Story submitted by John Droz.
Today I received an email from an editor, who was saying that “Science” depends on what your political persuasion is. I dispute that opinion and answered as follows —
Briefly, what has happened is that:
1 – Politicians from both ends of the spectrum fully realize that they need the appearance of scientific support to promote their political agenda.
2 – Combine this with the fact that there are thousands of scientists who have left the confines of real science, for their own financial or personal agenda reasons (e.g. which is no different than priests departing from Christian values that they have literally dedicated their lives to upholding).
So, it is an easy matter for politicians in #1 to find rogue scientists in #2 to support essentially any position — and then claim to the public that their agenda is “based on science.” This type of “science” is pseudoscience or “cargo cult science” and is just a sham meant to deceive the gullible.
These agenda promoters have become so brazen that some are now even asserting that traditional science (of Galileo, Newton, Einstein, etc.) is no longer relevant, and that we should be using such alternatives as “Post Normal Science”. This, of course, is preposterous.
The reality is that genuine science is apolitical, and consists of a:
a) comprehensive,
b) independent,
c) transparent, and
d) empirical assessment of claims.
Put another way, there can be a profound difference between “reports by scientists” and “scientific reports.”
So, facing this mishmash of claims, it’s up to objective citizens to discriminate between the real and the pretend. This is not easy to do, but using the four-part template above that will tell the story.
For example, when AGW is claimed as a hypothesis, the appropriate question is:
Show me the: a) comprehensive, b) independent, c) transparent, and d) empirical proof.
For example, when wind energy is claimed to be a cost-beneficial solution to energy & environmental issues, the appropriate question is:
Show me the: a) comprehensive, b) independent, c) transparent, and d) empirical proof.
The indisputable fact is that no such proof exists for either.
That is not a political conclusion, but a scientific one.
I think it is worse than that. I think that the funding of climate science has spawned a whole field which is scientific only in name. They strap scientific statements togethor in a sequence which gives the desired result. It is like a sculptor building his sculpture out of engine parts and claiming it is an engine because it uses engine parts and therefore he is an engineer. The engineer would not accept it was an engine until it generated power.
Even the Scientific American has entered into the problems with the corruption of scientists lately. I have written about the problems of bias, fraud and funding in the past and it was nice to see the Scientific American come out and say the same thing.
The problem is real and the solutions are not terribly difficult, but they require that the scientists accept that there is a problem. The AGW crowd is unlikely to accept that very easily.
http://theinconvenientskeptic.com/2011/06/the-scientific-american-throws-down-the-gaunlet/
Its a good thing I’m not making a living in the science world, I would be one of those scientists who would deliver whatever results the buyer wanted. As long as it is not illegal, I would be a scientific sell out. A buck is a buck in my eyes. I wonder how many scientists out there are like that?
jcrabb says:
June 7, 2011 at 10:14 pm
“So NASA and every Scientific peak body on the Planet is corrupt? now that is post-normal.”
Why not? All of academia outside (most of) the hard sciences is demonstrably corrupt in that the professorate exists to promote an ideological position over and against critical thought. Or would you like to demonstrate the remarkable contributions to knowledge of Feminist Studies Departments?
Science and scientist are maybe not even that much corrupted but biased and their products are abused. Scientific conclusions are generally pretty boring, articles incomprehensible and useless for politics. So, basically, reports are never scientific, they are at best applying science, only articles reflect “science”.
As the claims need to be put to a test to be scientific they cannot be too comprehensive, there we have the challenge for the IPCC, which I believe to be the first and only phenomenon in its kind, to come up with something to support an impossible claim for political bargaining. So they hired PR consultants who came up with a glossy format, colorfull tables and graphs and the brilliant invention of the likes of “likelyhood” and “virtually sure”. Now that is good stuff for polictics. And after all, all the alarmists want is to save the world for mankind (humanists) or to save the planet from mankind (vegans), so what is the harm in a little white lie?
I can tell you, “science” and academia began to be filed with hippies and social activists as opposed to the people who fought and won WWII. As a Gen Xer having to deal with all the touchey-feeling PC B.S. the Baby Boomers instituted in the work place, I’m TOTALLY ready for them to go on Social Security. (No offense to the fine Baby Boomers on this list, of course)
We’ve reached peak science. All science from now on will be of lesser quality until science is found in only a few pockets and sold at enormous prices. Charging at windmills may not be a palatable replacement, but, it’s all that’s left to humanity. 😉
No sooner did you see a post about science and corruption the principal proponent of what’s wrong with science nowadays, props up as usual, lending proof to the article.
Agreed with the entry. Citizens will never be objective enough or devote enough time in analyzing claims to be able to ascertain the quality of the science though. Most people will either believe whatever fits their preconceptions or whichever person on TV talks the loudest.
John Droz said ” ‘Science’ depends on what your political persuasion is. I dispute that opinion and answered as follows …”
Well, I would dispute his position as follows
While this is a slightly take on the topic, I think it does show “a) comprehensive, b) independent, c) transparent, and d) empirical proof” that your political views are correlated with your scientific views on two well-known scientific topics.
PS I like that set of criteria — I may have to use “a) comprehensive, b) independent, c) transparent, and d) empirical proof.” more often. 🙂
Not so long ago, WUWT posted comments from skeptical scientists who said funding did not influence their views or conclusions. But the prevailing opinion among readers of WUWT appears to believe the “concensus” science IS corrupted by money. Is that belief fair?
(Sent from phone, plz excuse typos)
an archaeologist and dating expert at English Heritage, said: “The dates were not what we expected when we began this project but prehistorians are just going to have to get their heads around it, a lot of what we have been taught in the past is complete bollocks.” I think this is general in all science.
J. Simpson says:
More wisdom from the great scientific mind Richar Feynman . The para following the cargo cult comment linked above.
From the comments I’ve read, I don’t think the warmists consider Feynman to be a scientist…
@Tim O'Donovan Folkerts
No, the truth is the truth no matter your political persuasion, that’s the point being made. To say we are only going to believe in this or that because we are republican or democratic, is not science, it is not scientific, and it has no place in the realm of empiricism. Bias is what this is about, and bias must be ruthlessly eliminated wherever possible. If scientists let their political persuasions dictate their interpretations of data, and the direction of their research, and what data they show, how they show it, and what they withhold; then they are no longer acting as scientists or within the scientific philosophy or method.
It doesn’t matter what people think. All that matters is what is true, and the truth is what science is after alone.
Scottish Sceptic says:
June 8, 2011 at 12:44 am
“And now in the 2010s, we are beginning a new phase: that of denial. Denial that much of “science” has failed to achieve anything of significance in the last 40 years. Denial that these new vogues subjects such as “climate science” are not science at all but use the far more lax evidential standards of economics or marketing.”
You do pose an interesting question, roughly, what happened to science over the last forty years. I am sort of sad that I will not be alive when all this is sorted out. It is a fascinating question. A partial answer is that science is all hard work and no glamour. For the last forty years, just about everyone chose glamour and easy work. I think a bigger part of the answer is that people who embrace a Marxist line have come to dominate all aspects of the universities. In the old days, the NASA folk and their brethren in academia would not so much as speak to the Lefties. Now NASA and most scientific agencies in our government, especially including the EPA, are dominated by Marxists and fellow travelers. And, today, college is pretty much for the experience and not for acquiring a serious education. It will take awhile to sort out all this. You are correct that science has given us a big fat goose egg over the last forty years, with the exception of genetic engineering.
Paul Deacon says:
June 7, 2011 at 10:34 pm
“The Global Warming movement has been so successful that I fear for the future. Even if the movement is successfully overturned (which I guess it will be at some point), its proponents and their successors will be keen to replicate their success in other fields. What would stop them?”
Yep. What a nightmare. My children face lives micromanaged by bureaucrats who will differ from Kommissars in name only. Better that it be 1830 and they move across some mountain range and start anew.
Nuke:
At June 8, 2011 at 9:50 am you ask:
“Not so long ago, WUWT posted comments from skeptical scientists who said funding did not influence their views or conclusions. But the prevailing opinion among readers of WUWT appears to believe the “concensus” science IS corrupted by money. Is that belief fair?”
I do not know the WUWT item to which you refer but I write to address the issue of ‘corruption of science by money’.
Before addressing the issue, I point out that
(i) ‘AGW-skeptical’ scientists have nothing to gain from ‘cheating’,
and
(ii) the very, very great majority of the ‘AGW-concensus’ scientists also do not ‘cheat’ but, unfortunately, a small number do.
A few people in every profession are corrupt. So, there are a few corrupt scientists, a few corrupt lawyers, a few corrupt physicians, a few corrupt police officers, etc.. But, in common with most members of other professions, most scientists are not corrupt.
However, scientists suffer from three effects that other professions do not; viz.
1. the work of most scientists is done in confidence so is not seen by the public,
2. scientists whose work is publicly available have a limited number of paymasters,
and
3. a professional ethics committee is impossible for science.
The great majority of scientists are employed to do work that has commercial or military confidence. The bulk of their work is never published in the public domain but it is subject to severe scrutiny by their employers to whom they are accountable. If their work is sub-standard then their employment and/or their carears are curtailed. Hence, the great bulk of scientific work is of a high standard because it is held accountable almost immediately.
Other scientific research does not have a direct commercial and/or military application and there is severe competition for research funds by Institutions (e.g. universities and government agencies) which conduct it. The research funds are provided by philanthropy (mostly from industries) and, importantly, from governments. An Institution’s research managers require the Institution’s scientists to suggest and to provide work which is likely to win the acquisition of funds for the work against the competition for the funds. This induces three unfortunate activities.
Firstly, governments are most likely to fund work likely to support their policies and not to fund work that is likely to indicate flaws in their policies. The applicants for funds know this. Hence, in a case such as AGW (where governments are using the AGW hypothesis as an excuse for political policies and taxes) almost all the research is targetted at supporting the AGW hypothesis and not at disproving it.
The result is a distortion of the normal ‘clash of ideas’ which is the proper method by which science advances.
Secondly, a carear scientist has great temptation (i.e. to obtain ‘fame & fortune’) to bias research findings so they provide what is wanted. In the very great majority of cases the bias is unintentional but in a few cases this bias is clearly deliberate.
Thirdly, science advances by correcting errors, but the funding issue encourages the hiding of errors. Such hiding is a severe corruption of the scientific process, and it is inevitable when research managers
(a) encourage work that will get funding
and
(b) want past work to be seen as a ‘good advertisement’ for obtaining future funds.
The researchers and the research managers have strong incentives to not admit failings in past work.
And this raises the issue of an Ethics Committee for science. Such a Committee would be an attack on science because it would need to rule on what and is not ‘ethical science’. Consider much of cosmology research, evolution research and the physics of ‘string theory’: who is to decfide if they are science and how to decide?
So, science relies on the peer review system and the disciplinary systems of the Institutions to correct errors and to punish misconduct. This leads to attempts to usurp scientific journals (as the ‘Climategate’ emails prove has happened) and it puts the Institutions ‘between a rock and a hard place’.
As I admitted above, there are a few ‘bad’ scientists who fall foul of the temptation to enhance their carears by cheating. But an Institution employing such a malefactor has difficulty publicly admitting that the cheating happened.
If the Institution pubicly chastises the malefactor then it inhibits the obtaining of future work and lowers the reputation of the Institution: it is much easier to do a public cover up (i.e. a “whitewash” in the current vernacular) while privately warning the malefactor not to do it again. Of course, this tells the malefactor that malpractice has no real repercussions.
I hope this brief answer adequately explains the matter which is much more complicated than ‘a few rotten apples’.
Richard
Richard S Courtney says:
June 8, 2011 at 12:19 pm
“As I admitted above, there are a few ‘bad’ scientists who fall foul of the temptation to enhance their carears by cheating. But an Institution employing such a malefactor has difficulty publicly admitting that the cheating happened.”
I think you are overlooking the “sociological” changes that have occurred in the universities over the last seventy years. First and foremost, the number of “administrators” has skyrocketed. The number of associate and assistant deans has skyrocketed. Universities now create “centers.” You know, the “Center for Paranormal Revenge Studies,” and such. It has reached a point where each and every full professor truly believes that he/she is entitled to have their own center. Getting a center means a big boost in salary and perqs. The most favored perq is that you get to invite your friends to lecture and you get to pay them a handsome amount. However, with the exception of the truly exceptional who have the unusual abilities that enable one to run a scientific institute, no genuine scientist has ever wanted the distraction of running a center or being a dean. The number of people who should never have been in science should include everybody who has chosen to become a dean or run a center. In case it is not clear, my point is that what motivates scientists has been systematically corrupted by money and titles. Pardon my judgmental attitude, but if your goal is money and prestige then you will not do justice to science.
The statements of scientists are somewhat tentative. Big Bang theory is taken from genesis. Climate scientists are said to be peddling a dogma based on anthropogenic causes, which , again, is taken from the religious context that man is the great product of the universe.
I doubt that these scientists say these things in their role as that of their cautious scientific capacity, but rather in their role as good citizens extolling the fashion of the day.
Theo Goodwin:
With respect, I think you have misunderstood me. Please read what I wrote (at June 8, 2011 at 12:19 pm) about
“An Institution’s research managers require the Institution’s scientists to suggest and to provide work which is likely to win the acquisition of funds for the work against the competition for the funds. This induces three unfortunate activities.”
etc.
I think we agree.
Richard
Dr. Michael Mann’s papers have been referenced by other tree ring researchers. Have their papers been corrupted?
Another tiny indication of progress: New Scientist mag, Gaia’s house organ, published an opinion piece by Michael Shermer (the Skeptic™) mentioning global warming as just another item in a list of failed apocalypses.
“Secular end of days may be found in Karl Marx’s end of capitalism and Francis Fukuyama’s end of history, along with scientistic doomsdays brought about by global warming, ice ages, solar flares, rogue planets, black holes, cosmic collisions, supervolcanoes, overpopulation, pollution, nuclear winter, genetically engineered viruses, the grey goo of runaway nanotechnology – and let’s not forget Y2K, the millennium bug.”
The editors obviously didn’t try to “re-educate” his list, and as far as I can tell (lots of comments were deleted!) none of the commenters quibbled with his inclusion of AGW in this list.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21028156.300-the-end-is-always-nigh-in-the-human-mind.html
Good as far as it goes, but the other side can equally well start asking YOU for proof. So some comment on where the burden of proof belongs is called for.
Certainly; in fact, any researcher giving credence to and relying on such shoddy work is deliberately engaging in corrupt science.
an editor, who was saying that “Science” depends on what your political persuasion is.
How convenient. Then there is no such thing as “fact” and even “reality”. And whoever wins determines what the “truth” is. Well that’s quite a telling confession from a member of the Press, regarding what this “editor” thinks is valuable to report or editorialize, which itself is thereby worthless except for its propaganda effect towards “winning” whatever battle the editor wants to win for his own personal reasons, including his own “political persuasion”, regardless of the truth.