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.
Leif: “Here she is dead wrong. Science is not an ideology and should not be communicated as such.”
Yes, but the statement was not “science is an ideology” but “science as an ideology”. And quite certainly if you are stating that science should be ‘a’ or ‘the’ goto basis for informing public policy decisions then you are certainly taking on a ‘science as an ideology’ approach; quite aside from whether we are speaking of scientism or not.
The issue at hand here is not, of course, science as science (‘science basis’) but notions of communication, discourse, and narratives in managing the philosophical side of science; the scientific theories. This is all a rather terrible offspring of positivism that expresses itself as “hypothesis x posits y, and y was found under experiment z. Therefore the entire theory A is True.” And if you’re feeling surly you would not be incorrect to state that this is a canonical argument of many Philosophers who attempt to ‘prove’ their position by misusing empiricism as a religious touchstone. (Which owes much here to positivism in practice.)
Climate Science is and has been a poster child for this fallacious manner of backwardation in reasoning. There are other disciplines that make use of it as well, to be sure. But the notion is part of the modern narrative about scientific narratives. And I daresay it is pressing few individuals that realize that there is, or can be, a difference between data, experiment, model, and metaphysics. You are free to test yourself by delimiting where science is philosophical and where it is empirical. And then others on the same basis. I have little doubt that you will find the results rather depressing.
This is a basic issue of pedagogy about science and the scientific method rather than one of Climate Science in particular. But it is still the case that pedagogy involves narratives. And it is certainly the case that Climate Science narratives are used in advocating that legislative force be issued in support of those narratives.
I homeschool my kids, and we are studying General Science. This week we learned several things about science. 1. Science results are tentative; 2. Science is not 100% reliable; 3. You must use the scientific method. Because of these things, science can not PROVE anything. All you need is ONE counter-example to show that a hypothesis, theory, or law is wrong. You either have to modify the hypothesis, theory, or law, or throw it out and start over. There are plenty of theories that have been shown false eventually. Because of this, I think that political decisions (policy decisions) shouldn’t be justified by “science.” This is why we don’t buy the sky-is-falling rhetoric we hear.
I am continually amazed at how often supposed scientific discourse devolves into logically fallacious ad hominem attacks on those who advance contrary opinions or evidence. You’d
think a supposed advanced scientific discourse would not include logical errors recognized
by the Greeks as such several thousand years ago. Al Gore, of course, is king of the ad hominem argument- he does science the same way he did politics – attack your opponent, not his ideas.
Of course, with a brain like Gore’s, what other option does he have?
Anyone familiar with the history of science understands the value of intelligently based skepticism. Name one scientific discipline that can be said to have “figured it all out” ? I
can’t think of a single one, including even the most advanced and those with the greatest ability to predict their respective phenomena, such as physics, or astronomy. Skepticism can only be silenced (and often not permanently, as history tells us) by providing seemingly irrefutable evidence in support of theories.
And skeptical blogs, much like all others, come in a variety of different types and with a wide range of competence levels. Faults found in one skeptical blog apply to that blog alone.
It’s not so much that the discourse has been stifled that is of concern to Franziska, as it is that the socialist agenda has been slowed. In any case, I will put this on my calendar but it might not be possible to get away in the middle of the day.
Do with them?! Why, listen to them, of course. Arrogantly dismissing them only shows your paternalistic ignorance.
I’m with davidmhoffer (10:26 am) and polistra (10:29 am). Much in the press release is disturbing, but this is personal:
Hollender may be just the messenger in this talk, presenting what she’s learned about, well, climate anticontrarians. But whether or not she’s in on the conspiracy, I don’t want anything done with me. Not by that crowd, anyway.
This sort of psychobabble nonsense reminds me of when I was at college (a long time ago). Above the toilet roll holder someone had scrawled, “Social Science degrees – please take one.”
@ur momisugly wobble says: September 1, 2012 at 10:29 am “because past scientists were able to build television systems or put men on the moon”
I appreciate your sentiment but as is so often the case these days you conflate science and engineering. Television systems and landing on the moon were primarily engineering feats, if the fundamental tenets of the scientific method are not present you are probably talking about engineering.
Science fundamental tenets.
a) Hypothesis/theory
b) experiment
c) conclusion
d) published data
e) replication/verification
Science by it’s nature is fundamentalism as stated above.
Maus says:
September 1, 2012 at 11:47 am
Yes, but the statement was not “science is an ideology” but “science as an ideology”.
Although English is not my mother tongue it is good enough to surmise that ‘yyy as xxx’ implies that ‘yyy is xxx’.
And quite certainly if you are stating that science should be ‘a’ or ‘the’ goto basis for informing public policy decisions then you are certainly taking on a ‘science as an ideology’ approach;
I don’t think so. Agencies measure rainfall and draw maps of flood zones in order to enable policy decisions to be made, and I would not call that data collecting activity ‘ideology’. The science of special relativity enabled the policy decision to produce atom bombs to shorten a war. I would not call special relativity an ideology, and so on.
A pillar of the post-normal science paradigm is that science should be geared towards answering the urgent social/political problems [if I understand them critters correctly] of our day [=the social/political relevance of science]. While sounding noble, this is a prescription for disaster as it put limit and boundaries on the discovery process. Now, some people actually want limits: perhaps it was better if atomic energy was never discovered, perhaps it is better if we cannot genetically modify organisms, perhaps we shouldn’t play god, perhaps there is knowledge we are not allowed to have, etc. I am not one of those people, and I hope you are not either.
“””””…..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……”””””
I believe a strict translation of this sentence from the original in the Austrian Language (ask Obama) reads as; “We have to pass it, to find out what is in it !”
Well excuse us Franziska for having the temerity to think science discussions should be about science; NOT social studies !
“Pielke Jr. reports he will be traveling.”
The Center for Science and Technology Policy Research is Pielke’s creation.
It looks like the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research’s focus is and has always been overwhelmingly about climate science (although there is nothing to indicate that in their title).
This little get-together may be based on Franziska Hollender’s thesis.
——————————-
Fraulein Hollender,
I presume you will read this thread.
What to do with
the contrariansyou? Some propose thatthe contrarian discourse isyou are merely an annoying sideshow, while others think that it isscience’stheir responsibility to fightthemyou.BlogsPseudo-scientific seminars, being fairly unrestricted and highly interactive, serve as an important platform forcontrarianOrwellian viewpoints, and they are increasingly permeating multiple media spheres.[…]
Finally, it is concluded that the climate change discourse has been stifled by the
obsession of discussingrefusal to discuss the science basis and that in order to advance the discourse, there needs to be a change in how scienceas an ideologyis communicated and enacted.I appreciate that English is not your first language. But for future reference: you cannot “stifle” a “discourse” with “discussion”.
You have written a thesis and are now organizing a seminar, supposedly about what makes “contrarians” tick (or to “unveil” our “components and purposes”). Yet, Anthony and all of us “contrarians” at WUWT, whom you cite as a prime example, have never heard of you. Did it never cross your mind to ask the subjects of your enquiry?
Despite your characterization of us as people about which something must be ‘done’, I urge you to follow Dian Fossey’s fine example and join us in ‘obfuscatory’ mist of this forum. We promise not to bite. We’d love to hear your definition of “post-normal science”. We can even help you get that PhD. And who knows, you might even learn something.
When I read the lines and in between the lines, statements such as Ms..Hollender has made, it leaves me cold. Her statements dredge up memories of an ugly past. Her statements would make Goebbels proud.
I wonder what her “solution” to the “problem” is.
Someone told me a long time ago that the Austrian establishment was the most effective P.R. organisation in the world: They have managed to convince the world that A.H. was German, that Kurt Waldheim was not a war criminal, and that Marie Antoinette was French.
About the sociological claptrap I will simply say that false piety is not a virtue.
She’s got that right. Just wait til she sees what is coming up next. – Anthony
Anthony you tease, what are you up to this time…?
Why would anyone want to go to this?
@ur momisugly Mike D in AB says: September 1, 2012 at 11:08 am I would like to see a concise definition for “post normal science”
Science fundamental tenets.
a) Hypothesis/theory
b) experiment
c) conclusion
d) published data
e) replication/verification
Science by it’s nature is fundamentalism as stated above.
Post Normal Science tenets.
a) Hypothesis/theory
b) experiment (this can be a computer model not an actual experiment)
c) conclusion (or a statement of belief/consensus)
d) published data (keeping data secret is ok or using computer model data is ok)
e) replication/verification (not required)
Post Science by it’s nature is liberal as stated above any or all caveats listed above may be used.
For those that are going to attend this seminar, here is a short clip which sums up the key to science. I have to remind myself about this from time to time:
Science is not an ideology. I first saw this clip here on WUWT.
The single characteristic of the blogosphere which differs from ‘traditional’ media is the complete lack of a barrier to entry for participation. If I so chose, I could set up a blog site for the weather, for sports, for politics, so long as I had the money to pay a monthly ISP charge for broadband access. Should traffic start to increase expontentially, of course costs may rise a bit, but there comes a time when advertising can cover that.
What you will see, therefore with ‘blogs’ is a series of ‘communities’ who either subscribe to the views of the dominant posters or who enjoy disagreeing with them.
The key transition point for any blog which starts attracting traffic is whether it starts accepting significant advertising/sponsorship and whether there are any changes in editorial policy as a result. In one model, what was once a radical site turns into an establishment voice. In another, advertisers are sought who are comfortable with the current editorial policy, even if that means that revenues are somewhat lower.
Another characteristic of blogs is that there is no a priori limit to the size of the community from which productive lines of enquiry can emerge. Let’s say there are 1000 comments on some article at this site, of which 600 broadly agree, 350 disagree and 50 actually add new insights. Those 50 new insights could come from an amateur gardener with no science qualifications, they could come from retired engineers, from scientists outside the field in question. They are not limited to the academic community, which is the reality within ‘traditional’ academic research, something those enjoying nice salaries and privileged status are of course keen to retain.
The effect of this depends on how good people are at filtering the poor insights from the good ones. There is no ‘list of published weblog contributions’, because the only ‘peer review’ is to determine whether they are abusive or in any other way contravening polite discourse. Whether scientists who read this blog would ever admit that they got any good ideas from bloggers is moot: the fact is that they can if the ideas are out there and they realise the value of them.
A third characteristic of blogs is that, if the careers of many bloggers do not depend on their contributions, they may well say things which no career contributor could possibly say and prosper. I have no job as a climate scientist and no need for IPCC funding, so I can happily say that in my judgement, the basis for carbon dioxide-driven warming is complete bullshit. For those needing the funding, the requirement to curry favour with those sitting on the grant-awarding committees over-rides such considerations. Blogs therefore serve the useful function of alerting the world to self-serving bullshit in learned communities where self-regulation of research funding has come off the rails.
I read and contribute to numerous blogs, many of which are filled with self-reinforcing prejudiced groups. I could not possibly believe or agree with both the leanings of the Guardian, the Independent and the Daily Telegraph about almost anything. I contribute regularly to blogs in all newspapers. It is therefore possible to try and influence these reinforced prejudice communities by challenging them regularly to rethink their prejudices. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t.
I have used WUWT as part education, part intelligence, part as a forum to express opinions which may stimulate debate in certain directions. I’ve never written an article here and doubt I ever will. It doesn’t mean I didn’t successfully predict snow patterns in the 1990s in the Alps, but I didn’t do that to earn a living, I did it to optimise my ski-ing holiday enjoyment. I did it pretty well but couldn’t publish any papers on it as I didn’t keep detailed records and didn’t set any scientific theories in place. I did make predictions and honed them over a 13 year cycle, starting out unsuccessful and getting more successful with each passing year. When the PDO shifted, my success rate dropped as I didn’t know what the PDO was in those days.
Blogs serve many purposes which academics may not value.
The more important question is whether things that academics don’t value are precisely those things which the rest of us consider important……
“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.”
Science as an ideology? Shurely shome mishtake…
Scottie says:
September 1, 2012 at 12:03 pm
This sort of psychobabble nonsense reminds me of when I was at college (a long time ago). Above the toilet roll holder someone had scrawled, “Social Science degrees – please take one.”
======================================================================
😎
IMO, the most galling part is their assumption that they are being scrupulously objective about climate change science when they don’t (or won’t) question it more deeply themselves or even attempt to view the argument from the other sides of the fence.
PS I have to echo Richard III above; just what the hell is “post normal science” ?
On the one hand we have the lawyers jabbering to each other in mediaeval Roman mumbo jumbo, designed to obfuscate; and then we have the “Science” peer reviewed literature crowd, who are in constant competition for the Bullwer Lytton prize , aka the bullshit prize. The abstracts of peer reviewed science literature papers, seem to be where the publishers of new editions of the Oxford English Dictionary, find their most fertile breeding ground for English Language expansion; as if we didn’t have enough words already.
I’m sorry if the good citizens of Vienna are being taxed to support Ms Hollender’s fliegende fancies; but why should the US taxpayers or the Colorado taxpayers also support an outreach expansion of her sphere of influence ?
I wonder if Franziska got a trophy for striking out every time at bat, as a child. Obviously she has never been wrong, never been humbled, never had a mistake pointed out, never been astonished by a new view offered by a little child. She cannot coincieve of a differing opinion being a revelation. Minds such as hers are not merely closed. They are encased in cement. The School Of Hard Knocks will have to knock pretty hard to open such a mind, but it is possible. (After all, it opened even mine, when I was a young, smug know-it-all, and that took some knocking.)
I see from her facebook page abve, that she is pursuing a course designed to achieve permanent unemployable status, and a post doc gig swilling at somebody’s tax trough.
“Science as an ideology” says it all. Humanities people simply have no idea of what science is. What a waste.