more like a glitch or accidental deletion. Sometimes it happens. I have on occasion accidentally deleted comments rather than approving them. The “delete permanently” button andf the approve both make the same thing happen in WordPress, the comment moves out of the moderation que and the rest of the comments scroll up. Sometimes you don’t even know you’ve done it.
With the hundreds of comments here daily, mistakes are bound to happen. – Anthony