Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. sends word of this via email. I’m a bit amused, but not surprised, as we know WUWT has been pushing the traditional media envelope, and we often tackle subjects they can’t or won’t. I liked this statement about skeptical blogs:
They serve as extended peer communities as put forth by post-normal science, however, blog users themselves do not see post-normal science as a desirable goal.
She’s got that right. Just wait til she sees what is coming up next. – Anthony
CSTPR Noontime Seminar
Fall 2012 Series
Thursdays 12:00 – 1:00 PM
The Communications-Policy Nexus
Media, messages, and decision making
* Tuesday September 11, 2012
THE CONTRARIAN DISCOURSE IN THE BLOGOSPHERE: WHAT ARE BLOGS GOOD FOR ANYWAY?
by Franziska Hollender, Institute for Social Studies of Science, University of Vienna
CSTPR Conference Room, 1333 Grandview Avenue
Free and open to the public
The media serve to inform, entertain, educate and provide a basis for discussion among people. While traditional media such as print newspapers are facing a slow decline, they are being outpaced by new media that add new dimensions to public communication with interactivity being the most striking one. In the context of climate change, one question has arisen from recent events: what to do with the contrarians? Some propose that the contrarian discourse is merely an annoying sideshow, while others think that it is science’s responsibility to fight them. Blogs, being fairly unrestricted and highly interactive, serve as an important platform for contrarian viewpoints, and they are increasingly permeating multiple media spheres.
Using the highly ranked blog ‘Watts up with that’ as a case study, discourse analysis of seven posts including almost 1600 user comments reveals that blogs are able to unveil components and purposes of the contrarian discourse that traditional media are not. They serve as extended peer communities as put forth by post-normal science, however, blog users themselves do not see post-normal science as a desirable goal. Furthermore, avowals of distrust can be seen as linguistic perfomances of accountability, forcing science to prove its reliability and integrity over and over again. Finally, it is concluded that the climate change discourse has been stifled by the obsession of discussing the science basis and that in order to advance the discourse, there needs to be a change in how science as an ideology is communicated and enacted.
========================================================
http://cires.colorado.edu/calendar/events/index.php?com=detail&eID=605
Can anyone go? Pielke Jr. reports he will be traveling.
David Bowen
Fine comment and one I will back up with my own educational experience.
As a confirmed thicko, I got into Cambridge to do science aged 17 yrs 0 months. I had a year abroad before going up and then studied Natural Sciences (which is the general name for the whole science undergraduate degree spectrum, allowing students to choose specialism as they go along), specialising in Biochemistry in Year 3. I was an intellectual pygmy as I only got a good II/i.
In that time, the undergraduate lecture programme force-fed an incredible smorgasboard of facts with absolutely no time for scientific thought. We must have read 500 papers in the final year alone, not to mention all of Stryer, Alberts et al, Fersht etc etc etc. The only thing which might have resembled real science outside of the final year project was an essay summary of the literature of a particular field (I chose Steroid Hormone Receptors). There was no discussion of that embryonic criticism, presumably as that would need to focus on experimental details, experimental systems etc, which our hothousing was miraculously free of.
All of us were more than capable of identifying possible factors influencing experimental outcomes, but after 11 years of lectures, we were encyclopaedias thin on practical experience. We knew what Maniatis had done, written etc but we didn’t know why. No text book existed which said: ‘these are the reasons the protocols are as they are’. As a result, there was no short-cut to avoidiing the mistakes of previous generations.
It took me another 11 years to really understand deeply where scientists really knew what they were talking about and where they were winging it. That’s when I knew that titles of papers were like newspaper headlines, aimed to grab attention rather than summarise the true results. Paragraph summaries were the same. Discussion of results ended with saying: ‘we built a car which can go 10mph, all we need to do to get to the moon is increase the power generated’. Those sentences were written as part of the ‘we need more money for more research’ industry.
Thing is, if you are doing real science research (what I was working on was real science, namely gene therapy), it may be many years before you can actually say something which changes people’s lives. You are dependent on the politics of science (translational medical research vs basic science) not going the other way at the crucial point. If it did, you were ‘acceptable collateral damage’, your career sacrificed to expediency. It’s a normal part of real life……
There are too many people out there right now who say: ‘this senior scientist said so, so it must be true’. Scientists say things for reasons, like everyone else.
It’s just a shame that the public still put them on a pedestal instead of treating them like other groups: potential criminals, potential saints, potential pygmies just trying to pay for their children’s upkeep.
Maus says:
September 1, 2012 at 11:36 pm
Well, then there’s nothing further to be gained in helping your understand a foreign language.
Oh yes, you can tell us what meaning you would attach to ‘science as ideology’ if not ‘science is an ideology’. The way I see it is that if science were not an ideology, then it would make no sense the discuss science as if it were an ideology. Perhaps you disagree.
Does reality change if we are unaware of the rationalizations people have about that reality?
That was not the issue. The point was that from the inner consistency [and, yes,’beauty’] of the theory an aspect of reality was predicted to exist before it was found. Somewhat more speculatively: at least in some interpretations of Quantum Mechanics, reality depends on how [even ‘if’] something is observed.
richardscourtney says:
September 2, 2012 at 5:46 am
tallbloke:
I’m not advocating the adoption of corrupt practices, and I think you are being disingenuous by suggesting I am.
PNS is a corrupt practice and you are certainly being disingenuous by suggesting it is not.
I regard PNS as a realistic description of how scientific output has been manipulated by realpolitik, rather than as a practise to be followed. I find it hard to fathom what, if anything, you think should be done to defend science from political interference. Maybe your position is to avoid confronting the issue and stay ‘unsullied’ as a journal editor. Fair enough, I can see that works for you. I don’t see that it puts you in a strong position to pass judgement on the efforts of others though.
As a climate blogger and historian/philosopher of science with a practical engineering bent, I don’t mind getting down to the nitty gritty of fighting the forces which pervert science with the tools at my disposal, with the integrity I believe I have, and with the best qualities I can muster.
Good day.
Just throwing this in the mix:
I’m not a scientist, I don’t have post-secondary education in any of the Sciences, not Physics, or Chemistry or Biology. However, I am well versed in what we call Computer Science (no, that doesn’t mean I write clever scripts for websites), and mechanics and engineering. I spent several years working at a nuclear facility and as part of my employment was required to pass certification in nuclear theory and safety.
One thing I know for a fact: if I write code that is expected to do “x”, that code will do “x” no matter how many times I run it. The function is verifiable, and I can comfortably predict the outcome of my work. The same goes for the engineering in, for example, my car. I can easily predict the suspension travel and steering geometry at various loads and steering angles, and barring worn or damaged components things will remain predictable and verifiable.
When I first heard about the whole AGW thing, I was concerned. I worried. I wondered what I could do to help, which policies to support, and what was wrong with these weirdo “deniers” that were occasionally popping up. I began a quest for accurate information about the severity of the AGW problem, and as many readers here know, I found none because none exists.
Perhaps before Franziska Hollender gets too worked up about the rabble questioning the ideology of her brand of science, she could provide the simple, empirical, verifiable demonstration that the CAGW hypothesis is valid. Really, it’s the only thing keeping me from swallowing the entire thing, hook, line and sinker. Possibly she’d be too embarrassed by discovering that there is no such thing, and she’s been duped all along. All of the horrible outcomes and predictions that we are supposed to be stressing about are, simply, NOT happening.
Funny how that works. People who are incapable of independent thought are the most fervent believers in the AGW thing, while those who demonstrate critical thinking and independent thought have seen no reason to believe what we’re being told. It wouldn’t take much, really. Some kind of experiment or demonstration that shows with reasonable certainty that we’re causing problematic warming. Or, let’s go one step back. Demonstrate that the historical record even SHOWS any warming. Or, another step back. Demonstrate where our climate is in any way exceeding values that we all know are within normals, or exceeds normal in any significant way.
You do that, and I’ll fall in line. But here’s the thing: as long as climate “science” is polluted with faulty data and ideologically driven results and personalities, no real proof will ever be forthcoming. Because the only people YOU have to convince are… well… YOU. And anyone who questions your beliefs are, you know, weird and wrong and creepy.
C’mon Mosher. Out with it. Or can we just continue with the only reasonable conclusion of you being an AGW propagandist/apologist who refuses to have an adult conversation about the motivations behind post normal science/AGW.
Of course, I do not think this is an invite. It’s a trap and a ploy to bring some much needed tourism money into the community. If enough show up that is income to hotels, restaurants, and the like. And if I was truly a contrarien, I would postulate that “they” want to get an eyeball on “you” for further investigation; just to see if “you” have any additional useful information worth gleaning which would be protected by the some proprietary information arrangement.
. . . So that “they” may predict the long term weather trends more accurately, so that they may continuing blaming “hue-mans” behaving badley for the natural variations the have been striking “us” down for eaons. Doesn’t matter whether it is “mother nature” or “father time” . . . we are doomed, I tell you, doomed!
/sarc
I always thought that “normal” science was the scientific method, as it has been known for centuries. I thought it was experimentation, gathering empirical data to provide evidence which supports or detracts a hypothesis. “Post Normal” science was referring to non empirical research which rely purely on thought experiments, statistical manipulation, and consensus acceptance of hypothesis, without corresponding empirical data… ie models all the way down.
Have I defined this term incorrectly?? GK
Mike D in AB says:
September 1, 2012 at 9:15 pm
Sun Spot / Tallbloke – you missed my point…. Calling a way of looking at things (post normal) science does not mean that it follows the scientific method, and it does the image of science within popular society a lot of damage when we let folks who are peddling their worldview and calling it “science” and get away with it.
Hi Mike. Ravetz isn’t claiming PNS is a science in and of itself. You have the emphasis wrong. it’s not (post normal) science, rather it’s post (normal science), in the Kuhnian sense. i.e. what comes after the normal science is done. i.e. what society does with scientific output when it moves from the lab into the world of conflicting interests.
PNS then is a description of how the science/policy interface operates in the real world, and who gets access to the process. We should thank Ravetz for stating that the science/policy interface should not be the preserve of a narrow clique of those people who review, fund, and support each others positions, but that it should be subject to a wider review, critique and pool of input to decision making. Including the blogospheric ‘peer community’ and it’s cache of contrary opinion, theory, and ‘leaked documents’.
The very fact we are having this discussion wouldn’t have been conceivable in the bad old days of autocratic policy formation being handed down from on high.
PNS has democratized decision making involving the input of science. Bravo Ravetz.
It’s messy, full of argument, and hard to resolve, but at least it’s happening, and we are making progress.
In end, I would view this all as just another in a long line of groups of persons with a particular “ideology” or view of the world throughout history attempting to implement Plato’s Republic with themselves as the elite that has all of the real power and knowledge. examples: communist, Nazis, catholic church, Scientology, any religious cult you would care to name, etc. A direct opposite to the principles the founding fathers based the constitution on. ie. all have an equal say (1 person, 1 vote) with strong individual rights and limits on what any government is allowed to do.
G. Karst says:
September 2, 2012 at 6:41 am
I thought it was experimentation, gathering empirical data to provide evidence which supports or detracts a hypothesis. “Post Normal” science was referring to non empirical research which rely purely on thought experiments…
It is a bit more complex than that. One of science’s greatest achievements is General Relativity. GR was based on pure thought experiments and was not the result of empirical data. Einstein was, of course, happy to find that GR predicted things that were eventually confirmed, but those did not form the basis for developing the theory. Same thing with Dirac’s theory [predicting antimatter].
Andrew Newberg says:
September 1, 2012 at 10:54 am
Any idea on the what 7 posts?
I second that question!
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/01/wuwt-is-the-focus-of-a-seminar-at-the-university-of-colorado/#comment-1069431
@ur momisugly Both? Please edify me on how you would “experiment” with climate, especially when we can not accurately predict it short term much less long term?
WEATHER MODIFICATION: cloud seeding, atmospheric services …
http://www.weathermodification.com/
Weather Modification, Incorporated is the leader in atmospheric assessment and evaluation. Since 1961, we have been working in the sky, providing unmatched …
Clients & Projects – Cloud Seeding – Aircraft – About Us
Weather modification – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weather_modification
Weather modification is the act of intentionally manipulating or altering the weather. The most common form of weather modification is cloud seeding to increase …
History – Cloud seeding – Storm prevention – Hurricane modification
Given that we can not accurately predict weather, or climate change short term much less long term the above is like a crowd of youngsters messing with . . . . oh, I dun know, pick something!
Could be me just being silly, but; “I thought” that was why Einstein did thought experiments and we developed models to predict future events to begin with!
Is she writing in fluent bollocks?
I’m having a hard time decyphering that last paragraph!
Adam, who is she?
Stephen Rasey says:
September 1, 2012 at 10:25 am
Cloud Review.
Both caps.
I personally have become very skeptical of science for several reasons. But primarily through the outright deception of pharmaceuticals and the junk medical professionals they own. Examples abound. That led me to question all of the science, especially climate science that has been infected with political gain.
As for the reading of this blog; it is a pool of thoughts from folks who are just curious, who have vested interest in a particular science, …etc., the list is long.
“obsession of discussing” should be obsession WITH discussing. So WUWT is to be analyzed by people who can’t speak English properly. I will not be reading anymore from this person as I have no desire to lapse into a coma.
” there needs to be a change in how science as an ideology is communicated and enacted”
Oh dear… where to start? Since when did science become an ideology? This writer seems to accept without equivocation that ‘science’ is a matter of faith and opinion, rather than a system intended to establish provable facts via results which can be replicated.
It’s extremely depressing that such people are employed by institutes of learning
Tallbloke@6:46 Thanks for the further explanation. Even with things being post (normal science), I would prefer that the precepts of scientific inquiry still be followed. Particularly relating to falsification. When what can be seen as malfeasance, selective sampling and use of data, or simple human error is the basis for the “normal science”, I don’t want it used as a launchboard for extrapolation into the post normal realm! The example of the 787 was listed above, with several “unproven” items included within it’s design/construction mentioned. The “unproven” items were changes of sub-systems and materials that had been shown to work in other applications being applied to aircraft, where they had not worked before. I see the current approach to climate control via atmospheric management as being comparable to arguing about which tail colour makes the plane fly more efficiently, and then leaving the wings off the plane design once the tail colour is perfect.
I agree that it is great that we can discuss such things in a civil fashion. I’m not so sure that we’re making progress: not everything is a problem, and not all problems have solutions. As another poster had said, a scraped knee shouldn’t automatically cause leg amputation (because things could go so badly so quickly that you have to preemptively take action). I’m not looking forwards to the time my descendants will see the walls of ice advancing again because of cycles beyond our control, and I shudder at the amount of waste and the costs in human lives from extending poverty in the developing world that that will result from our current tilting at windmills.
katabasis1 says:
September 2, 2012 at 5:20 am
You folks are going to LOVE this one:
http://psychologyforasafeclimate.org/
You’re right! It seems to be the evil spawn of Skeptical Science. A certain portion of Australian society seems to have gone collectively mad.
Eugene
“By the way you dont have the faintest idea what Post Normal Science is about.”
Funny. Jerome Ravetz has a different opinion about me than you do.
I appreciate your sentiment, but I didn’t conflate anything. The ultimate test of science is the successful, tangible use. The fact that a picture appears in a living room proves to everyone that the science involved with television is accurate. The fact that we landed men on the moon proved to everyone that all the sciences involved with that effort were accurate. Both feats proved the scientists correct and gave the public confidence in science.
“Eric Barnes says:
September 2, 2012 at 6:25 am (Edit)
C’mon Mosher. Out with it. Or can we just continue with the only reasonable conclusion of you being an AGW propagandist/apologist who refuses to have an adult conversation about the motivations behind post normal science/AGW.
############################
1. Go read the posts here about PNS
2. Go read my posts about PNS at Judith Curry’s
3. Go read my book on Climategate
As I’ve said before science has no way of seeing into men’s hearts. We can speculate about motivations, but its ironic ,don’t you think ,to accuse the other side of PNS while practicing it yourself.
Richard III opines- “I’m lost again. What is post-normal science?”
That’s easy. It’s where Big Climate posts the latest PR exercise or Green plagiarism via their tame MSM and you go looking for the science and you quickly get lost. Clearly then you’re in need of professional help and some serious analysing and since they’re from the Gummint, naturally they’re here to help.
Yup, it’s funny that Professor Franziska claims that climate change discussions are “stifled” by skeptics wanting to discuss the science.
Hey, is there any chance of Anthony setting up a fund so that his readers can pay to send him to one of these sessions? I’m sure he would be welcomed there with open arms.
Steven Mosher says:
September 2, 2012 at 8:26 am
its ironic ,don’t you think ,to accuse the other side of PNS while practicing it yourself.
Maybe PNS stands for Pejorative Non Sequiteur here?