Guest essay by Dr. David Deming
We live in a scientific age. The sciences are viewed as the only real sources of authoritative information. Knowledge derived from other epistemological systems is regarded as having less credibility. The conclusions of philosophy are untestable, and religion is often cynically interpreted as nothing more than superstition and myth. Public policy decisions made upon the basis of scientific recommendations may have economic consequences measured in trillions of dollars. Yet few people realize how unreliable scientific authority can be.
The popular conception is that scientists dispassionately discover truth through a foolproof technique called the scientific method. In some simplistic views, the scientific method reduces to a series of procedural steps analogous to instructions in a cookbook. The results produced by this hypothetical scientific method are verified by something called peer review, a process that allegedly certifies reliability.
But the common understanding of science is largely an ignorant misconception.
Although most science is based on observation and reason, there is no such thing as an agreed upon scientific method. It doesn’t exist. With the exception of supernaturalism, almost everything is allowed in the sciences. Both inductive and deductive logic are employed. Analogical reasoning is alright. So are speculation and hunches. Serendipity plays a role in scientific discovery. Both radioactivity and penicillin were discovered accidentally. Objectivity is not required or taught, nor are there any totally objective human beings. Bias is ubiquitous and fraud occurs.
Peer review is a highly unreliable process that produces nothing but opinion. A study conducted in 2010 concluded that reviewers agree “at a rate barely exceeding what would be expected by chance.” Furthermore, the peer review process may be, and usually is, cynically manipulated. Scientists aggregate in social cliques that facilitate orthodoxy and suppress dissent. When manuscripts are submitted for review authors are commonly asked to suggest reviewers. Invariably these tend to be acquaintances holding the same views. Thus peer review often amounts to pal review. Neither does peer review detect fraud. In 2011, Tilburg University in the Netherlands suspended psychologist Diederik Stapel for publishing at least 55 scientific research papers based on fabricated data.
US Secretary of State John Kerry has said that climate science is “irrefutable.” He is categorically wrong. There is no certainty in science. The very notion of scientific consensus implies that the validity of scientific knowledge is subject to human judgment and therefore inherently problematic. No one speaks of consensus when discussing geometrical proofs. Scientists are not philosophers trained to avoid intellectual fallacies, but technical specialists possessing ideological and political persuasions that influence their scientific activity. Like other human beings, they tend to take note of what is consistent with preexisting beliefs and filter out what contradicts preconceptions. The influence of money can be corrupting. A group of people offered billions of dollars to investigate climate change is unlikely to conclude that it is a benign, natural process unworthy of further attention.
The history of science is a chronicle of revision. For two thousand years, physicists maintained that heavy objects fall faster than light ones. Astronomers thought the Sun moved around the Earth. Physicians supposed that plagues were caused by bad air and treated their patients by bleeding them to death. The icons of the Scientific Revolution, Galileo, Kepler, and Newton, all made serious errors. In the late eighteenth century, Neptunists formulated a theory to explain the origin of rocks. They described their conclusions as incontrovertible because everywhere they looked they found evidence that supported their theoretical conceptions. The Neptunist theory turned out to be completely erroneous. At the end of the nineteenth century, geologists thought the Earth was less than 100 million years old. Radioactive dating in the twentieth century showed they were in error by a factor of 46. In the 1920s, American geologists rejected Alfred Wegener’s theory of continental drift with near unanimity. They were all wrong. The history of science is a history of error. Has the process of history ceased? Has human nature changed?
We are now asked to change the world’s economy on the basis of yet another scientific theory. The fifth assessment report of the IPCC has concluded that there is a 95 percent probability that humans are responsible for climate change. We are induced to accept this conclusion on the basis of naive faith in scientific authority. But this faith can only come from an ignorance of how science really works. Count me out.
###
David Deming (ddeming@ou.edu) is a geophysicist and author of a three-volume history of science, Science and Technology in World History (McFarland, 2010, 2012).
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
geran says:
October 1, 2013 at 7:56 pm
“Too bad that a fool like geran pollutes the thread with his uncalled for snide ignorant nonsense.”
WOW!
Good to see that you wholeheartedly agree. Now, go away.
Like “data”, the word “agenda” is a Latin plural noun. How many of you say in English, “The meeting agenda are…:?
Curt says:
October 1, 2013 at 8:00 pm
Like “data”, the word “agenda” is a Latin plural noun. How many of you say in English, “The meeting agenda are…:?
Or media or criteria or visa or …
lsvalgaard says:
October 1, 2013 at 7:51 pm
True: As I edited my original error to – hopefully – better show its true use as a single organized group of “collective” (plural) pieces of formal information.
Thus, a “herd” is a single group of organized, individual but similar and related animals of one species. True?
Thus, I can write about a conclusion based on a plot of my “data” but I’ve measured every different point from a recognized “datum” . My “opinion” however, is based on information (an implied unorganized group of informal separate pieces of knowledge – good or bad is implied by my deliberate decision NOT to use “data”) and observations (several different non-calibrated pieces of information).
lsvalgaard says:
October 1, 2013 at 7:59 pm
….
Good to see that you wholeheartedly agree. Now, go away.
>>>>>
Perfect fit for the title of Deming’s post “Why Climate Science is Fallible”.
RACookPE1978 says:
October 1, 2013 at 8:06 pm
True: As I edited my original error to – hopefully – better show its true use as a single organized group of “collective” (plural) pieces of formal information.
Had I said ‘the data stream from the satellite has stopped’ perhaps geran wouldn’t have made such a fool of himself and you would not have needed to be pedantic, but omitting ‘stream’ is economic brevity and does not interfere with communicating that we are not anymore getting data [still a singular mass noun, like ‘water’ or ‘beer’] from the satellite.
geran says:
October 1, 2013 at 8:11 pm
Perfect fit for the title of Deming’s post “Why Climate Science is Fallible”.
So I am perfectly on topic, in contrast to your ignorant comment. Now, go away. You bring nothing to the table.
“‘Science’ is thinking God’s thoughts after Him.”
I used to think Newton said that. I found out later I was wrong.
Still a good quote.
Scientific theories get their validity from results not from credentials. Obviously scientists themselves are fallible, but if they follow the scientific method the results should represent not just whether they are right, but a probability they are right. The climate science community and the other non scientist parties seem to think credentials are evidence. I suppose you can preach the scientific method until you’re blue in the face but some people just wont follow it. I thought that’s what peer review was supposed to do.
I just think the public needs to hear more people who are scientists call bull on the whole thing (I know many do but not enough), and if they did the house of cards would tumble. People look at scientists like high priests. In a world of the illiterate scientists are the ones who can read and bring us the truth. I think the attitude is wrong, but that is the attitude. If somebody like the APS called them on their bull then it would crumble. I’m sure most know its bull. Maybe they don’t want to make waves, maybe they just agree with the “cause”, or maybe it’s just professional courtesy to stay quiet. As long as the media feels they have the science behind them they will not change their tune. Theyre afraid someone with a PHD will try to make them look stupid (and they do) if they dare question the “consensus.” It doesnt matter how wrong they are and how obvious it is because most people just wont look into the science they’ll look at the scientist to see if its true.
Watching these papers get published that shouldn’t pass an 8th grade science class and seeing almost every scientist that knows its garbage just sit by complicit as they pervert science is just so disappointing.
shenanigans24 says:
October 1, 2013 at 8:22 pm
As long as the media feels they have the science behind them
A wonderful example of the flexibility and beauty of English.
lsvalgaard says:
October 1, 2013 at 8:15 pm
geran says:
October 1, 2013 at 8:11 pm
Perfect fit for the title of Deming’s post “Why Climate Science is Fallible”.
So I am perfectly on topic, in contrast to your ignorant comment. Now, go away. You bring nothing to the table.
>>>>>>>>>
Oh, I brought it to the table, but there is that huge river in Egypt….
(But, I have to end for tonight, REAL work to be done tomorrow.)
Lucidity, as opposed to this irksome blather by Mike Mann:
http://www.livescience.com/39957-climate-change-deniers-must-stop-distorting-the-evidence.html
======================================================================
Thank you for saying that. There are many who are not complicit. Since AR5 came out there have been a number of post here and on other sites peeling back the layers and exposing the empty core.
I wanted to thank them all for their individual integrity and honesty in the “peeling” process but didn’t see an opportunity without going off topic.
Thanks again.
(From what you’ve said that I’ve seen, I think you agree.)
geran says:
October 1, 2013 at 8:34 pm
(But, I have to end for tonight, REAL work to be done tomorrow.)
So you admit your frivolous comment was not REAL work. Hopefully, you will have learned your lesson by tomorrow having had some time to reflect on the matter…
“At the end of the nineteenth century, geologists thought the Earth was less than 100 million years old.”
Actually this is not really correct.
It was the generally the geologists who thought it was much older, based on established principles within the field of stratigraphy (e.g. a rock which intrudes another rock cannot be older than the rock in which it intrudes). And it was largely physicists, including Lord Kelvin, who thought it was younger-in his case between 20-400 million years old based on calculations of heat loss, without knowing about radioactivity, (or about stratigraphy). (Note the wiki reference you give also supports the above).
S.J. Gould in one of his books (I forget which) explores the difference of opinion between Lord Kelvin and the geologists-it was the geologists who turned out to be right. This distinction is important, because it was another example of models versus empirical data, the empirical data from the field indicated that the world was much older, the mathematical models developed by physicists suggested it was younger, and note that they took no account of empirical field data which strongly suggested (I would say proved already) that they were wrong.
This tension between physicists who largely use mathematical models, and geologists who largely rely on field data, has arisen several times, including:
-with the bolide impact theory of the end of the Cretaceous, when a physicist (Alvarez) wanted to attribute the mass extinction as being solely caused by impact, when geologists largely contended, and still do, that is was a combination of events occurring over time which was responsible (including increased volcanism), not just impact alone.
-plate tectonics was often also rejected by physicists, amongst others, who were ignoring field data, Albert Einstein was one who rejected that continents moved around, because like others he couldn’t come up with a mechanism to explain how continents could move without producing large ‘furrows’, for example. But again it was largely the field geologists, using empirical data, who were adamant that the continents must have moved. Petroleum geologists, for example, has to allow for continental drift when exploring for oil, before plate tectonics was even formulated. Ultimately is was empirical data, when it came in in the 1960s, particularly from mapping the sea floor and the discovery of mid ocean ridge systems and subduction zones, which won the day, and which formed the foundation for plate tectonics.
-the AGW debate is largely between people who rely on models and mathematics, rather than on field based observations. Again I would argue that empiricism will eventually decide this debate, hard won field data, not models.
Another point, it was the experimental method, where results could be reproduced and reproduced, which was historically the strength of science, that is empiricism, which is its most important and successful attribute. Any ‘field’ within science which doesn’t have a lot of verifiable and reproducible empirical data, or relies heavily on models, is prone to being captured by bias and politics.
Serious, serious error and confusion. Peer review is merely an editorial step, prior to journal publication, not a validation step. The REPLICATION and other studies with implications for the conclusions are what constitute the real post-work review and testing.
Oh, really? Check out http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/11/lies-damned-lies-and-medical-science/8269/
A physicist commenting on it said the situation was even worse in physics. When big money is involved, human ingenuity turns to acquiring it.
It’s an ingrained convention in certain academic fields to use “data” as a plural. (But AFAIK it’s not universal in academia. I doubt that academic journals in the humanities, including English literature, enforce that style.) But the existence of this convention doesn’t mean that it’s more correct and/or that its adoption should be more widespread. I think it’s less correct and that its use should be rolled back Here are a few posts from past threads on WUWT on this matter:
—————–
[Roger Knights] That’s not so. Fowler, in Modern English Usage, states, “Latin plurals sometimes become singular English words (e.g., agenda, stamina) …” As long as it’s OK to employ those words as singulars, it’s OK to do the same for “data.”
Not only is it acceptable to use “data” as a collective singular, using data as a plural word is incorrect because it throws the speaker (including those who use “data are”) into inconsistency with his habitual method of speaking, as Phillip W. pointed out. He wrote: “‘Data’ is naturally and consistently used as a mass noun in conversation: the question is asked how much data an instrument produces, not how many; it is asked how data is archived, not how they are archived; there is talk of less data rather than fewer; and talk of data having units, saying they have a megabyte of data, …” For another example of this usage, look at the post just above this one, where the phrase “the raw data is gone” is used.
Because of this inconsistency with long-established and near-universal usage, and because, as Fowler shows, there is no real rule forbidding “data is,” “data are” will never be accepted–it will always sound odd or even affected.
It’s counterproductive to make an issue about it, because the people criticized will not change their habit, but be determined to pay no attention to any similar criticism in the future. This backlash is what happened 100 years ago after schoolmarm grammarians made a fetish of not splitting an infinitive, distinguishing between shall and will, etc. They lost the war, by going a bridge too far.
————-
PeterW (19:49:26) :
The word `data’, in English, is a singular mass noun. It is thus a deliberate archaism and a grammatical and stylistic error to use it as a plural.
The Latin word data is the neuter plural past participle of the first conjugation verb dare, `to give’.
The Latin word ‘data’ appears to have made its way into English in the mid 17th century making its first appearance in the 1646 sentence `From all this heap of data it would not follow that it was necessary.’
Note that this very first appearance of the word in English refers to a quantity of data, a `heap’, rather than a number.
The English word `data’ is therefore a noun referring variously to measurements, observations, images, and the other raw materials of scientific enquiry.
`Data’ now refers to a mass of raw information, which is measured rather than counted, and this is as true now as it was when the word made its 1646 debut.
‘Data’ is naturally and consistently used as a mass noun in conversation: the question is asked how much data an instrument produces, not how many; it is asked how data is archived, not how they are archived; there is talk of less data rather than fewer; and talk of data having units, saying they have a megabyte of data, or 10 CDs, or three nights, and never saying `I have 1000 data’ and expecting to be understood.
………………….
. . . they will respond that `data is a Latin plural’. Agree to this, for the sake of professional harmony, and carry on the conversation, making sure to mention that `the telescope has data many odd images tonight’ (it’s a past participle after all), suggest looking at the data raw images (…or an adjective) and that you both examine the datorum variance (surely they recall the genitive plural); suggest they give you the datis (…the dative), so that you can redo the analysis with their datis (…and the ablative). If they object ask them to explain their sentimental attachment to the nominative plural, that they would use that in all cases, in brute defiance of good Latin grammar.
A book that’s relevant to the discussion here is Scientific Literacy and the Myth of the Scientific Method (1992) by Henry Bauer. The three first reader reviews give a good idea of the author’s points and the organization of the book.
David,
Frequently I have asserted that there is better science done in some disciplines than others, with climate among the worst.
As a geophysicist, you might be familiar with methods for measuring the Earth’s magnetic field at the surface then modelling the depth, volume and orientation of discrete magnetic bodies from surface grid results. We did a lot of pioneering work in this, for the Tennant Creek field in Australia’s Northern Territory. Richardson, father & son, plus others bashing away at mechanical calculators in the early days….
These people developed a model to interpret what was below the surface. The models worked, as shown by accuracy in predicting the depth to the top of numerous discrete magnetic bodies; then other metrics as the remnant magnetism was separated from induced and remodelled.
From geophysical examples such as this, one could place some faith in the modelling used. However, the modelling used in climate work has not been demonstrated to be successful. It is still work in progress and I venture to suggest that it is not a suitable basis for making investment decisions for the world.
There is another factor that differs in this comparison. Those who used models for magnetism were held accountable for the performance of the method. If mistake after mistake had been made, they could not have generated profits to allow us to continue.
Climate work lacks that factor of accountability. It is not nearly so honest.
rogerknights says:
October 1, 2013 at 9:31 pm
I think the genitive plural would be datarum. Other than that, fine declensions…
Nice summary. IPCC ‘science’ is not science. It is quasi-political dogma based on pre-assumed conclusions, backed up by billions of tax dollars, to make semi-professional natural scientist prove a hypothesis that was wrong in the first place. The IPCC is not the ‘Intergovernmental panel on climate change’, but the International Pushers of Climate Cheating.
Brian H says:
October 1, 2013 at 9:25 pm
That isn’t what I was implying at all – I said ”The post-work REVIEW (peer review) serves to demonstrate to others the effectiveness of both the work AND the communication/description of the work so that it can be then accepted as ‘valid’ – Note that ‘valid’ does not mean it is necessarily ‘correct’ !”
perhaps, I should have written ‘valid for publication’ instead of the first ‘valid’ – but I had already used ‘communication’!
I also mentioned REPEATABLE – as normally work should be demonstrably repeatable before review/publication. (Scientists do not normally publish just on Eureka moments but check it all out first!)
Peer review is intended to discover any obvious flaws in the work by folk with appropriate expertise (peers) before it is communicated to the wider world. But I agree, peer review is not validation (of correctness) – as I clearly stated!
Consensus exists when everyone agrees; there is no majority or democracy implied.
I’m among those who agree that greenhouse gases contribute to forcing and therefore that human activity has an impact on possible climat changes. So, I belong to the acclaimed 97% having now a >95% certainty of this phenomenon. This is not consensual, it’s majority opinion.
But this is not the important issue and two primordial questions remain unanswered:
1.- by how much is human activity impacting on climate change:in my educated opinion quite limited.
2.- has this impact bad or good consequences: it’s hard to tell, but surely not only good or only bad ones, in any case far away in the future to have time for reasonable adaptation.
“Folks who think that poppers prescriptions have any merit need to be reminded that science has advanced in many cases by ignoring his prescriptions. And Feynman was no better. ”
I sense you’re being glib, Mr. Mosher, but that’s a wretched bit of reasoning. So what if the cash value of Popperian method is less than the cash value of science? That’s hardly proof that Popper’s ideas have no value.
An analogy. Many investors have had success while ignoring the advice of Peter Lynch. That’s hardly proof that Lynch’s advice has no value. To demonstrate that proposition, you’d have to show that people who follow Lynch’s advice don’t significantly outperform the market.
You could also try logic. (That’s some pragmatic advice for you.)