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.
davidmhoffer says:
September 2, 2012 at 5:07 pm
It matters not in the least if I got him mixed up with Schneider or not.
It might matter to him.
So, no link to substantiate your accusation then?
I think you should withdraw it rather than do a Gavin and say “it doesn’t matter”.
His PNS premise fails on its own definition. Including the example you gave in your last comment which was:
“In the absence of clear directives, biotech companies simply go ahead. It was urgent that international agreements were reached ASAP.”
Why, exactly, was it “urgent”? Was there some worldwide catastrophe that would have resulted had decisions been put off for a year or two or five? What impending disaster was averted? There was none.
It was urgent because amongst other things a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth was resulting from poor women being paid to have live ‘abortions’.
Leif @ur momisugly 1:02 I fully agree. I had not meant to imply that the paper or ideas presented were what the peer review team should guard, but rather the ideals of science and the integrity of the journal that is asked to publish. If peer review does not guard against shoddy methods and write-ups then the journal or governing body will lose the public trust (or the trust of those who depend upon the journal to be a good place to go for ideas related to their field). If a professional society does not guard its reputation then it runs the risk of becoming worthless.
Can anyone imagine the reaction this person would get is she said the same things about the Law?
What would Post Normal Law look like? North Korea?
Paul Vaughan says:
September 2, 2012 at 2:34 pm
1 coin 2 sides
Sounds like PNS, so may be on topic.
tallbloke,
Your loyalty to your friend Jerome Ravitz is commendable. I admire fierce loyalty. But you must admit that “urgent” is hard to quantify. Who decides what is urgent?
In the wrong hands PNS would be used as a cudgel to beat down normal science, along with anyone who thinks rational decisions are always best. And with the crew running today’s world, you can be certain that is exactly what would happen. We can see it now, with the urgent demands that we must “do something” about AGW. The precautionary principle and PNS go together hand in glove, and together would make AGW believers even more fanatical true believers.
tallbloke says:
Well of course JJ, when we insist on auditing science it’s a good thing, but when Ravetz does it he’s just sticking his PNS in where it’s not wanted.
Auditing in science is not PNS, and adopting the terminology and philosophy PNS is not necessary to auditing in science. Science doesn’t need PNS to do science. PNS needs science from which to rob an air of legitimacy in order to do politics.
And as David points out, PNS is not applicable to the ethics of stem cell research, by its own definition. There was neither urgency, nor uncertain facts that were relevant to the non-existant urgency. Only the “values in conflict” applies – i.e. the politics. Easy to confuse, but remember that just because PNS is all politics doesn’t mean that all politics is PNS.
And of course, always remember that PNS is never science.
“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.”
What sort of “discourse ” is this person talking about? The scientific discourse IS discussing the science including its basis. “Science as an ideology”. Wow, what can you say?
I think western academia has the intellectual equivalent of Aids if this sort of convoluted drivel is evidence of what “sociology” is about.
How appropriate that this anti-enlightenement drivel is to be delivered on September 11. Is that deliberate or just karma?
Mike D in AB says:
September 2, 2012 at 6:03 pm
the journal or governing body will lose the public trust
Perhaps more importantly, if a journal declines, good scientists will stop publishing in the journal.
tallbloke;
So, no link to substantiate your accusation then?
I think you should withdraw it rather than do a Gavin and say “it doesn’t matter”.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Ravetz had no less than three guest posts on WUWT. Regarless of his badgering us or not with the specifics of CO2, he injected himself squarely into the climate debate with his PNS garbage. While he answered some of the replies to him, frankly he ignored the ones that really scored points. I regard him as a coward how starts a brawl, and then slinks away. And it STILL doesn’t matter. If you choose to equate me to Gavin because of that, that’s your choice.
tallbloke;
It was urgent because amongst other things a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth was resulting from poor women being paid to have live ‘abortions’.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
At the risk of sounding callous, that abortions happen every day. Honour killing happen every day. Babies are killed every day because they’re not the sex the parents desired. Are these lives worth less than the one lost due to paid for abortions? Why do these lives not deserve an “urgent” international response?
I’ll tell you why. Because it became a politicaly motivated cause. There was no actual urgency. The urgency was entirely perceived and the wailing and gnashing of teeth was completely lacking in any true morality. If the hue and cry had been based on morality, they would have extended their efforts to include things like honour killings and murdering infants for the sin of being girls. Did they? No. And your prescious Ravetz advocated how for these poor souls? Oh, there was no money at stake so he didn’t get involved? Wow. Some hero you’ve got there.
Ravetz has created an entire “philosophy” that has nothing to due with how to deal with high stakes, urgent issues. What he does is provide a means to stampede the public into believing that things that are not urgent are, that things that are not high stakes are, and the where facts are uncertain people like him should share in the gravy train with the likes of Hansen and Mann. He’s as despicable as they are, perhaps more so.
None of which changes the fact that his premise falsifies itself.
None of which changes the fact that his premise falsifies itself.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And that he lacks the temerity to defend it.
Also in Informal Logic, a subdivision of philosophy, perhaps under another name.
“[Robert Anton] Wilson’s Law of the superiority of politics to science holds that if A equals B, and B equals C, then A equals C, except where forbidden by law.”
Much has been said in this thread, but I say this: I hold these truths to be self-evident, that science is our best hope for freeing us from dogma, that the final arbiter of truth is experiment, and that all men have an inalienable right to investigate matters for themselves. If this is an ideology, then I choose to be wrong with Socrates rather than to be right with Plato.
Tallbloke, I’m a fan of your blog and I appreciate that you studied under Ravetz back in the day. The loyalty you display in defending your old teacher is admirable. But I think he is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Some points of interest:
So, he’s a Marxist (or more accurately New Leftist/Neo-Marxist). That ain’t a crime. But might give some clue about where he’s really coming from. This 1979 news clipping is more revealing.
Incidentally, Ravetz’s comment about “waste heat” refers to a theory, then current among some Malthusian catastrophists (Paul Ehrlich and John Holdren among them), that asserted: the ice caps were going to melt and the oceans boil because of “thermal pollution” -a kind of mega urban heat island (CO2 warming was dismissed).
Apparently, he still holds the same religious believes and views on alternative medicine (and I suspect also on the wickedness of modern industrial civilization). Yeah, what ever happened to those micro-processor thingies? [sarc]
During the 90s his ideas started to catch on with some.
Extended facts????
“This new sort of science” is conducted through “campaigns involving activists and the media”???
Objectivity is no longer effective???
So what about Ravetz’s “outreach” to the skeptics. Are we to be included in his “extended peer review” as Greenpeace, WWF, FOE, etc. have been (Google “Post-Normal” “Tyndall Centre”).
And Roger Pielke has just invited Franziska Hollender to hold a seminar, where she asks “what to do with the contrarians?”
[Apologies and thanks to the moderator for the length of this comment.]
A note on PNS: It is wrong to see science as the handmaiden of politics. Science is done for its own sake. When science and politics come together, both are corrupted. Any conception of a ‘post-normal’ science that would hitch one to the other is a not only muddle-headed, it is also dangerous.
davidmhoffer wrote:
And Tallbloke replied:
And later:
Tallbloke, please don’t take any of this as an attack on you. My issue (and that of some others) is with Ravetz. You have every right to defend him as you see fit.
In answer to your request.
The stakes are high
…radical changes in technology and lifestyle…commitment of all of civil society is necessary…
The matter is urgent
…sustainability cannot wait…
The facts uncertain
…until all the facts are known…irreducible uncertainty, ignorance
And by “sustainability” I believe he means CO2 mitigation.
Tallbloke — I often go to your site.
However you are wrong about “Post Normal Science”. Everything you say may be arguably true “in the abstract” — but “in the real world” you are totally wrong. Do you remember the Mao line — “Let a thousand flowers bloom!” Remember what the result of that was?
The key to understanding the trick is that Post Normal Science wants to expand the number of groups who participate in forging SCIENCE BASED policy “. Let me repeat that — the key to understanding the trick is that Post Normal Science wants to expand the number of groups who participate in forging SCIENCE BASED policy!
So the opinions of people who have no knowledge of a subject or are biased by a special interest or motivated by a political ideology will carry equal weight with the opinion of a scienctist in forging SCIENCE BASED policy. In other words the intention of Post Normal Science is to totally drown out the voice of “real science” by creating a vast chorus of competing voices THAT ARE EQUALLY VALUED!. Post Normal Science is simply a ploy to to emotionalize the decision making process. It is a leap backwards from the rational to the irrational.
So Post Normal Science is really an attempt to make science irrelavent. THAT IS WHAT IT IS — THAT IS WHAT WILL RESULT FROM IT. The voice of science is to be drowned out.
Eugene WR Gallun
David Ross says:
September 2, 2012 at 10:23 pm
….
Hi David,
I went to read the Ravetz/Hulme piece on the BBC to check how selective your quote was as an indication as to the balance of your quote mining of other Ravetz writing, and I found a lot in the article I agreed with, and that the quote you selected made more sense within the larger context. Everyone should read it and have a think:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8388485.stm
The main bit I disagreed with was concerning the IPCC internal peer review, but I bet Hulme as an IPCC reviewer wrote that part not Ravetz. I’ll ask him.
davidmhoffer says:
September 2, 2012 at 8:41 pm
None of which changes the fact that his premise falsifies itself.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And that he lacks the temerity to defend it.
Why would you expect Ravetz to engage with you after you make unsupported allegations against him and won’t retract them even when you are called on by me to back them up and don’t, but instead say “It doesn’t matter”?
Of course it freakin’ well matters. You’ve put Ravetz on trial here, and passed judgement in your own kangeroo court using ‘evidence’ which isn’t in evidence.
You shouldn’t be surprised that I’m sceptical about your process in this case.
Neither should you be surprised that Ravetz hasn’t turned up to answer your summons.
After months long dialogue with me via email about the egregious activities of the IPCC’s leading lights wrt to peer review and the unreliability of their scientific claims, Ravetz CHANGED HIS MIND about the solidity of their scientific case, wrote the BBC piece with Hulme, and convened a conference aimed at improving standards of data collection, metadata meticulousness, and OPENNESS to public scrutiny.
That should be regarded as a resounding victory for the sceptics.
I’ll round off with two quotes from the BBC piece:
“It is possible that some areas of climate science have become sclerotic, that its scientific practices have become too partisan, that its funding – whether from private or public sectors – has compromised scientists.
The tribalism that some of the e-mails reveal suggests a form of social organisation that is now all too familiar in some sections of business and government.
Public trust in science, which was damaged in the BSE scandal 13 years ago, risks being affected by this latest episode.
It is also possible that the institutional innovation that has been the IPCC has now largely run its course.
Perhaps, through its structural tendency to politicise climate change science, it has helped to foster a more authoritarian and exclusive form of knowledge production – just at a time when a globalising and wired cosmopolitan culture is demanding of science something much more open and inclusive.”
And
“While there will always be a unique function for expert scientific reviewers to play in authenticating knowledge, this need not exclude other interested and motivated citizens from being active.
These demands for more openness in science are intensified by the embedding of the internet and Web 2.0 media as central features of many people’s social exchanges.
It is no longer tenable to believe that warranted and trusted scientific knowledge can come into existence inside laboratories that are hermetically sealed from such demands.
So we have a three-fold revolution in the demands that are placed on scientific knowledge claims as they apply to investigations such as climate change:
o To be warranted, knowledge must emerge from a respectful process in which science’s own internal social norms and practices are adhered to.
o To be validated, knowledge must also be subject to the scrutiny of an extended community of citizens who have legitimate stakes in the significance of what is being claimed.
o And to be empowered for use in public deliberation and policy-making, knowledge must be fully exposed to the proliferating new communication media by which such extended peer scrutiny takes place.
The opportunity that lies at the centre of these more open practices of science is to secure the gold standard of trust.”
Eugene WR Gallun says:
September 2, 2012 at 11:55 pm
Tallbloke — I often go to your site.
Thanks! I hope you’ll continue to.
the intention of Post Normal Science is to totally drown out the voice of “real science” by creating a vast chorus of competing voices THAT ARE EQUALLY VALUED!. Post Normal Science is simply a ploy to to emotionalize the decision making process. It is a leap backwards from the rational to the irrational.
If you hadn’t noticed, in the climate change arena, “real science” has been telling us lies for 25 years, because the ‘realclimate’ scientists and their IPCC pal review buddies got all emotionalized about ‘saving the planet’ and thought the end justified the means.
Ravetz’ call for the process of science production to adhere to standards and to be more open to public scrutiny is to be commended in my view. As for who gets a say in what decisions are taken once ‘the science is in’, well, I want a say, don’t you? It’s up to us to cut through emotionally driven rhetoric with cool reason and win the day with rationality.
But Further than that, Ravetz overtly recognises that the science is ‘never in’ as knowledge constantly evolves, and that ongoing reassessment is best done through the medium of the internet where everyone can see what’s going on.
What’s not to like?
Keith G says:
September 2, 2012 at 10:58 pm
A note on PNS: It is wrong to see science as the handmaiden of politics. Science is done for its own sake. When science and politics come together, both are corrupted. Any conception of a ‘post-normal’ science that would hitch one to the other is a not only muddle-headed, it is also dangerous.
Once again, it’s not ‘post-normal’ science but post – ‘normal science’ (ref: Thomas Kuhn). i.e. what is done with the outputs of science after they enter the public arena.
And it’s not that Ravetz wants science to be the handmaiden of politics. he merely observes that it is in fact what has happened. He is not advocating it, he is commenting on it. He then goes on to say that if that’s how it is, then a wider range of people (including sceptics with their leaked documents) should be involved, because everyone is affected by the fact that science isn’t conducted in a vacuum of serene rationality and objective disinterest.
Smokey says:
September 2, 2012 at 6:24 pm
tallbloke,
In the wrong hands PNS would be used as a cudgel to beat down normal science, along with anyone who thinks rational decisions are always best. And with the crew running today’s world, you can be certain that is exactly what would happen. We can see it now, with the urgent demands that we must “do something” about AGW. The precautionary principle and PNS go together hand in glove, and together would make AGW believers even more fanatical true believers.
A fire extinguisher can be used as a cudgel to beat down normal people, or to save lives in a fire. There will always be ways to misuse things. I think Ravetz’ ideas are actually of more help to us sceptics who are demanding better access to datasets and code than they are to autocrats who want to browbeat us into accepting their diktat without showing us their working.
Ravetz is saying that if the scientists and politicians tell us the situation is urgent and the stakes are high, then they must go to greater lengths to consult with the people affected by the decisions than usual. That includes people who hold the opinion that the situation isn’t urgent and that the precautionary principle doesn’t apply to a strong enough degree to warrant radical action. People like you and me.
tallbloke:
At September 2, 2012 at 2:35 pm you ask me
Thankyou for you – at last – entering a rational discussion instead of your above proclamations saying, “There’s a problem so we need to destroy science with PNS”. I write to answer your question.
Before I answer, I remind of the following points which lead to your silly accusations of what I “think”.
1.
The problem of “political interference in science” is not new. It has always existed because politicians employ scientists; e.g. Archimedes of Syracuse was employed by the government.
2.
As you say, politicians have “the best science money can by (sic) as well as the best electioneering assistants”. Again, this is nothing new: it was ever thus and ever will be.
3.
Not all science is funded by politicians; most is funded by industry and some by individuals.
4.
There are always self-proclaimed saviours (i.e. false prophets) who pretend they have the answer to ancient problems such as lack of Peace On Earth or political interference in science.
5.
Ravetz is clearly an example of a false prophet and he is offering PNS as an answer to the problem of political interference in science.
6.
It is always easy to replace one problem with a worse one, and PNS is an example of such a worse replacement.
7.
PNS replaces independent scientific thought with collective political decision-making and, thus, stops political interference in science by replacing it with political destruction of science.
8.
But some problems cannot be “solved”: they can only be avoided or minimised.
9.
Recognising that a problem is insoluble and attempting to minimise it is NOT thinking that the problem is “OK”: it is being realistic (e.g. recognising that Peace On Earth is not attainable is a reason to decide how best to avoid war).
Those eight points are what I actually think and they are very different from what you assert I think. They govern my answer to your question which is as follows.
Political interference in science is unavoidable and false claims that the interference can be prevented or accommodated should be rejected. Actions are required to minimise the interference and I suggest the following.
It is necessary to obtain wide-spread recognition that politicised science is tainted science. And it needs to be proclaimed that science funded by industry is LESS tainted than science funded by politicians. This is because politicians use science as a tool to justify policies, but industry uses science as a tool to make profits. I explain this as follows.
Funding directs the science conducted but the results of science are tainted if the funding is aimed at a specific result. Industry has learned this the hard way and, therefore, makes clear distinction in its research (and research funding) between research (R), development (D) and demonstration (D).
The intended result of industrially funded R,D&D is a commercially successful product: it needs to be correct and reliable.
But
The intended result of politically funded research is ‘evidence’ to justify policy: it needs to be in accord with the policy.
Whenever politicians proclaim ‘science’ then the political argument should be addressed on the basis of the validity of the proclaimed ‘science’. Therefore, governmental and/or intergovernmental assertions of ‘science’ should be proclaimed as being the political documents which they are; e.g. each IPCC Report is a political document of the same type as a Political Party Manifesto. Nobody accepts a Part Manifesto as being the best available information that does not deserve challenge, and a politically funded Science Report should be treated similarly and for the same reasons. It seems that followers of WUWT recognise this although not explicitly.
So, we need to defend science by constantly pointing out that politicised science is politics and not science.
And we need to fight the politics in the political forum by
(a) Informing politicians of all parts of the science
(b) Informing the public of all parts of the science
(c) Proclaiming the limits of what is scientifically known and not known.
Additional polticisation of science by accepting PNS needs to be opposed ‘tooth and nail’.
Richard
Scientific Knowledge and Its Social Problems
Jerome R. Ravetz
Transaction Publishers, 1971
“Only recently, as my ideas on “post-normal science” have developed, can I see a way forward to the democratization of science”
democratize or democratise
n verb introduce a democratic system or democratic principles to.
democratic
n adjective relating to or supporting democracy. (egalitarian).
egalitarian
n adjective believing in or based on the principle that all people are equal and deserve equal rights and opportunities.
science
n the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.
empirical
n adjective based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.
These definitions from the Concise Oxford English dictionary suggest that science is empirical (based on observation and/or experience, while “post-normal science” is democratic (egalitarian) where anyone’s opinion is a valuable (in science) regardless of whether or not they have any knowledge of the subject.
This suggests to me that “post-normal science” is a sham.
cynicalscientist says:
September 2, 2012 at 2:32 pm
How true that is 🙂
Tallbloke –
Since discovering PNS a few years ago I’ve taken the time out to explore the literature. I’m curious about your defence of Ravetz. It may be the case like so many other philosophers – Nietzsche, Latour, Lyotard etc have all had their descriptions confused with prescriptions and attacked accordingly. I’m still on the fence regarding Ravetz in that respect.
However, since going beyond him, reading dedicated postnormal literature by others – and there is a lot of it – it has become something of a bête noire for me. Take someone like Mike Hulme as the test case for this – particularly in ‘Why We Disagree about Climate Change’. Everything and more that people are expressing their fears about here with regard to PNS is both true and rational in cases like Hulme. Moreover, he has had a much more extensive (and toxic) influence than Ravetz, especially in the climate arena.
So my question to you is – defending Ravetz is one thing. Are you willing to do the same for Hulme? If so let’s have it out.