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.
Re:Jerome Ravetz says:
September 1, 2012 at 2:14 pm
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,,,
Jerome, when the facts are uncertain the decisions cannot ever be urgent because, well, you might just be dealing with a load of B.S.
This is the reason why the planet is not devoting the majority of the total GDP towards the defense against an invasion of evil, carnivorous space aliens. Because that fact is in uncertain.
“Post-normal science”, wotta joke. LOL
I would like to see a plot of exactly or even vaguely where things stopped being “normal,” before which things were “certain.”
When you form your argument around your desired conclusion, sometimes it’s pretty darned evident where you had to insert the “miracle step” that made the process coherent.
Steven Mosher:
In your post at September 1, 2012 at 4:27 pm you say
No! The only valid “approach to the problem” is to let politicians decide the politics and to let the scientists “just muddle along till the truth came out”.
Politicians make decisions about uncertain issues by assessing available information – including scientific information – every day. IT IS THEIR JOB. In democracies it is what we elect them to do. Nobody elects “all stake holders”.
Richard
Jerome Ravetz says:
September 1, 2012 at 2:14 pm
A wonderful opportunity to get WWF material into the IPCC reports, or any other propaganda one has produced, and grab the power, n’est-ce pas? No objective reality, how very nice indeed; a perfect playground for the post-positivist manipulator.
Unfortunately, you’ve left logic behind and ignore that other field called probability theory that deals perfectly well with uncertainty – but that is not so easy to manipulate, n’est-ce pas?
There’s one rule that Alinsky failed to mention: You should make sense if you want to convince people. CO2AGW science doesn’t.
In other words, in 1980, the environmentalists thought they could usher in a better, cleaner, smaller future if they only had more power and control, because their hearts and their philosophy told them it was so.
In 1991, Post Normal Science was introduced.
In 2012, the environmentalists thought they could usher in a better, cleaner, smaller future if only they had more power and control, because Post Normal Science told them it was so.
There is a persuasion of person for whom the answer is always “more power and control,” no matter what the problem or process is. The fact that the problem or process shifts does not address the appropriateness of their conclusion.
Maus says:
September 1, 2012 at 4:08 pm
Well, no. ‘Is’ is an identity statement while ‘as’ is a rather unfortunate collection of differing things that are not the same.
Splitting hairs wrongly. “that sunset is beautiful’ does not use ‘is’ as an identity statement, but simply meaning ‘having the quality of’. There is no doubt in my mind that ‘science as ideology’ was meant to imply that science is an ideology. I don’t grok what other meaning you would ascribe to it.
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.
In fact, some theories belong in that category. Perhaps the best example is Dirac’s prediction of antimatter. In the theory there was a square root. The square roots of 4 are +2 and -2. So on the basis of the beauty of the theory, Dirac postulated that both solutions described physical reality, and sure enough, antimatter was later discovered experimentally. There are several other examples.
Oh dear, another doctorate to recall. Sociology continues to demonstrate its the kindergarten for basket-weavers in the intellectual curriculum. Her discourse isn’t even worthy of discussion, let alone consideration. Offer her another Zoloft and put her by the window, she’ll enjoy the bright colours in the sunlight.
Science isn’t an ideology, but it is filled with Ideologists, on both sides of this particular sceintific issue.
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.”
No, “stakeholder” means “profiteer”. There no BS about that. Stakeholders always have a vested interest somewhere, and they’re most definetly not shareholders…
Pending Doom!
http://www.horoscope.com/horoscope/resources/articles/pending-doom.aspx
The important thing to take away here is that these are all just theories, most of which are heavily disputed and have no real basis for happening. Like every day, stay safe and try not to worry.
Me
Ally E. says:
September 1, 2012 at 2:56 pm
So they have read your blog without actually reading your blog. How can they do that? These people seem to have their heads so far up their assets, they can’t tell real science from ideology, nor recognize rational discourse, nor the right to even question. I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again. WHAT IS THE MATTER WITH THESE PEOPLE?
___________________________________
They have a completely different mindset. They were never taught the Scientific Method or Logic. This was intentional. In a totalitarian state you do not want independent thinkers or CONTRARIANS as they now see fit to call us.
You are seeing the result of over one hundred years of education as formulated under John Dewey, Father of American Progressive Education where the whole idea behind education is to produce good little conformist slaves.
You can read about John Dewey’s (founding member of the American Fabian Society) “Hegelian idealism and socialist materialism” here: The Philosophy Of Karl Marx: The Hegelian Basis
This is the fundamental belief system Marx modified. This idea of the struggle between thesis and antithesis to produce a new phenomenon— the synthesis, is the philisophical basis of all these people, especially the non-scientists.
As far as they are concerned the struggle between thesis and antithesis is done, the consensus or synthesis has been reached and now it is time to get on with discussing the social, political and physical implementation of that consensus. A new thesis has been formed and we are, like Mitt Romney is, supposed to engage in the next part of the dialog, implementation. This is why we are “Deniers” and “CONTRARIANS” this is why there is so much frustration on their part that we “distrust accountability, forcing science to prove its reliability and integrity over and over again.”
Notice the comment about ” 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.”
They LITERALLY can not see our side of the debate at all because to them facts are not hard and fast but relativistic. From wiki
This is the intellectual type of philosophy that is now seen in our schools.
IMHO, thanks to John Dewey, we are moving from the age of enlightenment back into the dark ages of superstition and serfdom. Unfortunately people no longer have the necessary education to detect this and are embracing it as some sort of utopia.- A first class Brainwashing job.
Paul Coppin says:
September 1, 2012 at 5:14 pm
Oh dear, another doctorate to recall.
She hasn’t got one yet; she’s a grad student.
richardscourtney says:
September 1, 2012 at 4:49 pm
No! The only valid “approach to the problem” is to let politicians decide the politics and to let the scientists “just muddle along till the truth came out”.
Politicians make decisions about uncertain issues by assessing available information – including scientific information – every day. IT IS THEIR JOB. In democracies it is what we elect them to do. Nobody elects “all stake holders”.
Richard
If the world was as it should be, I’d agree. However, we are in a situation where the scientists tell the politicians what they want to hear and the politicians pay them fat grants to do that.
So we either sit on the sidelines complaining about it, or we enter the fray and try to actually affect the outcome. Ravetz presciently pointed out, long before climategate, that the extended peer review community was entitled to bring leaked documents to the table and be heard.
Well, here we are, damning emails in hand. So, do you now want to sit back and let politicans decide how to tax us into the ground, or do you want to fight for your right to not be abused?
Good honest scientists are in the majority, but it seems they are too well controlled by the chain of command extending up through departmental heads to funding bodies controlled by mandarins. I think we have to take up the challenge and form the vanguard in the fight to save objective science.
Sagittarius Chinese/Scottish Counterparts: rat/clipe.
“post normal” – a bizarre and arrogant term to justify the imposition of an extreme agenda, which lacks a strong scientific foundation and which may be described as totalitarianism by any other name. As far I as understand it, the null hypothesis of CAGW craves the empirical disproof. If I’ve missed something here, someone provide the key sentinel reference that turns the world on its collective head.
No, “stakeholder” means “profiteer”. There no BS about that. Stakeholders always have a vested interest somewhere, and they’re most definetly not shareholders…
Rather shortsighted. If I invest in a company, buy shares of their stock, I expect a return on my investment. What my return is depends on how well that company does. How does that make me not a “stakeholder?”
Do you honestly think that I would (willfully) put my money someplace where it does not guarantee its return, or at some level of risk, a greater return? I guess that make me an evil “profiteer.”
So be it.
One thing, however, does not change. Clyping is still against the unofficial school moral code and swift retribution will be heaped by their peers on anyone who is so foolish as to clype. Clype (pronounced to rhyme with ripe and having the alternative spelling clipe) is a Scots verb meaning to tell tales, in other words to tell a teacher about a piece of wrongdoing carried out by another pupil. For once, something is known about the origin of the word. Clype is related to the Old English word, meaning to name or call.
caledonianmercury.com/2010/08/26/useful-scots-word-clype/0010208
A ‘stakeholder’ is specifically not a shareholder. That’s why the different term.
Steven Mosher says:
September 1, 2012 at 4:27 pm
It’s not a marxist plot.
No, it’s not Steven, but the proposed solution is central and authoritarian and attracts those who would profit from that shift in resources/power/money. Compromises are assiduously avoided or claimed as ineffective. That lack of compromise and willingness to negotiate is a clear indication it’s not about CO2, it’s about a shift in power in America and the world.
Follow the Money says:
September 1, 2012 at 4:43 pm
…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.”
_____________________________
You are correct the word “Stakeholder” should set of loud alarm bells whenever you see or hear it. However there is a more ominous use of the word that livestock farmers figured out a long time ago. In all the dealings with farmers, we are referred to as “stakeholders.” Do you know what a “stakeholder” actually is?
The term Premise when applied to property also has some serious legal connotations. “The word premises is a synonym for the word tenement. A definition of the word tenement in law is: “Property, such as land, rents, or franchises, held by one person leasing it to another.
In Black’s Law Dictionary, premises, in the context of estates and property, means: lands and tenaments, buildings, an estate, the subject matter of a conveyance, land and appurtenances thereto.”
I mention this because a goal of Agenda 21 is to transfer effective ownership of land from individuals to the government.
Richard Courtney: ‘Brdan H’:
Sorry, that should be ‘Brendan H’.
‘PNS excuses (deliberately adopts?) confusing science and politics.’
I don’t see it that way. I don’t think PNS argues that science and ideology should be confused. Rather, it argues that ideology is embedded in the way some scientific subjects are framed and presented, not how the science is actually done (the scientific method).
So the message I get is that these ideological, or political, or worldview elements are a reality in the climate debate and should be acknowledged as a factor. I don’t see that as an attempt to confuse science and ideoogy, but rather as an attempt to clarify the relationship beween the two.
tallbloke wrote:
Tallbloke, do not take anything this guy says at face value.
I think that sowing “misunderstandings and harmful interpretations” is exactly what Ravetz intends. He is a new New Left Marxist and disciple of Herbert Marcuse. Marcuse was the guru of the student protest movement in the late 1960s. These two articles are on the right track.
This article (from the Egyptian weekly Al Ahram of all places) includes a good description of Marcuse’s legacy.
If terms like “Post-modern” or “deconstructivist” leave you confused or you have difficulty finding a straightforward definition from those who use them most. Don’t be surprised. Confusion is the point. They are off-shoots of “Cultural Theory.” The New Left version of Orwell’s Ministry of Truth on steroids. You are supposed to re-assess everything you believe in; every aspect of your (dominant) culture. Heroes become villains. Certainty becomes doubt and suspicion.
What is the point of all this? -so that people come to despise their society enough to want to change it utterly i.e. revolution. “Smash the system” is so old fashioned. “Smash the culture” is the new mantra.
Marcuse realized the potential of the nascent environmental movement just before his death.
As an ENGINEER who has been making things WORK all my life such Nuclear reactors, (Hey, point Kernel analysis for neutron flux problems…just a bone to throw out so the knowledgeable know I’m not kidding!), SPC for medical catheters and implant devices, pump and delivery systems for refineries, ASME Section VIII design for PV’s, from 300 to 3000 PSI, -320 F to 1500 F..heh heh, I know, I’m “hot dogging”.. I’d suggest that everyone reading this better get down on the floor of their next A320 or 767 and kiss it…thanking Boeing, the French and Brits, that their ENGINEERS still engage in NORMAL engineering…design, test, prove, verify…codify, etc. And there is no nosense of “post normal engineering”.
On some other thread I challenged defenders of PNS to please illustrate the necessity for post-normal science historically, using a solid historical case study in which some catastrophic outcome was threatening portions of humanity (or nature, I suppose) if this new approach were not adopted. I’m not talking about high stakes for some scientist’s reputation, or the risks taken by individuals defending their intellectual stake – which are the kinds of example Jerome Ravetz has offered before, IIRC. I’d like to see some non-climate related science (and I mean science, not policy-decisions at the international protocol level) in which PNS resulted in fruitful outcomes.
It’s no wonder so many of us are confused by the definition of PNS, given the lack of concrete examples that offer any guidelines.
Probably just another one working towards getting snout into lucrative government funded “climate change” trough.