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.
Can a “Social Science” PhD thesis FAIL…from lack of “Scientific Method”….
and any pretense of objectivity ? ? ?
Regretably….i can only BOO loudly from 1500 miles away.
The Wikipedia article on Post-normal science
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-normal_science#cite_note-0
links to this article in the Guardian by Mike Hulme
His final paragraph is jaw-dropping.
Well, I think the REALLY big problem here is everyone seems to think that somehow science is something of itself or some truth.
The big claim of evil here is that we skeptics somehow are acting on faith or using an act of faith for our position when we are not!
The problem here is the hypocrisy of this so called scientism.
In the nutshell since one has not done the science and does not have the firsthand knowledge of the quantum mechanics or even behaviors at the molecular level, then the it is clear that people accept AGW by making an act of faith on their part.
In other words, we don’t have a time machine to go back and witness that thermometer reading in 1930. We have ONLY the witness and testimony of what someone wrote down in a book. Not only must we rely on that person reading that thermometer in 1930 but we do NOT have a time machine to go back and repeat that event.
In fact, what those supposed “scientism” people don’t realize that is that they are reading something form a book that is based on the witness and testimony of someone else. And even WORSE is that testimony is past tense and thus is historical in nature.
At the end of the day, there actually nothing wrong with making an act of faith to Accept some paper or something written in a book.
The BIG PROBLEM IS these VERY SAME people run around criticizing people for making such act of faith when in fact that is what they are doing! It called hypocrisy!
In other words, the issue is not so much that people are making an act of faith there, but they are in effect lying and refusing to admit they are making an act faith to hold their position!
We skeptics use evidence and fact finding no different than the rest of the science community the only difference is we realize that such evidence is based on the witness and testimony of others, and as such we have to accept such witness and testimony of these people.
Science is not some special thing on to itself that is some SEPARATE truth here. Well over excess of 90% or even more we know is accepted on faith since we not done that science are self.
In fact, the very reading of an instrument is a past tense event witnessed by someone else. We have to make an act of faith to accept that witness and testimony. This simple fact an observation applyes to science as well as everything else in life.
The idea that we skeptics don’t use evidence and reasoned thought without evidence is perhaps one of the greatest lies perpetrated against a skeptic community.
However worse this lie against us skeptics is the HYPOCRISY of the science community that is it is somehow NOT making acts of faith and accepting the witness and testimonies of others to present these historical events in some book that we read.
Appears to be someone who perceives that the goalposts are shifting, doesn’t like the fact, but doesn’t know what to do about it.
Also is not a fan of free speech.
Friends:
Perhaps because the seminar is in the USA and WUWT is a US-based blog, it seems that several commentators think the seminar is an example of something new. It is not. It is an example of the standard methods of totalitarians. And totalitarianism is a great evil.
Old-fashioned, left-wing British socialists like me and the late Eric Arthur Blair (aka George Orwell) have been fighting such totalitarianism for over a century. Those who want a clear exposition of the totalitarians’ methods only need to read his novel ‘1984’.
And in ‘1984’ Orwell gives those methods names; e.g.
Newspeak
i.e. redefine the meanings of words, e.g. science is an “ideology” and not a method, communication is presentation of specified ideas and not provision of pertinent information, etc.
Thoughtcrime
i.e. independent thought
Historical revisionism
i.e. changing records of the past; e.g. the global-cooling scare of the 1970s did not exist, “adjusting” temperature data from decades ago, etc.
Memory hole
this is part of historical revisionism and consists of ‘disappearing’ inconvenient records; e.g. “losing” unadjusted temperature data
Doublethink
i.e. simultaneously accepting two mutually contradictory ideas as correct; e.g. thinking science is good and being skeptical of a scientific idea is being “contrarian” to science although skepticism of ideas is the core of science
The very concept of the intended seminar is a promotion of totalitarianism: it is an evil of immense proportions. You don’t need to be a ‘lefty’ like me to oppose it: all people of conscience need to oppose evil.
Richard
“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.”
In other words, don’t confuse me with facts. My mind is made up.
This fits with the thinking of the CAGW community, that the ideology is what matters, and the science simply needs to be tortured enough to yield the correct results. Nothing good can come of this study which starts with the assumption that the doctrine as promulgated by the IPCC is correct, and that skeptics are really only ideologues that don’t care what the science is.
>>>jbird says: Why would anyone want to go to this?
Good point. I might go because Anthony would like a “mole” to report on the proceedings. However, because of the distance, it would chew up much of the day.
There’s lots of seminars at the U of C, NCAR, etc., and some of them are pretty good – I went to one last month about detailed observations of an Earth-grazing asteroid. I gravitate toward the observationally based talks, but won’t waste the bus fare on some nonsense modeling studies (which is saying something, since my bus fare is free).
As for something about stifling the ideology of science, well, not sure if I want to torture myself by attending, but then, it might be like going to a Klan rally to see what goes on and I could learn something about “post-normal science”.
Mike D in AB says:
September 1, 2012 at 11:08 am
I would like to see a concise definition for “post normal science” presented
The guy who invented the term posted an essay on my blog:
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2011/02/08/jerome-ravetz-pns-truth-and-science/
If one looks into the history of the “science” of sociology, one will learn that it was the creation of Marxists. It was developed as a tool to change society into a Marxist state. Holding a Marxist world view is a sure sign of damaged cognition. Most sociologist think with a Marxist world view. Therefore most sociologist are insane.
If the rules for post normal science differ from those of ordinary science then it is perfectly possible that climate change truly is a done deal as they have been telling us for years. PNS appears to be a science of concensus among a select few. They have that concensus. Climate change, QED (PN).
I hope Hollender is reading this. Some self-analysis would not go amiss.
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 1, 2012 at 10:07 am
“”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”
Here she is dead wrong. Science is not an ideology and should not be communicated as such.”
I agree. The role of science is to inform ideology.
It should never become one. Academic freedom is an important concept in producing informative science.
She touches upon blogs as an impediment to enacting science. Policy is the product of ideology and thus the role of science is to also inform policy. When science becomes policy we have the classic problem of the Pope and Galileo.
George and Richard read the comment linked to below
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/01/wuwt-is-the-focus-of-a-seminar-at-the-university-of-colorado/#comment-1069431
Notice how lefties always redefine terms, on the fly to suit their needs? Junk science describes the cult of CAGW with their high priest of propaganda, yet the moonbats use it to describe real scientists. At one time a liberal was the opposite of a socialist! Now this wacko is redefining post-normal science, ascribing to it that which is antithetical to it. The insanity is mind boggling.
Wow.
In the context of climate change, one question has arisen from recent events: what to do with the contrarians?
That formulation of the “one question” says it all.
Some propose that the contrarian discourse is merely an annoying sideshow, while others think that it is science’s responsibility to fight them.
Evidently, none in the circle that this d!p$#!^ travels in proposes that there is any value in listening to dissenting opinion. Except insofar as it is to research innovative methods to quash same, of course. Wot wot.
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.
Yes, we tend to see 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.
Yes, normal science is only valuable to the extent that it is reliable and has integrity. It is properly referred to as “science”.
“Post-normal science” is not science. “Post-normal science” pretends to be science, when it is actually a political propaganda technique invented by a Communist to advance leftist political agendas under the imprimatur of “science”. It derives its value from its ability to trade on the reputation that science has earned for reliability and integrity, while adhering to neither. It would be more honestly titled “Post-science politicking”, but it is not. Not surprising, given that its adherents freely admit that the willingness to trade honesty for political effectiveness is in fact a component of “post-normal science”. That is what allows them to justify “telling scary stories” to drive decision making according to the dictates of the decidedly non-scientific “precautionary principle”.
For further exposition of what “post-normal science” is, simply look at how its proponents discuss it:
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.
1) Discussing the science basis is an obstacle to “post-normal science”.
2) Science is an “ideology”
3) This ideology is to be “enacted”.
‘Nuff said.
@Doug Hanes;
Dr. Qing-Bin Lu is a Warmist in sheep’s clothing.
Did she get her ideas from the same “skepital” blogs as Lew…y did ?
Science as an ideology. There’s your problem, ma’am. AGW theory is an ideology, not a science. Scientists will not have to prove themselves over and over again on this question. Just once will do. Don’t you have business back in Europe?
Methinks Dr. Hollander is in urgent need of a deprogramming intervention …
@ur momisugly Mike D in AB says:
I’m going to copy + paste
“If your definition of science promotes theory over observation, it’s not science. If the totality cannot be broken into testable sub-components, it’s not science. If experiments cannot be proposed to falsify the basic premises, it’s not science. If the theory is accepted as the null case and “it’s within the realm of natural variation” must be proven, it’s not science. If numbers must be carefully chosen from larger data sets, and data which does not support the theory is discarded/not displayed, it’s not science.”
To use when I need, if that’s ok with you.
Post normal “science” isn’t science. But neither is economics or archaeology or a host of other very useful subjects. So that doesn’t mean I personally think it is “wrong”, what is wrong is suggesting it has anything like the credibility of real science. Post normal science or “soft-science” might be a better name, is “science” without the verification (which is essential to science hence the “science”.
Perhaps a good analogy would be between criminal law (proof beyond reasonable doubt) and criminal law “on the balance of probabilities). Science requires assertions based on proof beyond reasonable doubt using tested hypothesis. Science-lite/soft-science/post-normal science is using science like methods with a much lower standard of proof (much like the climategate inquiries .. sorry, the climategate inquiries were “couldn’t be proven to have lied and cheated” … it’s more honestly saying something, or using best judgement.)
Soft-science is a subject that allows assertions without factual basis, so long as there is a reasonable argument based on science, not a scientific argument which is one that asserts only what can reasonably asserted from the evidence and tested hypothesis – but an argument using less rigorous standards like e.g. found in archaeology, applied to science.
Why? Well in areas like the climate, you can’t test your assertions. It’s more like geology than a science. The academic can’t manipulate what is going on to test a theory, and data is slow to arrive.
I’m too tired … that should have read “criminal and civil” law.
Someone has asked for a definition of post-normal science. Let’s try: when facts are uncertain, values in dispute, stakes high and decisions urgent, the paradigm-based puzzle-solving research confined to closed sets of practitioners is not adequate. We can call this a ‘post-normal situation’. Then there must be an ‘extended peer community’, using ‘extended facts’ which include traditional research results along with open criticism, plus data from non-traditional sources, and expressions of value commitments. Also, in such circumstances there is no possibility of results approaching truth to the same degree that is possible in traditional science; hence the debate will be about the quality of results. This is inevitably complex, since all scientific results depend on arguments where imperfect data and imperfect inferences are combined. Experience has shown that in such cases, which include all areas closely connected with policy, the ‘extended peer community’ plays a very positive role, not merely in legitimating accepted results but also in criticising controversial results. This practice of open debate, which is realised on the blogosphere with salient examples like WUWT, is post-normal science. Of course PNS is open to abuse, but then so is the closed-community practice of normal science, especially when it is closely tied to policy. For a good example of PNS in action, there is Phil Tattersall’s ‘Community Based Audit’ that operates in Tasmania. He has shaped his work by thinking about PNS.
“there needs to be a change in how science as an ideology is communicated and enacted.”
This is a really dumb statement, and reveals that we are dealing with people who worship something they don’t understand. Science is a process with an accumulated body of knowledge that changes constantly. Science is not an ideology.
I’m in Denver, Anthony – and I used to live in Boulder. I will happily attend and report. Drop me a line via my facebook email (Orson2) for further contact information, if you wish.