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.
tallbloke says:
No he doesn’t. Ravetz actually continues with:
“The new drug/food syndrome needs a new sort of science, what we call“post-normal.” This is inquiry at the contested interfaces of science and policy”
So, nothing to do with interfering with empirical science done before the science reaches the “contested interfaces of science and policy”.
Uh, everything to do with interfering with empircal science by pushing it into the “contested interfaces of science and policy” and keeping it there. The ultimate goal being to replace objective science in decision making with “a new sort of science”, i.e. fake science. Fake science that is not based on facts, reasoning, and hypothesis testing, but is instead based on values and “justice” and all the other fru-fru politicizations.
You are trying to blacken Ravetz with selective snippets dishonestly conjoined and I won’t bother dealing with further examples.
No, he is trying to point out to you what Ravetz’s words mean. Ravetz’s strategy, his methodology, his agenda, is to jump into the power void left by the expectation for scientific results that do not yet exist, and replace it with something else that has the air of science, that trades on the reputation earned by objective science, that has the imprimatur of science and yes something that is even given the name “science”, but which is not science. He is attempting to replace empirical science, and it is hard to imagine a greater interference than that.
Shame on you.
Shame on you for employing third grade logical fallacies to pout and run from a difficult discussion. Listen to what people are saying, and stop trying to shut them out and shut them down. You are too intelligent to be this naive.
Pay attention to what is being said:
tallbloke says:“Hi Mike. Ravetz isn’t claiming PNS is a science in and of itself.”
Jerry Ravetz says: “The new drug/food syndrome needs a new sort of science, what we call ‘post-normal.’ This is inquiry at the contested interfaces of science and policy””
Ravetz is claiming PNS is a science in and of itself. He calls it that! It is “a new sort of science.” Lest there be any doubt, he continues on to claim that it is a method of inquiry. Come on now tallbloke, you know what the definition and connotation of “inquiry” is in this context! Science! The “context” you are whining about provides further evidence of what you are refusing to accept.
This quote also answers your own apparent confusion regarding description/prescription – half the time you deny the prescriptive function of PNS, the other half you embrace it:
tallbloke says:“I regard PNS as a realistic description of how scientific output has been manipulated by realpolitik, rather than as a practise to be followed.”
tallbloke says:“PNS is a description of what can happen at the science/policy interface after the ‘normal science’ is done. It also contains prescriptions for how that science/policy interface can be prised open by interested parties, some of them holding ‘leaked information’ etc.”
Note how Ravetz put it: “The new drug/food syndrome needs a new sort of science, what we call ‘post-normal.’ “
He doesn’t say that the circumstance of the contentionus “drug/food syndrome” is a new sort of science. He says it needs a new sort of science. He is not describing a circumstance, he is advocating for method of addressing that circumstance. A method that he calls “a new sort of science” and which will assume the role in the decision making process that science would normally play, but which is not science. It is just politics.
PNS pretends to be science. PNS is not science. PNS is politics.
Obscenely. Normal. Politics.
tallbloke,
You appear to be sort of an agent representing Jerome Ravetz on this tread, so can you direct the following question to him which I previously directed to him on this thread?
I would appreciate it.
John
To tallbloke:
What arrogant twaddle. You demanded an apology from me for misrepresenting Ravetz’ comments on CO2, I gave it to you. Bereft of any further excuses to refuse to respond to the valid points I made, you now accuse me of “black and white” politics? You complained about personal smears and ad hominem attacks, and then engage in them. But most egregious of all, you simply ignore the valid points being made and doggedly assert the primacy of your belief system without a shred of evidence to support it. You are doing PNS. You are doing exactly what you call out the alarmists for doing, yet cannot recognize the precise same behaviour in your own actions.
Do you know why I don’t participate at your blog anymore?
Because you practice PNS.
I was in the middle of an argument with another commenter about an aspect of physics, that you admitted you had no expertise in. Despite having no expertise in the matter, you declared the matter resolved in favour of the other commenter. It was the last time I commented on your site.
How DARE you? Yes, it is your blog, you can run it any way you want. But how DARE you pretend to be interested in science and then propose to settle a disagreement about a point of science that you admit you had NO expertise in? You sir, practiced PNS. You sir demanded, not only a seat at the table, but the authority to be “the decider” on a matter you had NO expertise in.
That is PNS in action.
It matters not if I was right or wrong. It matters only that someone who admitted to not having the requisite expertise one way or another granted themselves the power to decide the issue. In your blog on this specific point, there was little in the way of consequences for your actions. Would you have been so certain of yourself if millions of lives had been at stake?
You are a practitioner of PNS and hence you defend it, no matter how foolish you look doing so. And you do look foolish.
If Ravetz was really your friend, he’d step into this thread and defend himself. He’d have your back. Where is he? Don’t tell me he’s unaware, all you need to do is send him an email to make him aware. I’ll tell you where he is. He’s hiding.
He’s smart enough not to get into a fight he cannot win. So, he cuts his losses. If you’re dumb enough to take the body blows for him, that’s no skin off his back. He’s not your friend as much as you are his useful idiot. Stop letting yourself be used. Ravetz is a flim flam artist who knows when his mark is on to him, and so quietly moves on to another mark. That you wish to stay behind and explain to the crowd that there was no cheating going on in the game of 3 Card Montey that just got exposed byu turning all three cards over at once and discovering that NONE of them are the Ace of Spades just makes you the target for the crowd’s ire while the true criminal makes his escape and finds a new crowd to fleece.
Timeout
This thread is getting too heated. I disagree with Tallbloke’s take on Ravetz and PNS. But he deserves more respect and latitude than he is now getting here.
He has had the police search his home and confiscate his hard drives because of his part in revealing the Climategate emails. How many of you, now criticizing him, can claim anything similar?
OK, enough of the preachy “yee who have not sinned” talk. This is a call for old fashioned civility, not the Ravetz kind of “conflict resolving”.
If you believe, as I do, that Ravetz is duplitious and that his work is deliberately deceptive, then I see little justification for getting angry with someone who is deceived by it. Also, as I am asserting that much of what Ravetz says is not what he means, i.e. that he has a hidden agenda, then the burden of proof is firmly on me (and anyone else with a similar stance).
The issue of “expertise” has been raised. My suspicions about Ravetz and PNS stem from the similarities I see with Herbert Marcuse’s work and “critical theory”. I have studied these at length, so claim some “expertise” (but no authority, anyone is welcome to ask for substantiation of any assertion I make).
But Tallbloke, I believe, has known Ravetz personally for many years and has communicated with him at length, so if their is any “expert” on Ravetz, on this thread it is Tallbloke. Again the burden of proof is on others.
I would like continue this discussion, but not until some people pull back from their recent comments. I do not want to participate in a piling on of Tallbloke. Also, this thread (which is drifting away from the original subject) may not be the best format or forum.
Tallbloke, do you want to move this over to your blog?
Here’s an objective person’s attempt to cover post-modernism: http://reasonversusmysticism.blogspot.ca/2012/02/bkrev-explaining-postmodernism.html
This one may be a better summary: http://reasonversusmysticism.blogspot.ca/2012/02/postmodernism-on-reason-and-mysticism.html
JJ says:
September 4, 2012 at 8:04 am
tallbloke says:
No he doesn’t. Ravetz actually continues with:
“The new drug/food syndrome needs a new sort of science, what we call“post-normal.” This is inquiry at the contested interfaces of science and policy”
So, nothing to do with interfering with empirical science done before the science reaches the “contested interfaces of science and policy”.
Uh, everything to do with interfering with empircal science by pushing it into the “contested interfaces of science and policy” and keeping it there.
Not at all JJ. Not even a bit. Ravetz distinguishes carefully between ‘normal science’ and what happens afterwards once the outputs of that ‘normal science’ reach “the contested interfaces of science and policy”
Spin it all you like but it’s very clear. And it’s backed up by his essay on my blog where he says:
“Science is exceptional among systems of production in that its quality-assurance is largely informal. There can be no testers with go/no-go gauges at the end of the research line. Because of this, it must necessarily be self-policing.”
Got that JJ?
“self policing”.
Not subject to “inquiry at the contested interfaces of science and policy” where all the other factors and actors come into play.
Not subject to investigation by Ravetz and the PNS police banging on the door demanding hard drives and laptops from scientists.
“self policing”
But hey, I told you all this already, and you keep twisting around trying to get Ravetz’s meaning to mean what you say it means. Fortunately, his actual words are sharp and clear on this.
David Ross;
if their is any “expert” on Ravetz, on this thread it is Tallbloke. Again the burden of proof is on others.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
No, the burden is on Ravetz to engage in the discussion instead of slinking away when valid criticisms of PNS are raised.
David Ross says:
September 4, 2012 at 12:19 pm
Tallbloke, do you want to move this over to your blog?
Hi David,
If you’d like to move our part of the discussion over to the Talkshop that’s fine by me. We’re in celebratory mood over there with Medieval Greenland Viking Beer flowing freely and a jovial atmosphere around our landmark event today. I put Keith G and Jerry Ravetz comments from this thread over on this one if you’d like to continue there.
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2011/02/08/jerome-ravetz-pns-truth-and-science/
And thank you for your wise words here.
John Whitman says:
September 4, 2012 at 8:04 am
QUESTION FOR JEROME RAVETZ: Mr. Ravetz, Would you please provide (if any) the fundamental concepts of PNS that you developed from the fundamental concepts of the philosophy of Marcuse? That context for PNS would clearly concretize what PNS is at its most fundamental philosophical roots.
Hi John,
I believe you’ll get an answer to this. Jerry tells me that:
“I really must correct that Marcuse stuff. Kate Farrell is a very dear friend, and a brilliant scholar, but she is hung up on Marcuse.”
davidmhoffer says:
September 4, 2012 at 1:17 pm
No, the burden is on Ravetz to engage in the discussion instead of slinking away when valid criticisms of PNS are raised.
Ravetz is into non-violent communication. If you turn the volume down a bit and ask for things like John Whitman does, it might work. I speak for myself in this too.
tallbloke;
I put Keith G and Jerry Ravetz comments from this thread
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
How selective of you. Why not any of the many comments that score direct hits on Ravetz PNS garbage? Why not all of the comments both pro and con? Why just from those two commenters?
I’ll not be bothering to follow at your site however. If Ravtez wants to stick his nose into the discussion on this site, then he should defend himself on this site. I’m not particularly interested in your defense of Ravetz, I’m interested in his defense of himself. Given that he has not answered me on any thread on any blog at any time, I wonder if he even has a defense.
David Ross:
At September 4, 2012 at 12:19 pm you express concern for tallbloke and say
I go further: it is long past the time for old fashioned civility.
In this thread tallbloke has steadfastly refused to address any of my arguments including arguments in reply to a question he put to me, but he has repeatedly made personal insults to and about me.
He feels it is reasonable to throw mud but you and he seem to think it is unfair for others to complain at his throwing it.
Now, at your suggestion, it seems he is ‘going to take his ball home’.
Old fashioned civility would have been much preferred.
Richard
Aww, Hoff. Quit bellyaching and come and have a beer at the talkshop. I’ve laced it with chill pils.
tallbloke;
Ravetz is into non-violent communication. If you turn the volume down a bit and ask for things like John Whitman does, it might work. I speak for myself in this too.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Bull. I’ve tried all sorts of approaches ranging from styles similar to his own to calling bullsh*t what it is, bullsh*t. I’ve followed his responses to others as well as myself, and he is consistant. Faced with valid criticism of his PNS malarky, he simply doesn’t respond. The guiding principle is not the “volume” of the remarks but the validity of the criticism. In the face of valid criticism, he disappears, and it matters not in the least if it is worded politely or not.
tallbloke says:
“Uh, everything to do with interfering with empircal science by pushing it into the “contested interfaces of science and policy” and keeping it there.”
Not at all JJ. Not even a bit. Ravetz distinguishes carefully between ‘normal science’ and what happens afterwards once the outputs of that ‘normal science’ reach “the contested interfaces of science and policy”
Yes, all. Nothing in what you wrote is responsive to my point. You are talking around our points, instead of addressing them.
Yes, Ravetz distinguishes between actual science and his PNS politics masquerading as science. He distinguishes between them, declares actual science to be useless under subjectively defined criteria, then he puts his PNS in the place of the actual science in the decision making process. Then he calls his plan “science” and refers to it as “a new sort of science”. PNS is not science. It is politics. PNS is not a method of inquiry. It is politics.
Spin it all you like but it’s very clear.
Yes it is. And you are willfully obtuse as to what is very clearly stated. Cold War era communists like Ravetz had a term for people who stumped for their philosophies without understanding them. It isn’t flattering.
“Science is exceptional among systems of production in that its quality-assurance is largely informal. There can be no testers with go/no-go gauges at the end of the research line. Because of this, it must necessarily be self-policing.”
Got that JJ?
Yes. I also get that it is absolutely irrelevant to anything I have said thus far. You appear to be responding to some internal narrative that the rest of us aren’t privy to.
But hey, I told you all this already, and you keep twisting around trying to get Ravetz’s meaning to mean what you say it means..
No, you haven’t already told me the above referenced non-sequitur. Perhaps you are thinking of a non-reponse you made to someone else. Understandable error, given the frequency with which you do that. It would be really nice if you were to read the posts that you are reponding to, and respond to what is in them, rather than making these absurd statements and running from the discussion with childish charges of “twisting” etc.
On the other hand I have previously explained to you the error of these two statements:
1) Ravetz isn’t claiming PNS is a science, and
2) PNS is a description, not a methodology.
And I’m wondering when you will stop making them.
Cautiously re-emerging into what has become a war zone (I hope you guys are enjoying this!)
@ur momisugly cynicalscientist says:
September 2, 2012 at 2:32 pm – loved what you had to say about sociologists! in earlier times had more rigour, especially Robert Merton, of the pre-PC era, whose analysis of scientific processes and advances offered real insights.
@ur momisugly davidmhoffer
“Faced with valid criticism of his PNS malarky, [Ravetz] simply doesn’t respond”.
I have to agree. I’m still waiting, several years after first requesting this, for a nice (and appropriate) historical example that would justify Ravetz’s PNS philosophy. The problem with philosophy is that it seeks to create normativess and absolutes, but uses abstractions as justifications. PNS, seeking to strip real life (and science) of its contingencies, ‘actors’ and ‘networks’, remains purely an ideology.
I have read one very poor analysis of the Canadian fisheries science crisis following the collapse of the northern cod stocks in 1992, which calls for PNS as the solution, but also fails to define what this would mean. I think in this case the author wished to see the precautionary principle as the guiding principle for all fishery policy, involving all stakeholders in the industry (including environmental activists.)
One can imagine some degree of sympathy for this argument, but again, what is being called for is not science, but for conservation policies based on different philosophies and with different policy development by different actors and participants. In fact, it would amount to a profound rejection (perhaps rightly in this case) of the existing science, at a time when what is needed most is a commitment to reinvigorated scientific investigations, as the causes of fish stock population fluctuations remain poorly understood.
JJ says:
September 4, 2012 at 2:57 pm
tallbloke says:
“Uh, everything to do with interfering with empircal science by pushing it into the “contested interfaces of science and policy” and keeping it there.”
Not at all JJ. Not even a bit. Ravetz distinguishes carefully between ‘normal science’ and what happens afterwards once the outputs of that ‘normal science’ reach “the contested interfaces of science and policy”
Yes, all. Nothing in what you wrote is responsive to my point. You are talking around our points, instead of addressing them.
Well, I thought I addressed it clearly and succinctly. We’ll have to agree to disagree about that.
Yes, Ravetz distinguishes between actual science and his PNS politics masquerading as science. He distinguishes between them, declares actual science to be useless under subjectively defined criteria, then he puts his PNS in the place of the actual science in the decision making process.
Got a link to him declaring the “actual science to be useless”?
He does say that when facts are in dispute and uncertainty high that the scientific outputs are “irremediably soft” but I don’t think most sceptics would disagree with that assessment as it applies to climate science.
So when you have one group of scientists saying “yes it is” and another group of scientists saying
“no it isn’t”, what are the people sitting on the committee at the science/policy interface to do? They have to weigh up what the claims are from each group, and also take into account the church group who are saying “it doesn’t matter which of them is right, the whole premise is immoral”. And the local residents who don’t care who is right, but don’t want it in their backyard anyway whether it’s in the full fat or half measure compromise form.
I was amused to note the people on this thread who said they didn’t want the extra seats at the policy table Ravetz is trying to argue for. I’m not surprised though. It’s a sh1tty job you’ll always get more flak than praise for, because the number of disgruntled groups will always outnumber the one group which got the favourable decision.
The point is that ‘normal science’ in the Kuhnian sense, is, according to Kuhn, “puzzle solving within an accepted paradigm.” But when fundamental facts which underpin the paradigm are in dispute, then, according to Kuhn, science moves into a revolutionary phase where the normal rules of academic engagement fail. Philosophers of science from Lakatos to Feyerabend point out that when this happens, the outcome isn’t decided by nice neat logic, but by an intellectual brawl where ‘anything goes’.
Ravetz takes Kuhn’s insights and translates them to the science-policy interface, where he tries to come up with formulas to aid in the policy process where non-experts have to weigh up disputed and conflicting evidence from various groups of science experts, who despite their supposed impartiality and perfect objectivity, tend to make sciencey sounding pronouncements which support the views of their funders.
And I’ll just add that in the case of climate science, it’s pretty clear that it was the advocates of urgent action such as Schneider who were trying to replace science with malarky, not Ravetz. The science was knobbled by ‘scientists’ before it got to the science-policy interface. Now, here’s the nub of the issue: Some people say that Schneider was saying, along with a couple of others, as revealed in the emails years later, that it didn’t matter if the science was wrong, because using ‘scientists’ (turned advocates) to persuade the policy wonks to take action was “the right thing to do anyway”.
Personally, I don’t think you can lay the blame for this on Ravetz doorstep, because he had to expect the scientists to do honest science, and that the internal system for quality assurance, the “self policing”, would ensure that they did. He had to start from that ‘given’ because he knew that no-one would support the idea of ‘oversight committees of non-experts’ keeping an eye on what went on in the lab.
Which is why, after the malarkey came to light post-climategate, he suggested the scientists and sceptics should get together at Lisbon to agree on standards for data collation and transparency. That was to be the initial compromise between ‘interference’ and ‘hands off’. He couched it in terms that the climate scientists themselves should welcome this, because other disciplines had agreed standards and standards agencies to police them, and that if climatologists wanted people to take them seriously post-climategate, they would benefit from doing the same.
Yet what do we see? Jim Hansen is still picking and choosing which stations to use in GISStemp this year on the basis of whether they warmed or cooled, generating the graphs, publishing papers drawing spurious conclusions from the spurious dataset and getting himself arrested at climate demos.
It isn’t Ravetz you should be going for as the fall guy for all this, the malarkey goes way higher up the chain.
vigilantfish:
Thankyou for your post at September 4, 2012 at 5:05 pm which includes a useful example of a real case. Your post begins saying
Yes, it is a “war” but I am not – and I suspect others are not – “enjoying” it: wars are never pleasant.
At the enlightenment, science was separated from political and religious authority in so far as that was possible. And the resulting benefits to humanity have been immense.
PNS is a direct attack on the achievements of the enlightenment, and we who value the achievements of the enlightenment are defending against the attack.
‘The enlightenment’ has been given many differing definitions but it was, in essence, an eighteenth century philosophical movement which emphasised human reasoning over blind faith or obedience. This emphasis was mostly provided by encouraging ‘scientific’ thinking instead of acceptance of ‘authority’. And enlightenment philosophy contrasted with much of the religious and political order of the day.
The basic achievement of the enlightenment can be summed up as being the general adoption of the original motto of the Royal Society (i.e. “nullius in verba”) whichtranslates as “On the authority of nobody”.
PNS overtly attempts to reduce the distinction between intellectually unfettered scientific research and ‘authority’ imposed by ‘stakeholders’. In practice it can only provide a return to the pre-enlightenment situation because the ‘stakeholders’ have power (e.g. money) that they can use on the research and the researchers have no power to defend their research.
Thus, the ‘war’ is between supporters of different philosophies.
Richard
tallbloke says:
“Yes, all. Nothing in what you wrote is responsive to my point. You are talking around our points, instead of addressing them.”
Well, I thought I addressed it clearly and succinctly. We’ll have to agree to disagree about that.
Chicken.
Got a link to him declaring the “actual science to be useless”?
Useless under subjectively defined criteria is what I said, and that is the central thesis of PNS.
So when you have one group of scientists saying “yes it is” and another group of scientists saying “no it isn’t”, what are the people sitting on the committee at the science/policy interface to do?
What I expect them to NOT do, is pretend that their decision making is based on science. That is what PNS does – it gives the imprimatur of science to non-science based decisions. That was Ravetz’s goal, and he accomplishes it by titling his political methodology “Science”, by referring to it as “a new sort of science”, and by casting it to fill the role that science would normally play in science based decision making.
They have to weigh up what the claims are from each group, and also take into account the church group who are saying “it doesn’t matter which of them is right, the whole premise is immoral”. And the local residents who don’t care who is right, but don’t want it in their backyard anyway whether it’s in the full fat or half measure compromise form.
None of that is science. All of that is politics. If Ravetz had titled his political methodology “The Politics of Ignorance”, if he had referred to it as “a new sort of politics” instead of a “new sort of science”, and if he had admitted that it was just politics, we would not be having this one sided conversation where I make the same points over and over and you dance around pretending not to hear.
I was amused to note the people on this thread who said they didn’t want the extra seats at the policy table Ravetz is trying to argue for.
We don’t care about “extra seats at the policy table”. Come up with whatever political decision making process you want. Fill it with whatever mix of religious and other political actors you want. Account for whatever moral, aesthetic, political and other “values” you want. Weight “expertise” and “quality” and “motives” how ever you please. But when you go to sell your seating chart for the policy table, dont pretend that it is science, or an acceptable substitute for science based decision making.
The point is that ‘normal science’ in the Kuhnian sense, is, according to Kuhn, “puzzle solving within an accepted paradigm.” But when fundamental facts which underpin the paradigm are in dispute, then, according to Kuhn, science moves into a revolutionary phase where the normal rules of academic engagement fail. Philosophers of science from Lakatos to Feyerabend point out that when this happens, the outcome isn’t decided by nice neat logic, but by an intellectual brawl where ‘anything goes’.
Yes, Kuhn described (and to a large degree promoted) bad science. I said that.
Ravetz takes Kuhn’s insights and translates them to the science-policy interface, where he tries to come up with formulas to aid in the policy process …
Perhaps you are now prepared to admit that which you alternately deny – PNS is prescriptive, and PNS is politics. PNS is a political methodology.
where non-experts have to weigh up disputed and conflicting evidence from various groups of science experts, who despite their supposed impartiality and perfect objectivity, tend to make sciencey sounding pronouncements which support the views of their funders.
And Ravetz titles, refers to, and conceptualizes that non-science activity as science. Perhaps you are now prepared to admit that as well…
tallbloke says:
And I’ll just add that in the case of climate science, it’s pretty clear that it was the advocates of urgent action such as Schneider who were trying to replace science with malarky, not Ravetz. .
Schneider, Hulme and the rest of the climate cabal appeal directly to PNS and Ravetz. See:
http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Climate/Climate_Policy/Policy.html
They do this, because PNS supports their plan for making non-science based decisions under the guise of science. The whole notion of “urgent action” being an excuse for modifying the standards by which scientific knowledge is judged is pure PNS. The fact that they embrace Ravetz with the same ferver you do should be a clue to you. And perhaps to us.
Personally, I don’t think you can lay the blame for this on Ravetz doorstep, because he had to expect the scientists to do honest science, and that the internal system for quality assurance, the “self policing”, would ensure that they did.
FFS. PNS’ fundamental premise is that when “stakes are … blah blah blah” scientists can become corrupt. Ravetz expected that some scientists would NOT do honest science in those circumstances, and that is the excuse given for PNS. It is the excuse for “extended peer review” and “extended facts” and the basis of the need for “assessing quality”, and “questioning motives” and “admitting leaked evidence” and the other “features” of PNS that you alternately extoll and deny. You contradict yourself in your ad hoc attempts to make excuses for Ravetz.
You cannot defend your master by denying his work. Stop trying so hard to prop him up and start looking for the truth.
JJ says:
September 5, 2012 at 7:04 am
And Ravetz titles, refers to, and conceptualizes that non-science activity as science. Perhaps you are now prepared to admit that as well…
He does and he doesn’t. It’s a pun. A play on words. And it’s got him into trouble, as he admitted on the previous WUWT thread. It goes something like this:
Post…….’normal science’ i.e. after Kuhns concept, what is done with the output of normal science.
Post-normal……science i.e. not a science in the normal sense (although it does attempt quantification here and there)
PNS is prescriptive, and PNS is politics. PNS is a political methodology.
I think you are overegging it with that statement.
Pretty much anything which isn’t algebra or formal logic or pure maths has elements of politics in it if you look for them. Read Bruno Latour’s critique of Einstein’s popular science book on Relativity sometime.
There again don’t. You would probably totally misunderstand that too.
tallbloke says:
“And Ravetz titles, refers to, and conceptualizes that non-science activity as science. Perhaps you are now prepared to admit that as well…”
He does and he doesn’t. It’s a pun. A play on words.”
No it isn’t. And you know it. When someone says that what is needed is “a new sort of science” and then offers up something that he calls “blah blah science”, he isn’t telling a joke.
You are just being childishly argumentative.
“PNS is prescriptive, and PNS is politics. PNS is a political methodology.
I think you are overegging it with that statement.
No you don’t. You described PNS as “formulas to aid in the policy process …”. You also describe PNS as “…contains prescriptions for how that science/policy interface can be prised open by interested parties, some of them holding ‘leaked information’ etc.” You also fawn over PNS as securing “extra seats at the policy table”.
You are just being childishly argumentative, largely with yourself. It is embarrassing.
Pretty much anything which isn’t algebra or formal logic or pure maths has elements of politics in it if you look for them
Absurdly argumentative.
PNS is politics. What else could it be? A “new sort of science”, like Ravetz claims it to be? No, you deny that it even claims to be science, let alone that it actually is science.
PNS is politics. You alternately extoll and deny this simple fact. Pick a lane.
@JJ and the rest of the ‘die hards’ hangin in on this discussion . . .
I am trying to understand what you all (ya’ll) are trying to point out . . . I agree that PNS is not applicable to Climate Science but, it appears to me that PNS is applicable in the art of “crisis management” so, might be applicable in a tornado event, a hurricanes, a possible tsunami, or earthquake, all relatively short term events in the Climate Science time line.
Climate has it’s crises but, it is not in crisis, so to bring up PNS in the context of the long term is not relevant or constructive and may actually foster mass hysteria.
So, for me the question arises: Just what is (was) the objective?
As the objective for one is not necessarily the objective for another, or for “the all”!
And just what are “you” (I, they) trying to “real”-ly acheive?
This could be contrued into my PNS for convolution,