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.
C.S. Peirce, no slouch in statistics, once defined the “normal” thus: “….the ‘normal’ is not the average (or any other kind of mean) of what actually occurs, but of what would, in the long run, occur under certain circumstances.” It seems to me that “post-normal” science is merely post-scientific science. The tautologous falsity of such a characterization is a performative instance of the object of description.
Vigilantfish,
PNS = Pseudoscience, Not Science.☺
If you try and make an Ideology or Religion out of Science, you are doing it wrong. A screwdriver is not a car.
Brendan H says:
September 1, 2012 at 6:26 pm
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.
—————
If that were the case, then there would be no issue, but when I read Ravetz I see his definition as prescriptive – saying that certain situations warrant a blurring of lines – rather than analytical. Analysis is what sociologists of science should be doing in any case – only in a disinterested and reflexive manner, rather than using Ms. Hollander’s sadly condescending and activist approach.
Smokey,
Thanks for the clarification! 🙂
has anyone posted the full program to take place from 13-15 sept, with a list of speakers/presenters almost as long as a telephone directory?
Culture, Politics, and Climate Change
AN INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE AT THE UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO BOULDER
SEPTEMBER 13-15, 2012
Please see page 24 for a list of CHPS speakers and session information.
http://www.climateculturepolitics.com/docs/CPCCONLINEProgramFinal.pdf
See if you can get Trenberth to answer why he gave up on his Stratwarm studies, was it due to his paycheck getting cut off?
Also, see why we aren’t concerned about C02 and the mixing with other atmospheric constituents at 1000hPa, 500hPa, 200hPa right on up to 10hPa levels.
How do the atmospheric chemicals behave during shifts in PDO, AO, NAO, Indian Dipole and the Antarctic stream?
We set new records and our messiah may have stopped the seas from rising, but he know needs to address the real concerns (Note the number during loading):
http://earthquakes.tafoni.net/
A lot of comments, but a quick observation on Leif’s comment
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 1, 2012 at 10:07 am
Here she is dead wrong. Science is not an ideology and should not be communicated as such.
“There is no more to science, than its method.”
The problem is that for most people, ‘science’ is the product of its method, say the Periodic Table as an example.
I have no problem considering the scientific method as an ideology, but you absolutely must not treat the product of the scientific method as ideology, because the entire body of scientific knowledge is always only one experiment away from being falsified. The problem is that science as product almost always is treated as ideology.
“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.”
Re the first sentence, “post-normal science” is a nonsense, science is science, that is it is the use of the scientific method of observation ->hypothesis -> experiment -> confirmation/inconclusive/disproval. WTF does “post-normal” mean? It sounds like some post modernist deconstruction of meaning according to some predefining set of criteria, i.e the deliberate use of “deconstruction” as a method for the purpose of disassembling meaning in a manner expressly warned against by Derrida himself who clearly saw the danger of how ideological dingbats would latch on to his basic thesis.
Re the second sentence,
i) “avowals of distrust can be seen as linguistic performances of accountability”. What on earth does that mean? Applying Occums Razor, a much better guide to formulating hypotheses about the real world than deconstructionism or post modernism or post normalism, “avowals of distrust ” means avowals of distrust , i.e. one does not trust the thesis presented and articulates same, presumably because one is not convinced by the evidence to hand. It is pretty plain that the person who wrote this paragraph is engaged in “linguistic performances of accountability” themselves.
ii) “forcing science to prove its reliability and integrity over and over again” . How bizarre, the words written are a pretty succinct articulation of the very essence of the scientific method yet clearly their intent is the very opposite. Who is this Franziska Hollender, the Queen of Hearts?.
The author of this twaddle seems to think that science is ideology and that the scientific method is the associated ideological evangelism. How on earth did our society produce people from our centres of learning who could buy into this sort of linguistic alchemy? The rest of the world is going to absolutely whiz past if these idiots are allowed to continue with their influential lunacy.
If you want to know what happened to China for all those centuries when they gazed at their own navel rather than engaging with the world, then just consider that the sort of person who wrote the drivel quoted above is the sort of person who was a mandarin to the Chinese court, an intellectual eunuch whose life’s work is their own self promotion and scramble for a share of the funding, the accolades and the trips to conferences.
I do not know quite how we have managed it but “climate science” has created some strange upwelling that has brought the intellectual dregs of our society to the surface, bobbing like floaters in the sewage farm section of academia and with some bizarre attraction to the mainstream media.
Not science as ideology as much as science in support of ideology.
Not Goebbels but instead Lysenko.
http://omnologos.com/lysenkoism-and-global-warming-_by-professor-cliff-ollier/
I googled Lysenko+global warming and found I am far from the first to make this connection.
Otpu
I have been trying to get a grasp of the idea of post-normal science and the entire concept seems like nonsense. I doubt there are many engineers buying it.
An analogy to the concept could be put like this? I have an cut/injury to my lower leg. The stakes are high should I get an infection so my leg is immediately amputated at the knee. No time to wait to see if infection occurs. I believe I would rather wait and see if there is any sign of infection and save the cost of amputation as well as my leg. Furthermore, anyone who suggested the first immediate option would be due a kick in the ass by my saved leg.
Coming in a bit late to the game but… Franziska Hollender sounds like a classic Post-Modernist.
For those unfamiliar with this style of writing, there is a funny PostModern generator at this site:
http://www.elsewhere.org/pomo/
Reload the page to get a new ‘essay’
There was this wonderful prank — the Sokal Affair:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_Affair
And there is hope — in 2008, the Blog “Gene Expression” searched the JSTOR archive for specific words related to PoMo thought — Social Construction, Postmodern, Marxist, Deconstruction among others. When plotted against time, these all show a significant ramp up from the 1970-1980’s –but– a significant decline from the 1995-2000’s
http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2008/09/graphs-on-death-of-marxism.php
Considering that many references do not show up at JSTOR for several years, the crest may have been sooner.
re John Campbell says: September 1, 2012 at 11:25 am
Test: Who said, “And yet it moves…”? Hint – Italy, the Inquisition, a very well-known scientist (or “philosopher” as he would have been called in those days).
Answer: Giordano Bruno. Reference: “A History of Pi” by Petr Beckman. Full quote: “E pur si muove! (And nonetheless it moves!) Giordanol Bruno’s last cry from the burning stake, 16th February, 1600.”
Franziska Hollender’s synopsis of the seminar shows the oh so typical “Holier than thou attitude” of those who haunt Ivory Towers. In they (Franziska / seminar holders) are starting with the mindset; they are absolutely correct, and those that disagree with their position (aka agenda), do so as lowly uneducated agitators (aka “contrarians”).
Sociologists who can’t comprehend basic science, who want to applaud and cheerlead from the sidelines, appear to be disturbed by “rude” but accurate scientists, who correctly point out when “the king has no clothes.”
“Group think” is much more sociologically comforting and it’s easier for mindless cheerleading, than actually applying the Scientific Method. Ongoing skeptical evaluation is the very essence of the Scientific Method. We continue to review upgraded data, changing data, improved methods and additional research, into how things really work. All are vital when evaluating assumptions that have not been confirmed.
The mere assumption that prior claims have been confirmed is their first problem. A better seminar would cover that and some other issues, like how can so many millions of people be fooled by a small core of propagandists with enormous conflicts of interest? Why do people not know that the media narratives don’t address the underlying core problems with the CAGW hypothesis? And, why do so many people believe the media outlets, whose outrageous claims have continually been discredited, by scientists applying the scientific method?
But, traveling such paths toward reality, may be much more “uncomfortable” for sociologists, if they value group hugs and a quiet flock of followers, over actually getting the answers right.
Stephen Rasey: “BTW, what should be name for the type of on-line, free access, accountable, review and critique of papers and talks?” … “Other ideas?”
Free B.S. detectors – Calling out those haunting Ivory Towers, and slapping them in the face with facts; giving them a hard dose of reality.
Simply give as much air time as you can to the well known cases of minority views becoming accepted views. The classic Australian case is Nobel Laureates in physiology or medicine (as opposed to peace) Marshall and Warren, in showing that stomach ulcers were not dominantly caused by stress (the former Establishment view) but by the bacterium Helicobacter pylori and that cure was possible with antibiotics.
This is a good counter to the arrogance of the Establishment. I have yet to see the Establishment provide a plan for the recognition and nurture of early, promising anti-Establishment science that will lead to gains. The Establishment has to educate itself better and to mature past the name-calling stage.
OT,
But it looks like I win my proposition bet..
Open water north of 85!
http://www.iup.uni-bremen.de:8084/ssmis/arctic_SSMIS_nic.png
looks like another storm may be brewing just as the melt season ends
Some propose that the contrarian discourse is merely an annoying sideshow while others think it is science’s responsibility to fight them.
She is an advocate for POST-NORMAL SCIENCE — not an advocate for science. But here in this sentence, by a false substitution of terms, she claims for her side all the virtues of “science” — virtues which post-normal science totally lacks.. If this women were honest she would have written
Some propose that the contrarian discourse is merely an annoying sideshow while others think it is POST-NORMAL SCIENCE’S responsibilty to fight them.
But that would make it only too clear that her side is anti-science.
Eugene WR Gallun
ursus augustus says:
September 1, 2012 at 8:03 pm
==================
Very well said.
I read the leading post several times and it would take a very long comment to respond to it as nothing made any sense, with the exception of only one sentence, that being the last in the first paragraph. In my opinion, what I read was not worth commenting on specifically.
wobble says: “Franziska thinks that climate change discussions (discourse) have been stifled by skeptics wanting to discuss the science.”
Mann: How can I hide the Decline under Science’s scrutiny?
Gore: How can I pontificate with Science involved?
Hansen: How can I protest if Science is required?
UN/IPCC: How dare skeptics bring Science into our scam!
“Finally, it is concluded that the climate change discourse has been stifled by the obsession of discussing the science basis [translation: despite all our efforts to affirm with arguments of authority that the science was settled, some scientists and scientifically literate people did not cave under that pressure and the show business surrounding it] and that in order to advance the discourse [translation: ensure these people have no voice], there needs to be a change in how science as an ideology [translation: our political agenda is labelled science for deceit] is communicated and enacted.[translation: this seminar is all about finding the dialiectic tools that will do what our global warming science could not and we know will not be able to do]”
So they are at the second stage of propaganda. When that one will fail, they’ll become physical.
Sociologists want to get on the gravy train that is climate politics. Obviously analysing the whole climate science/government alliance would be a fascinating line of inquiry. Unfortunately it is doubtful there would be any funding for that. All that is left is attacking the skeptical bloggers. Whatever comes out should be good for a few laughs.
Sun Spot / Tallbloke – you missed my point. The latter half of the post was the more important part. If we stand accused of not knowing what post normal science is, then we should ask them (aka the speaker who accuses us) what it means, and then point out if their definition falls within the scientific method. If we disagree with what they call post normal science because what they propose is not scientific, let them (and the audience at large) know it! Calling one’s religion the only truth does not make it so for everyone. Calling a way of looking at things (post normal) science does not mean that it follows the scientific method, and it does the image of science within popular society a lot of damage when we let folks who are peddling their worldview and calling it “science” and get away with it.
anarchist hate machine – help yourself. I think that what I wrote is what my undergrad profs tried to pound into my head as the proper approach when I was a trainee engineer, so I’d like to think that what I said should be common knowledge.
What do you suppose they mean by “post-normal science”? That paragraph reeks of academic-speak (I use “reeks” in its standard sense).
“… science as an ideology …”
The standard understanding of “ideology” (at least in the Left) is that it’s a “bad thing”. It’s always used in a pejorative sense. Unfortunately (for them) it just means “The body of beliefs that guides a person, institution, or group”. So then, I’m happy with my ideology that says that AGW is nonsense on stilts.