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.
Given that most skeptics are not public figures, can we finally get our big money payoff via class action law suit against those who libel us, tossing in some RICO and hate crime language? That might actually shut them up though and send them back into hiding, ruining things, covertly. A naughty sense propels me to drop here a few Ayn Rand quotes rather relevant in tone to the real world fact that mainstream psychology is once again going crazy.
“The impulse of the habit of reason almost pushed her to speak, to argue, to demonstrate the self-evident – but she looked at their faces and she saw that they knew it. In some terms different from hers, in some inconceivable manner of consciousness, they knew all that she could tell them, it was useless to prove to them the irrational horror of their course and of its consequences….” – Ayn Rand (“Atlas Shrugged” 1957)
“She could not believe that she was supposed to feel respect for the dreary senselessness of the art shows which his friends attended, of the novels they read, of the political magazines they discussed – the art shows, where she saw the kind of drawings she had seen chalked on any pavement of her childhood’s slums – the novels, that purported to prove the futility of science, industry, civilization of love, using language that her father would not have used in his drunkenest moments – the magazines, that propounded cowardly generalities, less clear and more stale than the sermons for which she had condemned the preacher of the slum mission as a mealy-mouthed old fraud. She could not believe that these things were the culture she had so reverently looked up to and so eagerly waited to discover. She felt as if she had climbed a mountain toward a jagged shape that had looked like a castle and had found it to be the crumbling ruin of a gutted warehouse.” – Ayn Rand (“Atlas Shrugged” 1957)
“If a man makes an error in his choice of values, his emotional mechanism will not correct him: it has no will of its own. If a man’s values are such that he desires things which, in fact and in reality, lead to his destruction, his emotional mechanism will not save him, but will instead, urge him on toward destruction: he will have set it in reverse, against himself and against the facts of reality, against his own life. Man’s emotional mechanism is like an electronic computer: man has the power to program it, but no power to change its nature – so that if he sets the wrong programming, he will not be able to escape the fact that the most self-destructive desires will have, for him, the emotional intensity and urgency of lifesaving actions. He has, of course, the power to change the programming – but only by changing his values.” – Ayn Rand (“The Virtue of Selfishness” 1961)
“There was a time when men were afraid that somebody would reveal some secret of theirs that was unknown to their fellows. Nowadays, they’re afraid that somebody will name what everybody knows. Have you practical people ever thought that that’s all it would take to blast your whole, big, complex structure…?” – Ayn Rand (“Atlas Shrugged” 1957)
Franziska Hollender’s subjectively perjoative stereotyping through her use of the label ‘contrarian’ is to me a sufficient intellectual basis to ignore her treatment of the situation in climate science dialogs.
Her injection of a subjective theory of reality (that is called PNS) is consistent with her subjectivity in presenting the climate science situation as being ‘science versus contrarians’.
She gets a score of A+ in applied subjectivism. Subjectivists are just making stuff up arbitrarily as they randomly react to localized social stimuli. To them reality is what society desires it to be.
John
Idiot social manipulator (NOT science) ….
wanting some small amount of relevance.
based purely on ignorance.
How to Deconstruct Almost Anything:
http://www.info.ucl.ac.be/~pvr/decon.html
Leif Svalgaard: “Although English is not my mother tongue it is good enough to surmise that ‘yyy as xxx’ implies that ‘yyy is xxx’.”
Well, no. ‘Is’ is an identity statement while ‘as’ is a rather unfortunate collection of differing things that are not the same. In the manner used ‘as’ is to be read as ‘in the manner of’, ‘in the form of’, etc.
“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’. ”
And if science were strictly and only a data collecting activity then it would be engineering at most. But then we have to deal with theories and hypotheses. I submit that nothing would be lost if the ‘scientific method’ were redefined such that science is only and always a hypothesis non fingo affair. To disagree one has to first commit to the idea that theories are Truth and have primacy over experiment. But once that is done we have not said that science can be, in an ‘as’ sense, an ideology; but that it ‘is’ fundamentally ideological.
All that aside, I think it is without question that Climate Science is properly under the modern practice of science. And it is certainly without question that a large number of people take the canonical climate theories as a central point of their weltanschauung. Which is to say, they take it as ideological in the non-perjorative sense. And, of course, if they then try to leverage their political will in a democracy it becomes ideological in the perjorative sense as well. (Which is, honestly, a bit silly given that this is the entire point of democracies in the first place.)
I don’t perceive you as being such an individual that elevates Theory over experiment. But that makes little difference as to how the term is used today. Certainly, if we wished to be purists on definition, then Science is a word that doesn’t exist, we are speaking about ‘the Philosophical method’, and Philosophy is Rhetoric. But these notions are rather out of date by quite a few centuries.
davidmhoffer:
re your post at September 1, 2012 at 3:36 pm addressed to Jerome Ravetz
Excellent. Well said. Thankyou.
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.
Richard
Jo Postma: September 1, 2012 at 11.04 am: ‘Skepticism as post-normal science? Hey, I thought that was the label WE gave THEM and their denial of the scientific method!’
I don’t think these academics are arguing that scepticism per se is post-normal science, but rather that climate sceptic blogs (and also of course pro-AGW blogs) function as part of climate science, which is considered to be an instance of post-normal science,
Post-normal science is characterised by its proponents as: ‘the stakes are high, uncertainties large and decisions urgent, and where values are embedded in the way science is done and spoken’, and where blogs act ‘as extended peer communities’.
To my mind, these characteristics apply well to climate science, in a way that, for example, the mating habits of monarch butterflies do not. I think it is very clear that values and worldviews, even ideologies, are deeply embedded in discussions of climate, from whichever angle.
Interestingly, most people on both sides of the climate debate seem to be pretty cool on the notion of post-normal science, possibly because there’s a rhetorical advantage in claiming that ‘they’ are infected by ideology, while ‘we’ are doing real science.
DesertYote says:
September 1, 2012 at 1:21 pm
If one looks into the history of the “science” of sociology, one will learn that it was the creation of Marxists…..
________________________________
I went to look that up and came across a very interesting course syllibus from HArvard.
History of Science 157
Sociology of Science
The History of Science and Sociology of Science
GAG, if this is the type of course she has been taking no wonder the poor dear is so confused by “THE CONTRARIAN DISCOURSE IN THE BLOGOSPHERE”
Darn, Here is the link to History of Science 157, Sociology of Science: http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~hsdept/bios/docs/HS157_2009.pdf
You know, the whole “what is PNS” is a little more complicated than it seems – but the “not science” people have it basically right.
I’ve followed Funtowicz and Ravetz a little bit, and pretty much PNS comes from the places you’d expect it to.
Funtowicz is a part of the EU bureaucratic machine, and some of you are familiar with how that has turned out. Like “Critical Theory” and PNS itself, the EU could be described as “Marxism in a funny hat.” I think a better metaphor for the EU is like Fantasy Football. Imagine if a Fantasy Football Club had billions in budget and hundreds of thousands of employees and no actual football teams or players. Then replace “Football” with “Marxism,” and you’d pretty much have the EU in a nutshell.
Ravetz… well, it’s not like I know him personally, but given his background and writings I’d take a wild stab and say – raised by and surrounded by people whose shared delusion of persecution he adopted. I say delusion because people who want to overthrow a relatively free system and replace it with a less free one don’t get a lot of leeway from me for crying victim when they get called on it. Not executed (except the occasional spy), not tortured, not had their legs cut off – but called on it.
Anyway, old-school Marxist “fellow-traveler” plus “Fantasy Marxism” bureaucrat-in-training had a problem – the science wasn’t really giving them what they wanted. So they came up with a “model” wherein they could massage the rules until they *did* get what they wanted.
Basically PNS should have been laughed completely off the map. Unfortunately, there’s another institution you may be aware of that has been separated enough from reality that it can engage in “Fantasy Marxism,” we call it academia.
If you’re one of those people who feel that talk of Marxism is just some kind of evil right-wing paranoia, I suggest you stare at the Twentieth Century and count corpses until the feeling passes.
It always starts as an idea that will make things *better*, and then people start dying. Every time.
Scientists should stick to science and let policy be decided at the ballot box. Bloggers give me and my fellow voters a greater opportunity to formulate good policy.
At the birth of my first child the doctor felt that a caesarian section was called for and sought my permission. I simply said, “give me the facts and i will give you a policy statement”.
Perhaps germane is this famous exchange, from the writings of Stanley L. Jaki, quote,
“Hence, the truth of Einstein’s remark to the Archbishop of Canterbury, that the science of relativity has nothing to do with moral betterment, which, let it be recalled, forms the gist of genuine religion. Einstein certainly offered something most momentous when he said in another context that he could not distill a drop of morality from his science”.
If there’s no big message before this one, I get it, it could be seen as off-topic. This is a science blog. But where ideas *come from* matters because it informs the people who make the rules and build the structures. It also helps you interpret what people are saying when you have an idea what their intentions are.
I just hope they don’t zero in on any of my comments.
Kudos to them, for picking a fight with the biggest dog in the pack.
PS in case it’s not clear, I’m not saying Ravetz and Funtowicz are *trying* to usher about some kind of Soviet-style apocalypse or being *expressly* dishonest.
I think they’re honestly pursuing something they just don’t or won’t realize doesn’t work.
What some call “weasel language” isn’t a strict attempt to deceive, it’s an almost worse attempt to control the conversation.
Someone asked what post normal science is. To me it is politically correct science. Science used to be done by clever people. In these more enlightened days everyone can be a scientist and not just the clever people. So post normal science is science done by people not smart enough to do real old fashioned science.
As a perfect example of a post normal science I give you “climate science’.
“I don’t think these academics are arguing that scepticism per se is post-normal science, but rather that climate sceptic blogs (and also of course pro-AGW blogs) function as part of climate science, which is considered to be an instance of post-normal science,”
The argument goes like this.
We are in a post normal situation. facts are uncertain, values are in conflict, stakes are high,
and some argue that immediate action is required. Because values are in conflict others will argue that action is NOT required. Some will say we have to act because we dont know what a warmer world will be like. Others argue we cant act until we know.
In Normal science, well science would just muddle along till the truth came out. But some people think we know enough to act. Other think we need to know more. Science cant settle this type of impass. Science can merely report. we are 65% sure, 94.9% sure. etc.
It’s simplistic for one side to say, well wait until we are convinced. Its simplistic for the other side to count heads and say, the consensus is convinced. Since everybody knows how to play the game of “prove it” we are stuck. One side likes being stuck. The other side doesnt.
One approach to the problem is to extend the “peer” review to include all stake holders.
It’s not a marxist plot.
Whether it will work or not is open to question. However, the experiment is being done.
right here.
University of Vienna: Karl Popper was an alumnus. He must be spinning in his grave.
Smokey says:
September 1, 2012 at 3:07 pm
Jerome Ravetz,
Science is based on the scientific method. PNS is not. Therefore, PNS is not science.
Correct. 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.
Perhaps we should stop taking potshots at the messenger and think about the message…
“there needs to be a change in how science as an ideology is communicated and enacted.” That the author would even use such an expression as “science as an ideology” is enough for me to dismiss whatever else she might have to say. Science is not an ideology, period.
It is the notion that science is an ideology that is the inspiration for the skeptic blogosphere being what it is. The blogoshpere is about heathy skepticism in its simple, democratic meaning and the essential element of democracy, freedom of expression. Freedom of expression allows all views, all potential models, theories etc to be articulated, considered , rebutted, reviewed accepted after the application of the accumulated common sense acting as our common intelligence.
Ideology is a system that puts the idealogues in charge, de facto or de jure, and is in its very essence anti-democratic and obnoxious to any sense of democracy. It is also contrary to common sense.
davidmhoffer says:
September 1, 2012 at 3:17 pm
Here’s the Post Normal Science garbage in a nut shell.
How do we make decisions when:
o The stakes are high
o The matters urgent
o The facts uncertain
This is the founding premise of Jerry Ravetz’ PNS bullarky. It is a logic process that he then uses to argue that requires action on CO2 mitigation.
He does? This is news to me. Got a link to that? Maybe you got him mixed up with Schneider.
Steven Mosher says:
September 1, 2012 at 4:27 pm
We are in a post normal situation. facts are uncertain, values are in conflict, stakes are high,…
You’ve led yourself up the garden path on account of your false premise.
Brdan H:
I read your post at September 1, 2012 at 4:11 pm and the only thing it told me is that you are confused.
Science, politics and religion are each important. But they are mutually exclusive. Mixing one of them with either or both the others destroys the proper practice of the components of the mixture.
Of course we are all human and, therefore, we have scientific, political and religious views, but we need to avoid confusing those views. PNS excuses (deliberately adopts?) confusing science and politics.
Climate realists argue the science and the politics of climate change but they are clear about the difference: e.g. see threads on WUWT.
Climastrologists deliberately confuse the science and the politics of climate change: i.e. they overtly practice PNS whatever they may say. Indeed, they consider it proper to provide “Summaries for Policymakers” (policymakers are politicians) in what they claim to be scientific reports.
Richard
Franziska, for Christ sake.
How dare you be so rude as to do a study on us without speaking to us?
We’re human beings. How would you feel if I did a doctorate on what I see as your peccadillos without even contacting you?
How dare you ask “what to do” with us, without asking us?
How dare your university allow you to indulge in this Orwellian drivel?
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.
“post-normal science as a desirable goal”
Wow. The Edward Said-ian narrative cranks are now on the CS gravy train? But they are confused. The skeptics are NOT part of the post-normal something. Post-normal science is essentially a matter of increasing and maintaining funding in light of the scientific method being a barrier– to wit, when they realized everyone was starting to catch on to “postive feedbacks” blimey, they needed a new paradigm to ignore the uncertainties that could defeat further and continued funding.
“One approach to the problem is to extend the “peer” review to include all stake holders.
It’s not a marxist plot.”
Duh. It’s a fascistic one. “Stakeholders” is the new-nice term for the usual business and government parasites and their fellow travelers.
WARNING: When ever you hear the word “stakeholder,” it is some corporations or corporate front group posing as, or renting itself as, an ngo working in the “public interest.” “Stakeholder” equals “B.S.”