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;
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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
There we have it. Confronted with facts and logic, philosophy always retreats into increasingly abstract arguments (excuses!) and diversionary rhetoric that have no direct bearing on the original discussion. Having demanded that the volume be “turned down” and having complained about smears and ad hominem attacks, the philosopher not only retreats to a battle field of his own definition, but employs the very tactics he complained about in the process.
So back to the core of the argument tallbloke. Ravetz definition of PNS is above in this thread. I challenge you, yet again, to provide a single example of a matter that is urgent and yet provides for the time to consult the wider array of stakeholders that Ravetz proposes. You cannot because this is a contradiction in terms. If the matter is urgent, there is no time for broader consultation. If there is time for broader consultation, then the matter is not urgent.
PNS fails on its own definition. The only way for it to function is to create the PERCEPTION of urgency while still embracing a leisurely decision making process. Why? Why create the perception of urgency while imposing on the decision making process and extended discussion which takes considerable time?
I’ll tell you why.
Because by creating the perception of urgency while preserving an extended timeline, Ravetz creates the opportunity to stick his snout into the public trough. He creates a framework of urgency combined with an extended timeline for consultation that is a complete fiction. Urgency and the timeline for extended consultation CANNOT COEXIST BY DEFINITION.
The very situation that Ravetz claims is served by PNS does not, and cannot exist. It is a facade, pure and simple. A flim flam game with all of humanity as the mark. He is not better, and quite possibly much worse, than the charl@tons who conduct Climate Seances and substitute models for data, belief systems for science. He is worse than them because he enables them.
Laurie Brown;
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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
As I have been (futiley) explaining to tallbloke, PNS can have no value in an actual crisis. In a crisis, decisions have to be made, and made right now. That’s what words like “crisis”, “emergency” and “urgent” mean. They mean we need action NOW not consultation which takes time. If we have the time for the kind of consultation that Ravetz proposes as the PNS process, then how could it have been urgent in the first place?
When urgent situations arise, there are people with the knowledge to address them, and there are people with the resources to address them. With any luck, they are the same people. Anyone who has actually been in a crisis situation understands this. When a child falls into a pond and begins to drown, either there is someone who knows how to swim and so jumps into the pond to save the child’s life… or there isn’t. If there isn’t, the adults on shore can convene all the committees they want, consult with an expanded set of stakeholders, weigh the opinions of people who cannot swim about what to do… and the child will still drown.
davidmhoffer… and the child will still drown. Unless, one fast thinking non-swimiming, blind, legless person suggests throwing a rope and someone does it . . . . perhaps the child can be saved.
But, I agree with your assertion that “creating the perception of urgency” when there is not an urgent situation is a tactical ploy for nefarious purposes.
It’s just a normal that there is/are exception(s) to just about every rule, (except one?)
JJ and davidmhoffer:
Thankyou for your keeping up the struggle until everyone who comes upon this thread can see and understand the seriousness of the danger posed by PNS.
Only tallbloke seems to positively want PNS but – as Laurie Brown says and exemplifies – there remain those who may be beguiled by PNS. And this discussion needs to continue until everyone can clearly see the danger posed by PNS.
Unless people other than tallbloke support PNS in the thread, there is no point in my doing other than observing the debate because tallbloke adamantly refuses to address anything I say: instead, he responds to me by throwing mud which obscures the arguments.
So, I thank both of you for your sterling efforts and I write to urge you to keep up the good work.
Richard
davidmhoffer… and the child will still drown. . . . . .Unless, one fast thinking non-swimiming, person suggests throwing a rope and someone does it . . . . perhaps the child can be saved.
I agree with your assertion that “creating the perception of urgency” when there is not an urgent situation is a tactical ploy for nefarious purposes.
It’s just a normal that there is/are exception(s) to just about every rule, (except one?)
Laurie Bowen:
At September 5, 2012 at 11:51 am you ask David
I take the liberty of providing two answers of my own. And my answers could be thought unfair because they each reply your question with another question. But I intend them as serious points and not an evasion.
Firstly, I cannot think of the exception which would require PNS, can you?
Secondly, if you can think of exceptions, could they possibly outweigh the harm to science from the application of PNS which they would require?
Richard
Richard, PNS can examine, “what if’s” PNS can “brainstorm”.
Science is a specialized discipline different from this PNS, by definition.
You can have a lone scientists, but PNS takes a community.
Kind of like saying apples and oranges are different from grapes . . . . . but, it’s still all fruit.
And that’s it for me on this red herring hunt and the only thing out there are snipes.
Laurie Brown;
Unless, one fast thinking non-swimiming, person suggests throwing a rope and someone does it . . . . perhaps the child can be saved.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You’ve simply constructed an alternate version of immediate applicable knowledge having access to immediate applicable means. No time to form a committee, only the time to act and that action being limited to the knowledge and means available at the moment.
Let’s take a test. Part 1, matters urgent:
1. You pull a child from the water. The child is unconscious and not breathing. You don’t know what to do. Yoy can accept help from one of three people who announce their willingness to help along with their profession. Do you choose:
a) the lifeguard
b) the mechanical engineeer
c) the stock broker
2. You awake to the smell of smoke, and upon investigation, discover that your neighbour’s house is on fire. Do you call:
a) the fire department
b) your neighbour
c) the chair of your employer’s health and safety committee
3. You are in a public place when a terrorist starts shooting people. You are armed, and have a clear shot. Do you:
a) shoot the terrorist
b) offer the terrorist the phone number of a good psychologist
c) organize a committee of innocent bystanders
4) You awake to the smell of smoke, and upon investigation, discover that your house is on fire. Do you:
a) get your family out of the house.
b) phone your neighbour
c) organize a neighbourhood watch meeting
If you answered anything other than a) to any of these questions, you may be suffering from PNS.
Part 2, Matters important, but not urgent
1. You are in charge of emergency response in the event of flooding in your city. You need to know what areas of the city are best to store emergency rations both to keep them above the flood waters and have best possible access to the city. It is most important to consult with:
a) civil engineers knowledgeable of the local flood plain
b) civil engineers with no knowledge of the local flood plain
c) a lifegaurd
2. A hostile nation appears to be increasing troops on your border. Is it most important to consult with:
a) your military advisors
b) Doctors Without Borders
c) GreenPeace
3. An asteroid has been detected which appears to be on a collision path with earth 10 years from now. In formulating possible action plans, is it most important to ask the opinion of:
a) NASA
b) stock brokers
c) Committee for a Better Tomorrow
4. You are tasked with improving the access of emergency vehicles via public street systems at rush hour. To understand the challenges faced by emergency vehicles under these circumstances, do you consult with:
a) drivers of emergency vehicles
b) drivers of bicycles
c) people who ride the bus
If you answered anything other than a) to any of these questions, you may be suffering from PNS.
Laurie Bowen says:
September 5, 2012 at 1:45 pm
Richard, PNS can examine, “what if’s” PNS can “brainstorm”.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
How? If the matter is urgent, how is there time to do this?
You hurry, David.
Laurie Bowen:
Thankyou for your willingness to explore these matters with me that you show by your post addressed to me at September 5, 2012 at 1:45 pm.
There is always the possibility that I may be wrong so I welcome sincere disagreement. So I am sorry that you think my reply to you was “snipes”: that was not my intention.
Your post says in full
Taking your points in turn. PNS is irrelevant to “brainstorming”.
It is common for scientists to “brainstorm” especially in emergency situations. For example, consider what happened in the Apollo 13 emergency. The first thing the scientists and engineers did was to brainstorm possible responses to the emergency. PNS would have required them to involve other ‘stakeholders’, e.g. among others the PR people from NASA and all the companies who contributed to provision of the Command Module. Far from helping, the involvement of ‘stakeholders’ would have been a hindrance if only because every scientific and engineering statement would have needed to be explained to them. When a problem is “urgent” then the waste time involving ‘stakeholders’ needs to be avoided, but PNS claims the ‘stakeholders’ should be involved because the problem is “urgent”.
As you say, PNS and science are not the same thing. Science is an on-going activity: science is never “settled”. But once PNS is introduced science becomes governed by the desires, preferences and prejudices of the ‘stakeholders’. And this damages the science because PNS is politics and not science. Therefore, the ‘stakeholders’ need to be kept away from the science as much as possible. As I say in my post at September 3, 2012 at 1:34 am, industry has learned this the hard way and, therefore, industry makes clear distinction between research, development and demonstration. Industrial research is funded to investigate a specific objective (e.g. to find a material with certain properties). If the funder defines and controls what the research must provide then little of use is likely to be obtained from the research. Alternatively, if the research is free to find whatever it can as a means to fulfil the objective then that research may find several or no solutions to the problem (i.e. several or no such materials) but probably will discover (possibly not anticipated) information as a ‘by-product’. The funder will then employ engineers to develop tightly specified developments from whatever the research finds.
There are some “lone scientists” but most science is now conducted by research teams; i.e.”communities”. If the “community” is not sufficient – perhaps because it lacks expertise in a particular discipline – then the team is expanded either permanently or temporarily. If the team needs additional expertise in statistics then the addition of a lawyer to their “community” would not help. PNS adds ‘stakeholders’; i.e. everybody with a vested interest in wanting ‘a finger in the pie’. Not all fruit is good in every dish.
Those are my thoughts.
Richard
I’m not taking sides here – just responding to an earlier comment I thought was excellent.
@ur momisugly Richard S Courtney: September 5, 2012 at 1:39 am
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.
I fully agree, and you have put it most succinctly. Thank you.
I don’t want to de-rail this thread (it’s a train wreck already, and Ms Hollender must be licking her lips at so much new material for study). But I would like to add to your comment, Richard. People in this forum might want to think about other aspects of the ongoing attack on Enlightenment values. Not just against science but, for example, against the rights and freedoms of the individual, against tolerance of differing views, and against human progress.
Now, why don’t y’all stop arguing against each other and start understanding the “enemy?”
Neil
Neil:
Thankyou for your overly kind comments (at September 5, 2012 at 4:24 pm) concerning a post I made. I write to respond to the question with which you conclude your post; i.e.
With respect, this discussion about PNS is about “understanding the enemy” and the ‘enemy’s’ methods. David has expressed this clearly in several excellent posts. One of his posts is so clear about this that I copy it below to save you needing to find it.
Please note that this argument transcends normal politics: David and I are poles apart politically (David admits he is right-wing by American standards and I am left-wing by British standards).
Richard
***************
davidmhoffer says:
September 1, 2012 at 4:39 pm
richardscourtney;
But, please remember, people who have made – and are making – a living out of having promoted something are not likely to abandon that something whether or not they know it is nonsense.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
True. But there remains considerable value in exposing them so that they are less able to convince others. Jerome Ravetz is possibly a greater threat to humanity than the likes of Jones, Briffa, Mann and Hansen. He’s worse, because he enables them.
Wrapped up in high sounding words, carefully articulated, he constructs a chain of assertions that seem logical. That seemingly logical construct is then applied to a single issue such as climate change, and suddenly the urging of Jones, Briffa, Mann and Hansen also seem logical by extension.
But like all completely artificiall thought constructs, the logic chain fails when applied, not in isolation, but in general. How many more alarming issues that could be described as high stakes, urgent, facts uncertain could we list? Israel and Iran could plunge the whole middle east into war, cutting off much of the world’s oil supply. Maybe we should nuke them to prevent that? Any number of diseases could evolve into something disastrous. Vaccine resistant strains of smallpox or polio. Should we put all of our resources into coming up with vaccines for diseases that might exist in the future? We could be visited by aliens who want to fry us up for dinner. The sun might eject a stream of matter that would fry the earth. The magnetic field of the earth could shut down as it has in the past, and that would be disastrous too.
Ravetz, I predict, won’t answer me, precisely because he knows the truth. That the list of things that fit his “stakes high, matters urgent, facts uncertain” definition is ridiculously long, and many of the things people could come up with to list are far more likely to actually happen than the ill effects of climate change. We can’t possibly deal with even a tiny fraction of them, and that’s what applying his logic in the general case instead of JUST to climate change exposes.
While he probably won’t answer me (he hasn’t before) I take some satisfaction in knowing that his lack of response is a tacit admission of guilt, and those who read this blog will see that. If I’m wrong, and he does answer me…. well, let’s just say I look forward to that.
Neil:
As an addendum to my reply to you, I refer you to my first post in this thread at September 1, 2012 at 1:09 pm. It directly and specifically addresses your points saying
However, I draw your attention to that post merely as an addendum because it addresses the matter from one specific political viewpoint and – as I said in my body of reply to you – this matter transcends normal politics.
Richard
JJ says:
September 5, 2012 at 9:48 am
PNS is politics. You alternately extoll and deny this simple fact. Pick a lane.
What I was trying to point out was the inevitable tension between science, which as Richard says is always an ongoing process, and policy, which is ‘written in stone’ for years at a time. But then, AGW science has resisted all new discoveries in order to maintain its grip. However, this has more to do with the corruption of the peer review process than scientists becoming PNS practitioners. The internal governance of science, which Ravetz stated very clearly
“must of necessity be self policing” has failed in the case of climate science.
The reasons for that failure are without doubt partly due to political allegiances among the cadre of scientists, journal editors and peer reviewers, and the instinctive way groups circle wagons and defend against attack. None of this has anything to do with PNS however.
“Self policing” JJ.
richardscourtney says:
September 5, 2012 at 11:32 am
tallbloke adamantly refuses to address anything I say: instead, he responds to me by throwing mud which obscures the arguments.
You’ve been throwing enough mud of your own Richard
The long reply you addressed to me at
richardscourtney says:
September 3, 2012 at 1:34 am
Contained argument by assertion, ad hominem and non sequiteur. Much of what you said about politics and science was perfectly correct, but your attempt to charge Ravetz with responsibility for the ills of society failed IMO.
PNS is a corrupt practice and you are certainly being disingenuous by suggesting it is not.
PNS as practised by who? In what context? IAnd when did I discuss the practice of PNS as opposed to what Ravetz means?
@richard2courtney,
I did not reply earlier due to term start-up work, but just wanted to say thank you for your kind comments and for keeping up the good fight. Your arguments are beautifully concise and ‘enlightened’.
tallbloke:
Thankyou for your post at September 6, 2012 at 5:52 am which – at last – says something which pertains to what I have said in this thread instead of asserting what you wrongly proclaim I ”think” and what you mistakenly claim are my motives.
I do not intend to get into a ”who said” argument about mud-slinging: you have thrown much at me without any apology but I apologised for the sole error I made. Say what you like about that.
I address your points which relate to what I have actually said.
You say
Of course the normal system has failed with respect to climate science. Perhaps the system needs amendment, but it certainly does NOT need replacement by PNS.
As I have repeatedly said e.g. at September 3, 2012 at 1:34 am
You have not addressed that – or any of its supporting argument – in any way.
And your post I am answering does not address it or its supporting argument. Instead, it says my post at September 3, 2012 at 1:34 am
That is merely a series of untruths used as excuse to avoid answering any of my points. Indeed, you continue by quoting my accurate statement that says;
”PNS is a corrupt practice and you are certainly being disingenuous by suggesting it is not.”
and reply by asking
I answer each question in turn.
PNS as practised by who?
I answer, PNS is corrupt practice as practiced by anybody.
I have repeatedly explained this. For example, at September 5, 2012 at 3:20 pm where I wrote as explanation with illustration
In what context?
PNS is a practice which corrupts science in every context and the reason for this being universal is stated in my previous answer; i.e.
”Science is an on-going activity: science is never “settled”. But once PNS is introduced science becomes governed by the desires, preferences and prejudices of the ‘stakeholders’. And this damages the science because PNS is politics and not science.”
Once the ’stakeholders’ are put in charge they will not let go.
And when did I discuss the practice of PNS as opposed to what Ravetz means?
You keep changing your tune about ”what Ravetz means”. But, concerning the practice of PNS for example at September 2, 2012 at 2:49 pm, you wrote
I fail to understand how that can be understood as being about anything other than the practice of PNS and Ravetz’ assertions for the need of that practice.
Also, I am at a loss to understand why you think politicians are less well equipped to make political decisions than ”science and non-science (but still valid) interests”.
Richard
Richard: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/01/wuwt-is-the-focus-of-a-seminar-at-the-university-of-colorado/#comment-1071946
1. Should have provided the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snipe_hunt
2. “”The first thing the scientists and engineers did was to brainstorm possible responses to the emergency. PNS would have required them to involve other ‘stakeholders’, e.g. among others the PR people from NASA and all the companies who contributed to provision of the Command Module”” It was successfully employed when “we” got the cosmonaut out of the space station for Russia and when “we” retrofited the Hubble.
3. Re: “”Not all fruit is good in every dish.”” This is sorta’ true. Just depends on what perspective you are comming from. So the question is: SO, . . . . ?
4. Why would you want to exclude a “stakeholder”? Would that be because they are “stakeholders” in name only?
Truly, this is a rhetorical discussion, at least for me.
Neil: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/01/wuwt-is-the-focus-of-a-seminar-at-the-university-of-colorado/#comment-1071984
Richard S Courtney: September 5, 2012 at 1:39 am 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.
This is a good example of an ad hominom assertion: You are enlightened . . . anyone who disagrees is not, thus is an attacker. . . . at least in my analysis and opinion . . .
Richard, you and JJ, and David Hoffer are repeated conflating two different areas which Ravetz is very clear about distinguishing:
Science, which Ravetz says “must necessarily be self policing”.
and
The science policy interface, where Ravetz says that under circumstances of significant public interest, the ‘peer community’ must be widened to include those who the decisions will affect.
Science is not the science policy interface. The science policy interface is not science.
Ravetz sees the organic growth of a community such as WUWT as an extension of the peer community’ par exellence, and WUWT, along with similar online communities has undoubtedly had an effect on policy formation. Without ever having formally ‘taken a seat at the policy table’. So maybe we’re both right.
The problem that Ravetz doesn’t try to meddle with is the corruption of peer review, since that falls within the purview of quality assurance, which is part of the scientific enterprise, which he says “must of necessity be self policing”.
That’s your department isn’t it?
tallbloke,
Ravetz’ point about being self policing is an “also”. It is an after thought. I’ve quoted his definition multiple times in this thread and pointed out the fallacy of the definition itself, which you have not addressed.
tallbloke says:
September 6, 2012 at 12:09 pm
Science, which Ravetz says “must necessarily be self policing” and The science policy interface
An interface has two sides. You can change things at one side and shifting the interface towards to other side. What may be needed is change at the policy side and not at the science side.
tallbloke:
In reply to my post at September 6, 2012 at 7:20 am you say at September 6, 2012 at 12:09 pm you say
blockquote>Richard, you and JJ, and David Hoffer are repeated conflating two different areas which Ravetz is very clear about distinguishing:
Science, which Ravetz says “must necessarily be self policing”.
and
The science policy interface, where Ravetz says that under circumstances of significant public interest, the ‘peer community’ must be widened to include those who the decisions will affect.
NO! PNS as prescribed by Ravetz conflates “science” and the “science policy interface”.
I twice explained this in my post you are replying when I wrote and repeated
In this thread (at September 1, 2012 at 2:14 pm) Jerome Ravetz himself said:
But in science facts are never “certain”, and values are always “in dispute”, while stakes can usually be asserted to be “high”, and almost anything can be asserted to be “urgent”.
I remind that you admitted there are examples of false claims of such “urgency” which have been accepted.
So, whenever any part of the science is asserted to be “urgent” then PNS says ‘stakeholders’ take over the science, and once they have taken over they are very, very unlikely to go away.
Please explain which part(s) of this you are failing to understand.
I may be misunderstanding you, but it seems to me that when you say
you are suggesting that those involved in the “science policy interface” are isolated from the “science”. They are not. They directly interact with the “science” often by funding it. Simply, the ‘stakeholders’ can control the science and the scientists have no possibility of stopping them controlling the science. This is because, as I have repeatedly pointed out, the ‘stakeholders’ have power which they can exercise on the science (e.g. research funds) but the scientists have no power which they can operate to defend the science.
As I have also repeatedly explained (including in my post you have replied), we need to separate the science and its ‘stakeholders’ as much as possible, but PNS calls for increased involvement of the ‘stakeholders’ initially and especially when involvement of ‘stakeholders’ is least wanted..
Richard
Laurie Bowen:
At September 6, 2012 at 8:08 am you refute my reasoned argument about how and why PNS is a reversal of the Enlightenment by claiming my argument is an ad hominem. That claim is offensive nonsense. Please withdraw that claim,apologise, and state any error in my argument.
Conversation is not possible when discussion is replaced by such offensive and untrue insults.
Richard
Richard,
Thank you, at last we have some clarity about what the argument is, so far as you are concerned.
I note however, that you have still not confronted the issue of the corruption of peer review within the “necessarily self policed ” province of science, and maybe we should consider the weight of this problem as compared to the ‘problem’ of allowing the people affected by decisions a hand in making them.
Please comment on the degree of the corruption of peer review in climate science and the gravity of the problem as compared to the ‘PNS problem’ from your perspective.
If you think the corruption of peer review is not a problem at all, feel free to say so.
Thankyou.