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.
(quoting) “Learning the history of science in a program where serious philosophy of science is taught is something really worth doing.”
My logical conclusion is that a large percentage of the above posted commentary has been ….. a serious discussion on the philosophy of science …. rather than a discussion on the subject context of the article.
Which “shows to go ya” how easy it is to get “sidetracked” and headed down a wrong path when engaged in science research and discovery.
mib8 says:
October 2, 2013 at 11:10 am
“Volker Doormann, If “the basis of logic does not have a foundation”, then you’re misapplying Goedel, and denying that any genuine axiom — some foundation, or base, or a priori irrefutable point — exists. Existence is the axiom. If you don’t exist, if the subject-matter does not exist, then there can be no logic, no valid line of reasoning. You could make no argument.“
‘An axiom system is a system of basic statements, axioms accepted without proof’ or ‘As classically conceived, an axiom is a premise so evident as to be accepted as true without controversy’. It is equal to a religious system of basic statements, religions accepted without proof. If you claim that existence is the axiom, and you would be taken serious, than you have to give a reason for an existence or alternatively a proof for it. You cannot say ‘God has no existence, because there is no proof of an existence God’, and at the same time: ‘Logic has an existence, because there is no proof of an existence of logic. The claim, that an axiom is a premise so evident as to be accepted as true without controversy’ is a fallacy called Argumentum ad numerum ‘This fallacy consists of asserting that the more people who support or believe a proposition, the more likely it is that that proposition is correct. For example: “All I’m saying is that thousands of people believe in pyramid power, so there must be something to it.”
The acceptance of logic is an agreement of trust. But in the religions there are also agreements in the trust of the existence of God. The very point is, that I can make use of logic by speaking arguments, because I do trust its structure, although philosophy cannot show the existence of logic. The problem with philosophies is, that there is no idea what existence is. It seems that it is external from the mind or external from the own consciousness, like a tree or a car. But that is wrong, because logic has no location and no time.
V.
Willis,
I like your scientific method. Unfortunately there is the human ego, money, politics, power and religion, which have at times, and continue to interfere with the process. This is why some “cookbook”, as others have called the traditional scientific process was conjured up and, of course, it is not followed either for the same reasons.
lsvalgaard says:
Do not want to enter the English/Latin useage debate but would be interested in any thoughts you might have about the “Weakest Solar Cycle in a Century” article in the November issue of Sky and Telescope Magazine, if you have seen it. It notes the “assymetric” nature of the present cycle and predicting cycle 25 to be weaker than 24.
Jim G says:
October 3, 2013 at 7:10 am
any thoughts you might have about the “Weakest Solar Cycle in a Century” article in the November issue of Sky and Telescope Magazine, if you have seen it. It notes the “asymmetric” nature of the present cycle and predicting cycle 25 to be weaker than 24.
I haven’t seen it (yet), but shall and will let you know.
lsvalgaard says:
October 3, 2013 at 8:07 am
Several months ago, you indicated here at WUWT that the older “classic” value of 1370/1366 for the average solar constant is actually now 1362 watts/meter. A small difference, true, but I’m wondering if that 1362 is still valid, or might it go lower if overall solar activity (not just sunspots) in cycle 24 continues to decline?
RACookPE1978 says:
October 3, 2013 at 8:23 am
Several months ago, you indicated here at WUWT that the older “classic” value of 1370/1366 for the average solar constant is actually now 1362 watts/meter. A small difference, true, but I’m wondering if that 1362 is still valid, or might it go lower if overall solar activity (not just sunspots) in cycle 24 continues to decline?
The difference between the old and the new values of TSI is 4.8 W/m2 and that seems to be firm [and its reason well understood]. In http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-SORCE-Cycle-24.png you can see that the minimum value of 1360.5 was reached with no solar activity present, I don’t expect that value to be undercut at the next solar minimum. Unfortunately the satellite is now broken [battery failure] so we’ll have to wait for the next instrument to be launched [perhaps at the end of the year] and to see how well we can calibrate it with the current one to say something definite.
Interesting plot. Thank you.
That will prove troublesome in => can the new instrument (on the next satellite) be back-calibrated to match up against a “missing group” of data when the actual values of what you are observing continue to change with time? That is, what serves as the proxy or replacement platform between the loss of battery and the next launch?
Oddly, the 10.7 flux has declined from its peak (at 2012.81 , correct ?), as has the SSN and SDIC at the same time. But the TSI flattened out, and until the sensor failed, never did decline. Have you seen this behavior before, and – if so – does the drop in all three indexes tend to confirm that the cycle 24 peak was last year?
RACookPE1978 says:
October 3, 2013 at 9:17 am
That is, what serves as the proxy or replacement platform between the loss of battery and the next launch?
We may be able to use PMOD [from the VIRGO instrument on SOHO] as a bridge, but there is still a little bit of juice left in SORCE. They are saving that for re-starting the measurements when the new instrument is launched in order to compare.
Oddly, the 10.7 flux has declined from its peak (at 2012.81 , correct ?), as has the SSN and SDIC at the same time. But the TSI flattened out, and until the sensor failed, never did decline. Have you seen this behavior before, and – if so – does the drop in all three indexes tend to confirm that the cycle 24 peak was last year?
As you can see here http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-SSN-F107-CMEs.png although the SSN and the F10.7 flux are smaller than for cycle 23, both TSI and the number of CMEs have risen above what one would expect for the lower SSN, possibly [this is speculation] showing the Livingston & Penn effect affecting the SSN already. As to when the ‘peak’ was is hard to say as both TSI and CMEs are still going up.
I liked of the video of Richard Feynman talking about how a new law is found: guess->experiment->compare to reality. And if it doesn’t compare to reality, reject.
One complicating factor with climate change is disagreement on the number of salient variables. Some say there is only one variable, .CO2. Some say the sun is a variable and others deny it and call it a constant. There are also well recognized factors such as the PDO and other ocean factors that appear to influence the weather. IMO, we are nowhere near being able to identify all of the salient variables and there proper weighs,
I once was working on a very complex machine that was not working correctly. When I asked for guidance, the research scientist that invented the process and who lived a few hundred miles away.
told me.”send me all the salient data and I will tell you what is wrong with it.” I told him “If i could identify all the salient data, I would have fixed it myself!”
lsvalgaard says:
October 1, 2013 at 8:02 pm
IMO the Greek singular word “criterion” is still considered proper usage to mean one standard, while the plural “criteria” for more than one, at least in writing if not everyday speech. About use of the Latin words “datum” & “data”, you are IMO correct.
lsvalgaard says:
October 1, 2013 at 8:02 pm
IMO the Greek singular word “criterion” is still considered proper usage to mean one standard, while the plural “criteria” for more than one, at least in writing if not everyday speech. About use of the Latin words “datum” & “data”, you are IMO correct.
hoyawildcat says:
October 1, 2013 at 11:50 am
Dr. Deming & you are both right. Late 19th century geologists were grudgingly forced publicly to accept physicists’ estimates of the age of the earth at tens of to at most 100 million years, but still harbored private doubts. Perhaps encouraged by Lord Kelvin’s calculations (published the next year), Darwin took out of the third edition of Origin (1861) & subsequent printings his assessment that the Weald took 300 million years to form. His own son became a physicist & published an age of the earth estimate in line with Kelvin’s.
It’s now known that Kelvin’s estimate for the age of the earth was way too short (thanks to radioactive decay, as so artfully explained by Rutherford, with an aged Kelvin in his audience) & that Darwin’s for the Weald too long. The naturalist was of course correct that earth had to be at the very least hundreds of millions of years old & more likely billions.
milodonharlani says:
October 3, 2013 at 12:05 pm
IMO the Greek singular word “criterion” is still considered proper usage to mean one standard
This has surprising legs. I do not disagree that criterion is still proper [I prefer it myself], however whenever I use it, people always try to correct me, and then there is http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/criterion : “The form criteria is sometimes used as a nonstandard singular form (as in ‘a criteria’, ‘this criteria’, and so on)”. Google returns 4 million results when searching for “this criteria” [including a few stating that ‘this criteria’ is not correct 🙂 ].
Data are, not is. The plural of argumentum is argumenta, as in “he favors argumenta ad hominem.” “Critierion” is singular, “criteria” is plural — as expressed in the form of metalanguage, a la Popper, referring to the single term, not its meaning, which was Popper’s workaround of The Liar Paradox.)
hoyawildcat says:
October 3, 2013 at 1:46 pm
Data are, not is.
I say data is or are depending on the context. As a mass noun it is ‘is’. Referring to specific data it is ‘are’. That way the language adds further meaning to aid in communication, and ‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.’
I agree that the case of criteria is a lot more clear cut than data. The jury is still out, according to Merriam Webster:
“The plural criteria has been used as a singular for over half a century . Many of our examples, like the two foregoing, are taken from speech. But singular criteria is not uncommon in edited prose, and its use both in speech and writing seems to be increasing. Only time will tell whether it will reach the unquestioned acceptability of agenda.”
I use criterion for the singular & don’t think people find it stilted. I say media are, however, which might be on the way out. I go with the flow on visa & agenda, because treating them as plurals would be outre at this point.
Your command of English is remarkable.
milodonharlani says:
October 3, 2013 at 3:46 pm
I agree that the case of criteria is a lot more clear cut than data. The jury is still out, according to Merriam Webster
I’ll give Humpty Dumpty the last word on that 🙂
Your command of English is remarkable.
I have been speaking English since the 1950s and learned Latin in the 1960s. I can still manage my mother tongue [Danish] although my son claims my speech is way too ‘old fashioned’.
So what’s up with dat all red aurora this week. Could that be a pinch off the old electron belt of the radiation belts? Like a forbush decrease coming thru???
RED AURORAS: On October 2nd, a CME hit Earth’s magnetic field, sparking a G2-class geomagnetic storm. Sky watchers on both ends of the Earth saw auroras; many of the lights were rare shades of red..
..Red auroras occur some 300 to 500 km above Earth’s surface and are not yet fully understood. Some researchers believe the red lights are linked to a large influx of electrons. When low-energy electrons recombine with oxygen ions in the upper atmosphere, red photons are emitted…
http://www.spaceweather.com/
Whats the stats? (slang for status)
Whats the dats? (slang for data)
Whats up with dat? (Scandinavian Yooper speak)
or no
Climate science is missing a lot of dats and stats.
Jim G says:
October 3, 2013 at 7:10 am
any thoughts you might have about the “Weakest Solar Cycle in a Century” article in the November issue of Sky and Telescope Magazine, if you have seen it. It notes the “asymmetric” nature of the present cycle and predicting cycle 25 to be weaker than 24.
I looked at it, and it is old news. My own speculation is here: http://www.leif.org/research/SSN/Svalgaard12.pdf and here: http://www.leif.org/research/Another-Maunder-Minimum.pdf or if you can do ppts: http://www.leif.org/research/Another-Maunder-Minimum.ppt
lsvalgaard says:
October 3, 2013 at 4:07 pm
Old-fashioned is relative. If your Danish were really old-fashioned, you’d be able to speak & understand Icelandic. Even Icelanders can’t really read the Norse sagas without some education, contrary to the PR.
If Guthrum, king of the Danelaw & leader of the successor to the Great Heathen Army, had beaten Alfred the Great, English & Danish would be practically the same language now.
“If Guthrum, king of the Danelaw & leader of the successor to the Great Heathen Army, had beaten Alfred the Great, English & Danish would be practically the same language now.”
And just imagine how good English cheese would be.
milodonharlani says:
October 3, 2013 at 8:21 pm
If Guthrum, king of the Danelaw & leader of the successor to the Great Heathen Army, had beaten Alfred the Great, English & Danish would be practically the same language now.
Especially if William of Normandy hadn’t taken up French 🙂
lsvalgaard says:
Thanks Leif. So, my interpretation of that which you have kindly provided, magnetic activity not necessarily well represented by sun spot count, magnetic activity not down but the manner in which it is “managed” (my word) by the sun is possibly changing (or has changed), and TSI not necessarily driven by or related to magnetic activity? Bottom line even if cycle 25 is weaker than 24, little effect upon climate? Do I have the basics of what you are saying? Also, are you expecting 25 to be weaker than 24 as per the article in S&T?
Thanks again,
Jim
Jim G says:
October 4, 2013 at 9:18 am
Bottom line even if cycle 25 is weaker than 24, little effect upon climate?
In my opinion the effect on any cycle, large or small, on climate would be minimal anyway [of the order of 0.1 C]
Also, are you expecting 25 to be weaker than 24 as per the article in S&T?
I do expect SC25 to be smaller, but not necessarily for the precise reasons in S&T.