Full Disclosure – by Tim Ball and Anthony Watts
In a recent set of Tweets (seen in the image above) Dr. Michael Mann of ‘hockey stick’ infamy, accused Tim Ball and Anthony Watts of supporting the theories of Immanuel Velikovsky. He based his claim on an article about scientific elitism [Ball] wrote that Anthony Watts kindly published on his web site. Mann’s accusation is completely false and indicates he either failed to read the article or if he did, failed to understand its purpose. The objective of the original article and follow up was to show how self-appointed elitists hinder the advance of science. A majority who made written comments about the article understood and agreed with the premise.
The article examined the reaction and behavior of the scientific elite to anyone who produced ideas and information that challenged their views. It used the example of Immanuel Velikovsky as a person who was demonized by the scientific elitists because he hypothesized a different interpretation of planetary motion and interactions involving electromagnetism. Worse, he used historical records including the Bible to establish a database and time sequence of apparently natural events.
Neither Anthony nor I ever said we agreed with Velikovsky’s views on planetary motion. We pointed out that he worked with Einstein, who knew his claims and encouraged him. We also pointed out that some who initially attacked his work, like Professor Hess, later conceded that many of his predictions were confirmed. What Ball condemned was the nastiness and unsubstantiated basis of the attacks by high priests of the prevailing wisdom. The combined effect of the automatic rejection of new ideas with the character assassination of those who present them works to preclude steady advances in science. In other words, skepticism is not allowed, and skeptics are persona non grata. This results in mainstream science effectively claiming the debate is over, and the science is settled.
This is precisely what the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), of which Michael Mann was a member, did. Like Velikovsky, few of their conclusions were correct. More important, people can make judgments about Velikovsky because all of his data and ideas were available. The proper scientific method of presenting and testing a hypothesis was carried out in Velikovsky’s case. Unfortunately, the same was not true of the IPCC anthropogenic global warming (AGW) hypothesis, in which, as Richard Lindzen said very early in the process, the consensus was reached before the research had even begun.
Again, for the record, neither of us support Velikovsky’s views on planetary motion. Some of them are rightly labeled as ridiculous. However, to claim that we do, simply because the articles used him as an example of how some in science turn spiteful when confronted with ideas they see as threatening, is wrong, and the elitist premise is well illustrated by the ugly behavior of Dr. Mann and others.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Dyson was reportedly V’s friend and he soundly demarcated V’s work as not within science.
John
Analitik writes:
“I have long argued with my friend’s that “the science is settled” is one of the most unscientific statements of all time, given the requirement of proof and prediction for any hypothesis to be accepted as a theory, let alone a law. It shows the moral corruption of the climate science community that they did not issue a statement of this nature to correct Al Gore when he first made this proclamation.”
Indeed.
There may be some valid exceptions, but most real theoretical science is always and only *probable* in its conclusions.
When Dr. Mann’s poor use of logic that he thinks to attack Mr. Watts in this fashion he therefore illustrates a classic fallacy.
Nor is he correct that even if Mr. Watts was a “follower” of Velikovsky that would automatically indicate his failed scientific credentials. The fact is that Velikovsky was correct in his prediction that Venus would be a hot planet. It was Carl Sagan who attempted to refute the significance of V’s accurate prediction with a “greenhouse gas” model that subsequent research shows cannot possibly be correct.
Based on the reading I’ve done, anyway, the excess heat on Venus simply cannot be accounted for solely on the basis of the “greenhouse” model. Therefore, Velikovsky’s theory that the primary cause of the heat is Venus’ relatively recent, violent creation or capture in our solar system. Mann predictably employs the gradualistic prejudice that all of the planets must have been created by accretion, all at the same time.
There is no evidence at all (that I have seen) supporting this assumption, and the evidence for catastrophic events in our cosmos suggests the contrary, that planets may be more likely captured by solar systems and therefore do not necessarily originate all at the same time. We don’t know the answers for sure, but Velikovsky’s model is still quite possible, and may be the correct one. Venus may indeed be hot because it is young, not just because it has a lot of C02 in the atmosphere.
Meanwhile, it is worth remembering that the popularity of the concept of “greenhouse gas warming” originates in Sagan’s attempt to confute Velikovsky about the causes of the hotness of Venus.
Dr. Mann is grasping at predictably short straws here.
AW and TB:
I find the response of Michael Mann to the original article amusing in light of my post to the thread of that article.
To save need to find it, I copy it to here.
Richard
A “scientific theory” isn’t a theory until after it is challenged, till then it’s merely a hypothesis; however the mere act of challenging a hypothesis doesn’t elevate it from a hypothesis to a theory, that takes a lot of challenges that fail to invalidate the hypothesis. As it stands there are far too many problems with the many various hypotheses that man has caused “global warming” scale effects, and far too many falsifications of the hypothesis, far too much wrong with the integrity of the various data sources that are used and abused to allegedly support their various hypotheses; the result being that AGW is little more than the Cargo Cult Science that Richard Feynman spoke of: http://pathstoknowledge.science/2010/02/19/cargo-cult-science-a-lesson-from-richard-feynman-for-scientists-of-today-to-learn.
He just throwing his considerable weight around in the hope he can get some mud to stick ,he cares not one bit if his speaking the truth, although to be fair to him he does a work in area were lying is rewarded so perhaps he is not used to idea of truth. But in-line with his usual standards is all goign wrong for him , that Mann is icon and a prophet of ‘the cause ‘shows how really rubbish it is .
Maybe I missed something, but it seems that V’s work was put forth in the post as an example, not because his conclusions were right but because he didn’t hide his methods OR data. Therefore, after examination, his conclusions are rejected.
Mann “et al” hide (or adjust) their data and methods (and related emails) to prevent their conclusions from being rejected.
Wrong or not, V was the more honest scientist.
Science shouldn’t be a poker game where you hide your cards. You lay your cards on the table and all gain something regardless of who had “the winning” insight.
Anthony,
You were wise to let this thread continue to play out so that it is obviously documented that V’s work failed to be science in all of its aspects.
I hope to add more comments over the next few weeks documenting further that V’s work merely mimicked science.
John
The “V” you are referring to, is it still Velikovsky or has it morphed into our old friend Vukevic?
Tom in Florida
Many have been using ‘V’ because it looks like WP filters out comments into its dust bin that use his full last name.
John
V’s work was put forth in the post as an example, not because his conclusions were right but because he didn’t hide his methods OR data
He had no methods and his data was the bible…
Wow! Best one-line evaluation of Dr. V I’ve seen!
Agreed, if you mean one of the most incorrect evaluations ever. And from a guy who has not read his first three books or he would not say that.
It is precisely by reading Velikovsky that his pseudo-science shines through so glaringly. See what other readers have said: http://www.leif.org/EOS/Velikovsky-Bauer.pdf
“The Velikovsky Affair can serve to show at least that a massive task of education is called for”.
This [from http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/cosmic_tree/upheaval.htm ]:
“It has been approximately 18,000 years (5 X 3,600) since the North Polar Zone was located over what is now China. Since the North Pole shifts in a clockwise direction with respect to the Great Pyramid of Egypt, it can be hypothesized that when it shifts the next time, around 2012 CE, the new North Pole will once again be in China, with the new South Pole located in the vicinity of Santiago de Chile.” gives a flavor of the nonsense you advocate.
Thanks for the Bauer link, Leif. Bauer nicely sums up the so-called “Velikovsky Affair”:
“Velikovsky’s notions about celestial events were and are most implausible; the evidence adduced was not drawn from physics or astronomy or geology or any other relevant science; and so the manner in which his ideas were received tells us nothing in general about how science reacts to new ideas, only about how it reacts to poorly supported, implausible ideas ventured by one who has no standing in science.”
In other words, Tim Ball did indeed choose a poor example to illustrate his theme of so-called “elites” impeding scientific progress. Their attitude in this case was appropriate, but unfortunately their tactics backfired.
For those with institutional access, Bauer’s article “Velikovsky and Social Studies of Science” is here:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/690283
Others will need to create a free account to read it.
I’d never heard of V before this post. Never read any of his work.
But if he had not been open and honest about how he arrived at his conclusions (assuming you’ve portrayed them accurately) then you, as a scientist, could not have said what you said and remain in the realm of science.
WOW! It seems the Ball article was bang on. Why the vitriol? The flak comment is right.
And for the record, continental drift and geologic mountain folding was being taught in the 1950″s when I was in school. And yes, that is a verifiable fact that anyone can look up. And yes again, the cause was “proven” in the 1960’s with sea floor spreading and followed late in the 60’s by plate tectonics. But what was wrong with teaching the ideas of “Wegener” a German meteorologist, like our host? Yet “W” was proposing an idea that had nothing to do with meteorology.
And who or what was a “climate scientist” 30 years ago?
So, who really knows about climate change? Maybe in another 30 years those of you still alive will have a better idea.
Negotiating 101: “Don’t Get Angry, Negotiate!”
Well said, L E Joiner in your post of March 8, 2016 at 12:24 pm. Had I been able to find your post without reading all 254 responses I would not have needed to write my own – presumably still being moderated. BTW, V was a psychoanalyst, not a psychiatrist. That is why he was so upset with Freud’s backsliding. Freud was the great progenitor of psychoanalysis.
Does a scientist have to sit in a laboratory and make experiments? Surely not, cosmologists have no way of making experiments to try to falsify their theories. Assuredly some scientists can test their theories to ascertain if they can be falsified, but not all need to do this. There is such a thing as a “thought experiment” much used by economists – when they try to test their theories by practical experiments they risk disaster if they are wrong, and perhaps even more if they are right!
Tim Ball refers to Scientific American. As he says, that used to be n informer of good science, with some amusing articles thrown in. I lost my credence in it when Martin Gardner wrote an article decrying the Laffer Curve” with the ‘curve’ being a squiggle between the end points. Absolutely zero economic knowledge! No more buying SA.