Guest post by W. Jackson Davis (who attended the seminar today as listed below)
The contrarian discourse in the blogosphere–what are blogs good for anyway?
Franziska Hollender, Institute for Social Studies of Science, University of Vienna CSTPR Conference Room, 1333 Grandview Avenue. Tuesday Sept. 11, 2012
Summary from CSTPR
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 performances 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.
Approximate Transcript by W. Jackson Davis
(vetted for accuracy by Ms. Hollender)
Introduction
I did this study because this “mediated” society [one blanketed with diverse media] calls the integrity of science into question. A changing media landscape provides new possibilities for public discussion and participation.
Anthony Watts received an invitation to this talk and posted it online. It received 476 comments. The comment section verified my results and provided extended peer-review at the same time.
This study was done as a Master’s thesis–a small scale study by a graduate student. I sampled 7 blog posts by Anthony Watts between 2006 and 2012. I used principles of critical discourse analysis (Fairclough, Wodak). The climate blog “Watt’s Up With That” (WUWT) is ranked 118 of more than one million. WUWT gets 3 million hits per month. My results should be seen as an in-depth case study rather than overview of the field.
Discourse analysis–my primary methodology–is used to analyze prevalent power structures and views language as a social practice. provides overview of prevalent power structures.
Results
Normal science (as promulgated by Thomas Kuhn) is seen as the goal by bloggers above all else. However, their request is to provide people broadly with the means and education to evaluate and disseminate the scientific data they provide, which does not fit with the principles of normal science in which the production and review of results of inquiry stay inside the scientific community and even within a certain paradigmatic community.
Post-normal science (defined by Funtowitcz and Ravetz) as practiced by the blogger community is described as anti-scientific, yet the blog community does extended peer-review and demands the further opening of science towards the public. She believes that whether post-normal science is anti-scientific may be debatable.
Post-normal science is, in her view, a description, not a prescription. Normal science no longer fits with complex socio-economic factors that influence science.
Analyzing the seven WUWT posts, she finds discursive strategies on WUWT to include ridicule, personal attacks, and name-calling. She says this is formally discouraged on the site, but nonetheless occurs.
Narrative structures utilized on WUWT include: 1) Scientific data dissemination. 2) Critique of scientific findings. 3) Social and political implications of climate change. 4) Climate change as a political tool to challenge capitalism and impose a new model of wealth onto the American public.
Comment thread narratives include: 1) The authority and trustworthiness of science. 2) The role of science in society. These are often discussed at length.
Discussion
Science itself is not a sound action-basis and does not determine what the results of scientific inquiry imply for society. Science is not free of values and beliefs, it is not done under the exclusion of social, economic and political factors.
Data represent a social construction. Who constructs the data, and for what purpose, is relevant to the analysis. Nothing is without (observational) bias. In fact data construction is never unbiased. There is always a translation between the observed phenomenon,what we observe and what we record as the data that represent what we have observed.
The choice of media arena is crucial to the discourse. Some people say blogs, and post-normal science, is a sideshow (WUWT), irrelevant, and unimportant. However, choice of media is crucial. This is among the reasons she wanted to research it.
Gate-keeping exists implicitly and explicitly on blogs, including WUWT. Censorship is taking place. Hostile comments prohibit an open and constructive discourse–but gate-keeping is no longer imposed by the medium but by human intervention. Interactivity is high, manifest as responses to posts and subsequent responses to posters.
Not all of this is true for WUWT–there is definitely gate-keeping, however. Certain kind of comments are welcome, while others are deleted by the site manager (gate-keeper).
There are very few dissenting comments on WUWT, and if so, they are viciously attacked. Self-selection of contributors therefore takes place, under the influence of and to avoid prospective attacks on views expressed.
These are all things that happen at WUWT–it is not that free, not everyone is welcome. There is gate-keeping.
Interactivity of the WUWT blog is high. No post has less than 50 comments, and the seven posts analyzed here received up to 400 comments.
Example: The post advertising this talk was published on Sept. 1, 2012, receiving at least 476 comments. Personal attacks on Ms. Hollender were commonplace, including “This girl has a brain the size of a peanut.”
She experienced extensive misunderstanding of certain terms and notions “science as ideology, “avowals of distrust, “linguistic performances.” Plans to disrupt and intervene in her presentation were posted. One comment said to offer her another Zoloft and put her by the window, she’ll enjoy the bright colors in the sunlight.”
On the plus side, the constant questioning encompassed in blog comments holds scientists accountable. She agrees with this function, which she considers valuable. This is what she expressed as avowals of distrust, which is a term from speech-act theory and describes linguistic performances that accomplish something beyond a statement.
The example of the post announcing her talk, and the many responses, illustrate exactly some of the problems she sees with the blog. About 250 have nothing to do with her talk, and instead diverge to off-track issues–and there is no formal mechanism to keep the comments on track.
Responses
Post-normal science is a description, not a prescription. It is something that is happening, not something that should be happening. We have problems now, certain things are at stake. What comes out of science is one thing–what we do with it is another.
“Science is not an ideology, but it is not free of values and beliefs–and what role science plays in our society is a matter of ideology.”
“Blogs are an underrated media arena and need to be taken more seriously in academia–extended peer review works very well in the Blogosphere, but constructive discourse is not happening because of personal attacks and ridicule.”
Peer-review needs to be extended toward wider public, “extended peer review” using non-traditional approaches. People who are not expert in the field should engage, look at material, point out mistakes. This function works very well in the blogosphere. Often papers are reviewed like this (example of Roger Pielke on his blog). This facilitates uncovering of mistakes and inconsistencies. Constructive discourse is mixed up, however, with “noise”–personal attacks, non-constructive replies, etc.
Every scientist used to criticism–but not used to being called “ridiculous.” Blogs would work better without the non-constructive discourse.
She personally takes no position on climate change in order to remain objective in her analysis. She is unbiased, deliberately avoids sitting in either of the corners.
“Q and As”
Q: Are you personally involved [in the issue of climate change and its causes]?
A. No, she deliberately avoids taking either side on ethical grounds. She will not engage, because this would compromise her objectivity.
Q. Productive criticisms emerge from this blog–does same come out of journals? Does vitriol facilitate critical attitude even though it is harsh?
A. Yes, generates content and visibility, and so vitriol is not all bad. It can lead to constructive discourse. Also steers away many people. Also generates a lot of media attention.
Re: open source journals–they still stay within the scientific boundaries. You can access them, though it is hard if you are a lay person. Blogs a better medium to reach a wider public than just your own colleagues. Access is not the same. Blogs are superior in this regard.
Q. Have you observed any difference between Anglo sphere blog tradition and European tradition?
A. She has not read many German blogs–not as many. She does read some institutional blogs, but there is less of a divide in Germany than in US, so do not have two oppositional views on climate. Don’t have the same diversion of opinion in Europe.
Q. How can you learn and take back to journals to get them to engage a broader audience?
What can the journals do [to reap this benefit of blogs]?
A. The journal Nature Climate Change offers a possible model–it has moved to an online format, there are chat rooms. There is still a barrier to access, however. The reason is economic; when you have a print journal, have to pay for it. The access [under this business model] cannot be free to everyone. Individuals can always seek out information by going to a University library, but this is not generally done. Nature Climate Change has made a step toward broader access with online forum. Scientific journals do use a certain kind of language, but it is not journals’ responsibility to teach this to the public, it is the responsibility of each individual.
Q. Your presentation is concerned with discourse between two groups [“warmists” and “skeptics”]; how do you view the two camps and where do you sit?
A. She is still undecided on the science. She feels she cannot take either side because she does not have all the [scientific] information required. She is not a climate scientist–she is undecided. Adapting to climate change may require certain lifestyle changes, which she does embrace (such as recycling). She nonetheless believes that it is important to keep an open mind on both sides. Science never proves anything beyond doubt. Still, the question remains as to what we should do about climate change. The precautionary principle is important–it is essential to act sooner than later.
Q. Do blogs help generate new ideas and avenues of research?
A. Different roles of commenters–there is the police function, aimed at exerting power and silencing oppositional voices. Another role is productive–criticism, reinforcement, engaging information.
Q. Do you see same people serving the same role repeatedly, or do people switch roles?
A. Both. Blogs are more complex than they appear.
Q. My question is about the blogs’ influence on the relation of “normal” and “post-normal” science. Many people who post on WUWT do so because they cannot get their findings published in what they consider a biased and even corrupted climate science peer-review system. Do the blogs enable exposure of new ideas that can enter the discourse of “normal” science?
A. She only looked at Watt’s posts, and not at the guest posts that would pertain more to this question. Guest posts are written by knowledgeable people. She cannot judge whether guest posters would be able to publish what they write on WUWT. It is generally not clear whether they tried. Anyone can write anything they want–there probably are ideas that do not have peer review that can be beneficially published on blog.
Q. Do other blogs have a more balanced or “intermediate” view on climate change? I am thinking of the Judith Curry blog–is this an intermediate view on climate?
A. Judith Curry has adopted “warmist” views [views supportive of the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming], in Watt’s opinion, but her blog gets many diverse comments as well. Interaction between bloggers is interesting. Most blogs have distinct viewpoints, but none encourage diverse views.
Comment from audience. Competitive discourse as on blogs may be a “purer” method of sorting out the “truth.” Aristotle used in his rhetoric. Blogs may be modern equivalent. Gecker [sp?] and Posner [sp?] at the University of Chicago have economic blog where they debate each other on economic matters using this format.
Reply. There is initiative in Europe called “deliberative democracy”–citizens have access to information and experts. It works well, although it takes a lot of effort and expense.
Comment from audience. People are generally getting very negative on blogs right now in U.S., maybe because of the political season.
Reply. She says this is part of the reason she looked at 2006-2012–she wanted to integrate over time. She wanted to control for short-term fluctuations, including seasonal and political, as a kind of “control.”
Comment from audience. There is a major misunderstanding of [your position on] blogs — you (she) is not taking a side, but rather just describing what is going on.
Reply. She agrees–she does not take sides. She is descriptive, not prescriptive. She feels very misunderstood in that regard.
Comment from audience. A book that comes to mind is Republic of Science, by Ian C. Jarvie. He edited some journal the philosophy of social science. He defends an Anglo-American norm, very much non consciously adopted by most scientists. Ravetz came out that it is the urgency of the matter that drives standards.
Reply. She replies that post-normal science does NOT promote lower standards…one of the main problems is that whether climate change is taking place, and whether anthropogenic. The other side is concerned with what to do about it after having adopted what they perceive as a scientific consensus, so the discussion between the two opposing groups is not about the same thing anymore, which makes it frustrating for both sides.
______________________________________________________________________
The representative of the host organization, CSTPR, stated that both audio and visual of this seminar will be posted on sciencepolicyColorado.edu in the next couple of weeks.
===========================================================
Comment by Anthony:
For the record, Ms. Hollender never contacted me nor asked any questions online that I am aware of. She states that she sampled seven WUWT blog posts to come to her conclusions. As of this writing, there are 7,764 published stories, which would make her sample size 7/7764 = ~ 0.0009 or .09%. I think that if I were to do a study with a sample size that small, I’d probably be laughed at.
Since she chose what posts to sample, I have no idea what if any personal bias she might have intentionally or inadvertently introduced by her choices. I do know this though, her statement of:
Interactivity of the WUWT blog is high. No post has less than 50 comments, and the seven posts analyzed here received up to 400 comments.
The “no post has less than 50 comments” is demonstrably false. There are many many posts at WUWT which have less then 50 comments, especially in the early days of 2006 and 2007. However, even recent posts such as:
Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup for 9/9/2012
…has only 7 comments, so this suggests to me that she wasn’t very careful with her sampling methods, and perhaps used personally formed opinions rather than hard data to come to that conclusion.
Also as of this writing there are 895,357 approved comments and the traffic count is at 125,607,045 views.
I don’t claim WUWT to be the perfect venue, and clearly there are many things that could be done better here, but I think the numbers speak for themselves. If there’s any other climate blog that can garner that kind of reach, please let me know. I encourage her to do an identical study on RealClimate, and note what she finds there, especially when it comes to gatekeeping.
UPDATE: Just a few minutes after posting, Fran Hollender responded in comments. Here’s that comment along with my reply:
Fran Submitted on 2012/09/11 at 9:39 pm
I wish you had consulted me on your added comments, too. In my talk I specifically said that in my sample (!), no post had less than 50 comments.
REPLY: It certainly doesn’t read that way, and you vetted the document by W. Jackson Davis before posting was done here. Not knowing which posts you sampled, I can’t confirm anything of what you talked about.
And further, how could I contact you? You’ve never revealed yourself to me or to WUWT that I am aware of….until now. But a search shows you commented under a fake name here on 02/07/2012 as “thedetroiter”.
Here’s the two comments:
===============================
thedetroiter 2012/02/07 at 4:27 am
Oh, as an addition: even here in Germany we know not to trust anything the BILD writes. Most of you won’t understand the BILDblog, but its mission is to debunk their bullshit.
Before using a BILD article as a basis for an argument, thing again. Next time maybe just enjoy the naked ladies and move on.
================================
thedetroiter Submitted on 2012/02/07 at 3:25 am
Right. Green activist, you say? Vahrenholt was a lobbyist for Shell and responsible for “improving their public image”. He now works for one of the biggest energy companies in Germany.
================================
These suggest you have biases too.
– Anthony
UPDATE2: Fran has responded to criticisms in a lengthy comment here
Normal science (as promulgated by Thomas Kuhn) is seen as the goal by bloggers above all else. However, their request is to provide people broadly with the means and education to evaluate and disseminate the scientific data they provide, which does not fit with the principles of normal science in which the production and review of results of inquiry stay inside the scientific community and even within a certain paradigmatic community
What a load of crap. Someone needs some real life experience.
Such a small sample size is not going to give meaningful results so I won’t address her findings.
But I will consider her alleged weaknesses of WUWT as they may be right anyway.
1 Dissenting voices are subdued and harrassed out.
The main response has been “not compared with other blogs” and that is true. But is that enough? Any post that does support the cliamte establishment is countered by many of the regular commenters here. Responding on multiple fronts is difficult and so the easiet response is to run away. Therefore there is a danger of becoming an echo chamber (except on solar discussions).
2 Comment threads go off topic.
True. But it seems to methat they stay on course more now that the Tips and Notes page has been introduced. Perhaps, with a larger sample size, she could have given evidence to back my impression.
3 The comments are personally abusive.
Again true. But have you seen the rest of the internet? Try the Youtube comments. Of course, the quotes she gave about peanut brains do WUWT no credit. But those sort of comments are not the majority. Further work that could be useful would be to analyse the frequency of abusive comments down the thread and see if the peak at the start, the middle or the end (if at all). Also, in my opinion, the political posts are foar more vicious in the comments threads than the science threads. Again it would be nice to know if that’s true.
Sadly, the study which could have been useful, is not that detailed.
But it is worthy of note that WUWT is considered worthy of analysis at all. WUWT must be effective.
lengthy, but u have to read it to (not) believe it:
11 Sept:Bloomberg: Katherine Bagley: Climate Scientists Face Organized Harassment in U.S.
InsideClimateNews.org — The harassment faced by U.S.-based climate scientists has been well documented in the media—but not the harassment of scientists in Europe, Canada or the rest of the world.
That’s because there hasn’t been much to report…
InsideClimate News contacted scientists working on climate change in Europe, Canada and Japan and learned that virtually everyone believes that the harassment is specific to the United States. They said that it could have long-term consequences for public understanding of global warming.
“The harassment has an intimidating effect—especially on young scientists,” said Stefan Rahmstorf, head of earth system analysis at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany. Rahmstorf said that watching colleagues be harassed often deters them from speaking to media or the public about their research, which skews the debate…
Why Harassment Here and Not There?…
There are two main types of harassment in the United States—by individual skeptics, or by campaigns led by conservative groups, often bankrolled by fossil fuel industries, that seek to sow confusion on the climate issue and undermine support for carbon regulations…
The European Union, home to the world’s largest carbon market…ETC ETC ETC
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-09-10/climate-scientists-face-organized-harassment-in-u-s-.html
Once and for all, I reject “post-normal science” as an unwarranted intrusion by incompetent sociologists into physical science, and I reject appeals to “authorities” or “definers” such as Thomas Kuhn and Karl Popper — those writers had nothing to do with my science education and lifetime of learning, and I owe nothing to them, nothing at all. I tried reading them at one time or another, long after my initial science education (high school and undergraduate), but I concluded they are full of it (sorry, but they are; in my professional scientific view, not only are there no heroes in climate science — with the very limited exception of myself and perhaps a few other “climate deniers”, in a small way — but there are none in the philosophy of science either, they are all dogmatic cranks, deluded by their choices of supposedly fundamental categories). I don’t like Kant either, or Aristotle, or…you get my point.
And the whole basis for the seminar and this discussion is false. There is no competent climate science, and there is no greenhouse effect to destabilize the planet.
Jim south london says:
September 12, 2012 at 3:05 am
“Sir Tim Burners Lee didnt want his invention being exploited and corrupted by some Media Megalmanic Mogul.So he put a Free Patent on Data Packet Switching.He should be the man with the Nobel Peace Prize”
Data Packet Switching is way older. Tim Berners-Lee defined the protocol of the web, http (Hypertext transfer protocol) and made it free of charge.
Franziska Hollender is absolute right: We should name a scientific principle after her:
The Law of Franziska Hollender:
You shall not use more than:
7
samples for a science paper.
See the picture at:
http://i49.tinypic.com/n55xf.jpg
even lengthier, and desperate for action (with taxpayers’ money):
12 Sept: Bloomberg: Alex Morales: Bayer, Nestle Lead Carbon-Cutting Effort as Climate Risk Grows
Bayer AG and Nestle SA are leading efforts to measure and cut emissions as companies increasingly view extreme weather events caused by climate change as a threat to their business, the Carbon Disclosure Project said.
About 37 percent of respondents in a survey of the 500 biggest companies reported an immediate danger to their operations from disruptions ranging from floods that shut factories in Thailand to drought that’s decimated crops in the U.S., the London-based non-profit said today in a report. That’s up from 30 percent last year and 10 percent in 2010…
Watch Live:CDP’s Global Climate Change Forum at 9 a.m. New York time on Sept. 12…
“What’s needed is government action — taxation and regulation of greenhouse gases,” said (Carbon Disclosure Project Executive Chairman Paul)Dickinson. “CO2 is a valueless pollutant, so it’s not really possible to address without government action.” …
Greenhouse pollutants are already traded in the European Union…
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-09-11/bayer-nestle-lead-carbon-cutting-effort-as-climate-risk-grows.html
——————————————————————————–
As a former researcher and statistician, the idea of using a sample size of 7 in a population
of comments this large and varied is a good reason to reject her thesis and deny her even a lowly
Master’s degree. One need not even bother with her tortured logic – the study gets rejected
and needs to be redone. Now here’s a perfect place for some personal ridicule – she has earned
it, after all.
Sorry, it was the wrong picture: This is the right picture.
http://i49.tinypic.com/14llymp.jpg
Any pictures of Fran in Bild?.. Going by her Flickr site she travels a lot – lots of aeroplane flights. (Lots of CO2..) She also drinks carbonated beer. (More CO2…)
Some others have already stated things along these lines, but given the amount and strength of the criticisms of Ms. Hollender’s work . I would like to repeat several of the points that have been made in her defense:
(1) She was quite clear on what she was analyzing, seven individual blog postings and their following comments, not the entirety of the content of this entire website.
(2) She was also quite clear on what tools see used to make that analysis.
(3) This was a paper presented at a conference, not a published and finished paper, having undergone peer review in an established journal.
(4) She presented her paper at a conference that had another speaker who many might feel was disreputable, but using that as a standard discredit her seems to be going a little bit far. I think all of us occasionally have had strange bedfellows in our politically active spheres at times.
On the other hand, her presentation of her work had some notable weaknesses which have been well pointed out here and to which I would like to add the following:
(1) She seems to conflate the substance of the major blog articles themselves with the commenting sections that appear after those articles. It would have been instructive and helpful if she had analyzed both separately in at least a brief section of her research.
(2) She should have made at least a preliminary and superficial examination of one or two blogs on the other side of the issue and commented on how there content seems to compare to her more thorough examination of this blog.
(3) If she did not do so, then she should have included in her references the specifics of what seven blog items she had chosen for her analysis and outlined the standards that governed that choice.
Finally, I would like to comment on kadaka’s note on German toilet paper: at last we know the true story behind the mysterious disappearance of Mr. Whipple from the American airwaves! We demand his return and the entire German supply of WMD (Wipers of ‘Merican Derriers) at once or consequences will be consequent!
– MJM
‘‘The contrarian discourse in the blogosphere–what are blogs good for anyway?”
A truly strong belief system would not need to cower from freedom of speech.
Ms. Hollender, can you elaborate on why you chose to focus on the “extended peer community” portion of Post Normal Science, and chose to ignore the insertion of value judgments which is the key portion that most commenters at WUWT find objectionable?
I would have been less harsh with my comments had that woman not had the gall (assuming she is “thedetroiter”) to one day “make important decisions”, i.e. rule over me, in the UN – i.e. the stated goal of becoming an unelected bureaucrat in an undemocratic organisation; all the while having no grasp of the scientific basis of whatever it would be she would make decisions about.
She sees no problem with that.
She is actually in good company. Connie Heedegard, climate comissioner of the EU commission, is a journalist by trade. We can safely assume that she has no grasp of climate science either.
It is not necessary for the modern unelected ruler to understand anything, it seems.
That’s where we are. In the form of Franziska Hollender, we are producing the next generation of rulers with no understanding of anything.
I think we already know what they want to “do with” contrarians:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/30/o-m-g-video-explodes-skeptical-kids-in-bloodbath/
“The media serve to inform, entertain, educate …” With an intro this naive, I saved myself a few minutes and skipped the article.
She claims she is unbiased but uses the term ‘contrarians’? Eh?
Interesting critique of this being a “great way to advance onself” in this comfortable “academic realm”. Back in the 1990’s I had a room mate who’s 42 year old sister had been accepted in a Phd program in early childhood development.
She needed to do a rather (in my mind) trivial statistical analysis on some data supplied by her advisor. She was a big MAC attack person. I helped locate a Pentium II, used for $350. Got her set up, Modem internet through AOL.
Downloaded the stat program.
Showed her how to use it. 3 or 4 nights over two weeks.
She did the (as I say, rather trivial) analysis, wrote a paper full of words…submitted it. Went to “conference” presented it, integrated it into the larger dissertation..and wallah, in less than 1 year finished up her Phd. Within 18 months she was TEACHING at a prestigious East Coast Women’s college.
Sorry to be so in the “ad hominim” attack mode, but I’m a STUPID ENGINEER who could waltz circles around this person. I’ll NEVER have the security and comfort she now has.
I see the similar result for this woman who did this study. BRAVO, on a “evolutionary basis” she deserves to survive…After all she understands “the SYSTEM” much better than I.
I pray that we will still have elecrtric lights, functional automobiles, and sewer system when this sort of “superior” member of the TRIBE takes over!
I believe WUWT is a middle ground meaning that any Tom, Dick or Harry can turn up read the posts ask questions and get answers, the gate keeping (stupid derogatory language for a thesis) comes from what are classed as trolls due to the use of non-truths to divert or subvert the general direction of discuss on a blog post.
The main problem I see with this study is the generalisation used, where all 7 posts say about sea ice or was 1 about CO2 and another about say burning man? as the responses to each would differ but Ms Hollande assumes that all comments can be compared and pigeon hold as such.
I apologies should read Ms. Hollender.
I find the label, post-normal science, to be somewhat apt in an ironic way.
Whenever there is a discussion of climate science and the ways of science, I am always struck that there is no mention of the public impact. Climate scientists aren’t merely scientists of the conventional form. Most of the more notable have projected themselves into politics, trying to affect public policy, not to mention greasing the skids for more grant money for themselves.
Climate science does not come cheap. For a bunch of folks who torture numbers at least as well as the Tobacco Institute, they seem to command billions of dollars. $80 billion a year is now spent by the US federal government on “climate” related programs. NASA spends less than $19 billion on it’s entire budget, so some public accountability for the climate related expenditures should be more than expected.
Editorial boards are a form of gate-keeping. There are gates everywhere, even where none should exist. But seriously, who made that Zoloft comment and told her to sit by the window and enjoy the sun? That made my day!
“Normal science (as promulgated by Thomas Kuhn) is seen as the goal by bloggers above all else. However, their request is to provide people broadly with the means and education to evaluate and disseminate the scientific data they provide, which does not fit with the principles of normal science in which the production and review of results of inquiry stay inside the scientific community and even within a certain paradigmatic community.”
Leaving aside the question of the validity of this interpretation of Kuhn (and I am dubious), I do think it is safe to say such a view is exactly what places like WUWT do NOT want science to become. It would be far better to adhere to Karl Popper’s view of science and its public component:
“Two aspects of the method of the natural sciences are of importance… Together they constitute what I may term the ‘public character of scientific method’. First, there is something approaching free criticism. A scientist may offer his theory with the full conviction that it is unassailable. But this does not necessarily impress his fellow-scientists; rather it challenges them. For they know that the scientific attitude means criticizing everything, and they are little deterred even by authorities. Secondly, scientists try to avoid talking at cross-purposes. (I may remind the reader that I am speaking of the natural sciences, but a part of modern economics may be included.) They try very seriously to speak one and the same language, even if they use different mother tongues. In the natural sciences this is achieved by recognizing experience as the impartial arbiter of their controversies. When speaking of ‘experience’ I have in mind experience of a ‘public’ character, like observations, and experiments, as opposed to experience in the sense of more ‘private’ aesthetic or religious experience; and an experience is ‘public’ if everybody who takes the trouble can repeat it. In order to avoid speaking at cross-purposes, scientists try to express their theories in such a form that they can be tested, i.e. refuted (or otherwise confirmed) by such experience.
“This is what constitutes scientific objectivity. Everyone who has learned the technique of understanding and testing scientific theories can repeat the experiment and judge for himself. In spite of this, there will always be some who come to judgements which are partial, or even cranky. This cannot be helped, and it does not seriously disturb the working of the various social institutions which have been designed to further scientific objectivity and impartiality; for instance the laboratories, the scientific periodicals, the congresses. This aspect of scientific method shows what can be achieved by institutions designed to make public control possible, and by the open expression of public opinion, even if this is limited to a circle of specialists. Only political power when it is used to suppress free criticism, or when it fails to protect it, can impair the functioning of these institutions, on which all progress, scientific, technological, and political, ultimately depends.”
-Karl Popper “The Open Society and its Enemies: Vol II Hegel and Marx” (pp.217-218)
Places like WUWT are valuable precisely because they defend “free criticism” from those who would eliminate it on the grounds of “consensus.”
I really have no idea what that is so difficult for some people to understand.
Scottish Sceptic:
At September 12, 2012 at 5:09 am you object to my joke at September 12, 2012 at 4:46 am by saying
I respectfully disagree.
At September 12, 2012 at 2:42 am I addressed a post to her that listed posts in this thread which I consider would be helpful to her together with explanation of how each of those posts would help her (incidentally, the first in that list was a post from you).
Subsequently, I posted my joke to which you have objected. I honestly think that joke is also part of helping her to learn because I agree with Kent Beuchert who says at September 12, 2012 at 6:17 am
Richard
So, the author/researcher believes that science should be limited to certain people and certain situations, such as uniquely limited to “peer-reviewed journals?” Favoring anything else is to be un-scientific?
This is the same elitist totalitarian propaganda where we rabble obviously must be doing things wrongly since we have opinions that differ from what has come down from on high. How very scientific.
that is ridiculous. That is why people are making fun of this woman. She is bash tardizing science in order to follow the Alinsky strategy of identifying opponents sharply, cutting them off from normal society and discourse, and so eventually neutralizing them. I give credit to Alinsky, but to jot this note I am reminded that this is pretty much what the bolsheviks did with the menscheviks.