September 22, 2017
From American Thinker
By Daren Jonescu
Astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson has been doing the leftist media interview circuit recently, pressing his peculiar thesis that professional (i.e., paid) scientists are a superior class of humans whose conclusions are intrinsically beyond reproach and must therefore be accepted blindly by unscientific lunks like you.
In each of these interviews, a non-climate scientist asks a series of predetermined questions designed to elicit rehearsed responses from the non-climate scientist Tyson, the upshot of which is that (a) people who question man-made global warming are anti-scientific fools driven by irrational agendas; (b) scientific consensus is not the product of the social and political pressures of academic life working on the minds of the career-motivated, publication-obsessed majority of scholarly mediocrities, but rather consensus is the very definition of Objective Truth; and (c) anyone who questions a scientific consensus poses a threat to the survival of democracy.
For an example of (a), here is Tyson’s explanation of why some people continue to question the alleged scientific consensus on global warming:
What’s happening here is that there are people who have cultural, political, religious, economic philosophies that they then invoke when they want to cherry pick one scientific result or another.
In other words, non-scientists who have the audacity to cite scientific results falling outside the consensus as grounds for questioning global warming are just people with agendas who are refusing to accept the settled science, for anti-scientific reasons. This doesn’t account for the actual scientists who produced those dissenting results or hypotheses. Are they also to be dismissed as mere “deniers,” since their views do not match the consensus?
Tyson’s answer appears to be yes, as he offers this interesting definition of “objective truth,” answering to talking point (b), above:
For an emergent scientific truth to become an objective truth – a truth that is true whether or not you believe in it – it requires more than one scientific paper. It requires a whole system of people’s research all leaning in the same direction, all pointing to the same consequences. That’s what we have with climate change as induced by human conduct. This is a known correspondence. If you want to find the three percent of the papers or the one percent of the papers that conflicted with this, and build policy on that – that is simply irresponsible.
So according to Tyson, science is ultimately defined not by superior individual minds defying accepted views – i.e., standing against a consensus. No, science is rather defined by consensus itself, for consensus alone establishes objective truth, which “is true whether or not you believe in it.” (Funny – I always thought Nature or God established objective truth, but apparently, in our nihilistic progressive age, that task has devolved to the collective of university professors.)
And what is a scholarly consensus? It is “a whole system of people’s research all leaning in the same direction, all pointing to the same consequences.” Tyson conveniently leaves out the most important factor: “all beginning from the same underlying premises.”
Scholarly consensus is what you get when a few people at the top of an academic hierarchy become gatekeepers and use their authority as peer-reviewers, thesis supervisors, and hiring committee members to influence the range and limits of “legitimate” research. A new specialization that has detached itself from a broader system of inquiry, and therefore has relatively few prominent practitioners, as in the case of climate science, is most easily susceptible to this form of “consensus-building.”
As for point (c), above, Neil deGrasse Tyson gives us this doozy:
I’m so disappointed that the country that I grew up in – that put men on the moon, that developed the internet, that invented personal computers and smartphones – that people are debating what is and what is not scientifically true.
By “people,” Tyson means those who are not professional climate scientists. Unless you are an officially accredited member of the fraternity of scientists, you may not debate “what is and what is not scientifically true.” In other words, shut up, ignore the evidence around you, and just follow your betters. Failing to do so is, according to Tyson, “the beginning of the end of an informed democracy” – where “informed” means compliant.
Not being a professional (i.e., paid) scientist, I never received the memo announcing that ad hominem, appeal to authority, and plain old elitist condescension have now been enshrined as elements of the scientific method in good standing.
Leaving all that aside, Tyson’s best argument for bowing before the god of scientific consensus – his only argument based on reasoning rather than intimidation – is in fact the “oops” moment to end all “oops” moments for a global warming apologist. For this argument actually undermines his whole case, by justifying the core position of climate change skeptics.
Referring to the August solar eclipse, Tyson leaps at the opportunity to catch the “deniers” in a contradiction.
I don’t see people objecting to [the prediction of an eclipse]. I don’t see people in denial of it. Yet methods and tools of science predict it. So when methods and tools of science predict other things, to have people turn around and say “I deny what you say,” there’s something wrong in our world when that happens.
And I would say that when a renowned scientist fails to realize he has just blown his own position to smithereens, then there is something wrong in our world.
Tyson’s analogy between global warming and solar eclipses is meant to be a zinger that wows the audience into submission, so that there is no need to flesh out the terms of the analogy more clearly. But let’s take a moment to clarify his point.
Scientific predictions are not standalone declarations made on the basis of some sort of magical thinking called “scientific method.” Rather, scientific reasoning is used to form hypotheses about certain aspects of the material world, which hypotheses are then typically evaluated over time by means of their predictive power. In other words, predictions are the arena in which underlying scientific premises are assessed for plausibility. The more evidence of accurate predictive power, the more believable the underlying theory becomes.
Let’s look at Tyson’s example of solar eclipses. If you questioned whether the recent solar eclipse would really happen, you would truly have exposed yourself as an uneducated pleb who doesn’t respect scientific method. But why did you feel obliged to believe that the eclipse would happen? Was it because there was a scientific consensus?
No – it was because every eclipse predicted in your lifetime has actually occurred, exactly when and as the scientists predicted. None of us has ever met a person who could tell a story of “the eclipse that never happened” or “the eclipse that caught everyone by surprise.” Having not a single counterexample to cast doubt on the scientists’ predictions, ordinary men and women have developed a complete trust in the validity of those predictions.
If, by contrast, we had seen that the astronomers were often wrong in their predictions of eclipses, or that there were often eclipses that no astronomers had predicted, or even that eclipses frequently occurred precisely when the scientific consensus insisted that no eclipse could possibly happen, then most of us would be skeptical about predictions of solar eclipses. We would have every right to be. No astronomer in these circumstances could reasonably demand that we trust the scientific consensus, given how often their predictions had failed. And even if, by chance, this year’s solar eclipse had turned out more or less the way they predicted, we might reasonably classify that as a coincidence rather than as evidence for their theories, remembering how often their previous predictions had been false.
Or imagine that astronomers had taken to predicting both that an eclipse would occur this year and that no eclipse would occur, such that neither outcome could disprove their underlying theory. Wouldn’t we all – wouldn’t even Tyson himself – regard such a theory with skepticism in light of its advocates’ unwillingness to let it stand or fall on the accuracy of any decisive prediction? Wouldn’t Tyson accuse those scientists of trying to create an unfalsifiable theory – i.e., one which no empirical outcome could ever prove wrong? Wouldn’t he question whether such an unfalsifiable theory qualifies as legitimate science at all?
Read the rest of the story here:
There are two morals to be drawn. One is that people who are so stupid that they think they know, but dont even know what they don’t know, are inevitably going to make poor decisions outside of what they know how to do. Making sure that the majority of people are stupid, indoctrinated and above all else, self important, is the business of the Liberal.
Secondly, Modern philosophy has pretty much shown the the search for ultimate truth is impossible. I could go into the reasons but I doubt anyone would last the first paragraph. Suffice to say that there is no ‘scientific truth’ – only scientific models that work, and some that don’t. People like this Tyson operate at a level of doublethink that is truly amazing. They use the proposition that no truth is attainable to redefine what is true as simply what is believed to be true. (this doesn’t explain why its not refuted by not believing in it, mind you). And then they use ‘science’ to declare that it is, after all, true.
And this technique works because people are silly and self-important. They don’t want to admit to being utterly unable or too lazy to follow arguments: So they nod sagely and cover up their ignorance with passionate advocacy.
And they have the time to do this because a post modern industrial society largely runs itself – although there is constant interference to try and stop it, by these people – and they haven’t anything better to do.
Anthropogenic climate change is 97% bunk. Real scientists know this, but the world has very few of those – instead what it has is a hoi polloi that is educated into belief and trust in received wisdom handed out by authority figures, and who are constantly flattered and lied to by a while global industry set up and dedicated to doing just that. The advertising. marketing public relations and media industry.
This global entity has no interest in the truth whatsoever. It is only concerned ultimately that its message is believed. The medium is not the message any more. The message is simply part of a world view that is constructed by the media to achieve traction with a majority of the population. Just as in the 50s a whole generation were reared on V8s, chrome , tail-fins and the American Dream, today the emphasis has shifted to climate change, LBGT issues, white guilt and political intolerance and so on.
There is no solution to this unless people become apprised of the idea that all media output is targeted marketing, and they are the target.
And understand that there is no Truth, but that in one specific area, science, a well developed mechanism for excluding known lies or known imponderables is in place, and that when applied to climate change, it shows the thesis of the alarmists to be false.
Science itself may not survive the onslaught of political marketing that has been evinced by climate change politics.
And as society that 97% is controlled by lies, with a population educated to believe in lies, is not going to withstand the onslaught of better and more appealing liars.
I.e. like Jihadists.
The Climate alarmists say the globe isn’t at risk. I say in fact the globe is fine, what is at risk is Western civilisation.
It’s success was built on certain moral and intellectual disciplines. Those were not absolute, and have therefore been challenged by the anti-social forces of the Left. But without those disciplines, society falls apart into warring tribes – look at it now! Left versus Right is a war of hatred in the media. Everything is a war of hatred. Jihad is a war of hatred. Climate change is a war of hatred.
Why?
I think the reason is simply the same one that created Nazi hatred in the 30s. Lebensraum. Too many damned people and nothing for them to do except watch TV and listen to the media telling them about what they could be if only those more fortunate than themselves (who are of course morally indefensible) were stripped of power.
We need dead heroes. Lots of them. to date the solution has been effective mushroom management* and debt fuelled consumerism. We are now all slaves of large merchant banks, on paper.
That’s gone sideways since the millennium. Propaganda is now involved in a massive display of utter irrelevancy* syndrome behaviour. In the UK the government has pent months of parliamentary time debating the morality of fox-hunting, or LBGT issues and so called ‘gay marriage’ but less than an afternoon going to war with Iraq on false documentation. The media are full of ‘green’ issues. But energy simply gets more expensive and the upward march of CO2 has not changed at all.
No one has solved the debt crisis. No one is even addressing it.
We are, in short precisely where the Roman Empire was when its politics became no more than ‘bread and circuses’***. And that was just 100 years before Rome ceased to be capital of the Roman empire, and its long decline had already started.
Those that are in love with cycles might care to ponder on the feedback that has strong bold disciplined societies building a wonderful safe environment for weak stupid and ill informed people to live in, only to have the weak stupid and ill informed come to dominate the strong and disciplined, thus ensuring there is no defence against someone else’s strong and disciplined invasions.
I dont mind being run by Goldman Sachs, if that’s what it takes, or fed a diet of irrelevant pap to keep me happy. Ignorance is bliss. What I do object to is complete incompetence on the part of the ruling elites. And being fed a diet of hatred and bigotry by them. Climate change has been a great distraction. But it is a dangerous anti-social fallacy to propagate. Societies that Believe In Climate Change will not do well when faced with those with 200 years of stockpiled uranium and enough reactors to run their whole nation.
There will always be ruling elites. That is not the problem. It’s not even that they talk bollox and say one thing while doing another. Its not that they employ vast numbers of people to create the mental and emotional reality that the modern (sub)urban consumer lives in. No, the problem is that there are real issues out there, real existential issues for them as well as the people they have enslaved. And they are not competent to deal with them, except by telling more lies.
That is the worry. Incompetence. Not elitism. And that we may end up in a war, simply because no other politically acceptable way to reduce populations and give people something to do, can be found.
*keep them in the the dark and feed them on sh1t…
**The Peter Principle: the Utter Irrelevantist makes not the slightest pretence of doing his job. For example, the president of a company who spends all of his time serving on the directorates of charitable organisations.
***”Bread and circuses” (or bread and games; from Latin: panem et circenses) is metonymic for a superficial means of appeasement. In the case of politics, the phrase is used to describe the generation of public approval, not through exemplary or excellent public service or public policy, but through diversion; distraction; or the mere satisfaction of the immediate, shallow requirements of a populace, as an offered “palliative”. Its originator, Juvenal, used the phrase to decry the selfishness of common people and their neglect of wider concerns. The phrase also implies the erosion or ignorance of civic duty amongst the concerns of the commoner. (wiki)
One of the most articulate sceptical articles I’ve ever read – they’ve earned themselves a subscription..
Tyson the Troll. A new movie in the making.
The movie will take place on the Mad Max planet, Ceti Alpha VI.
Ceti Alpha VI blew up, remember?
Bummer, wasn’t it?
When it blew up, Ceti Alpha VII became Ceti Alpha VI.
Must have been an old planet or Hansen wouldn’t have blown it up.
All that needs to be done is to present this publicity hound with a graph showing the dozens of temperature predictions made by dozens of climate model programs and ask him why he thinks there is a consensus, even amongst global warming true believers. Ask him to point out the “one true objective fact” in all of these wildly desparate predictions, all of which are severely inaccurate.
Obviously we have some pretty dumb astrophysicists running around loose in this country.
Throwing a ridiculous claim about democracy being “destroyed” by citizens believing things that aren’t true disregards hundreds of years of people believing all kinds of falsehoods – get cold and wet and you’ll catch a cold being perhaps the most everlasting falsehood I can think of. Now, exactly how is that kind of thing going to “destroy democracy”? This jerk better not ever place himself in a position where the questions are from well-informed skeptics. He will likely look REALLY stupid. Like Bill Nye the Science Guy did when , after he suddenly proclaimed himself a climate expert, he was unable to name a single one of the half dozen temperature data sets that are the basis of practically all climate research.
Opposite of the opinion about climate of astrophysicist Degrasse-Tyson, we have the opinions of climateskeptic astrophysicists Willie Soon and Nir Shaviv.
I think that’s Link from “The Mod Squad”…
Paragraph below is part of book describing the religion of Secular Socialism in the chapter of one of its sects the Church of Warming. I guess I need to add Nye & Tyson to the group.
While the day to day clergy, government funded climate scientists, managing the flock only get recognition in the mundane area of peer review there are recognized climate evangelicals that demand the adoration of the masses through their “fire and brimstone” messaging of the impending doom or infinite reward. Joel Osteen, Christian evangelical, and Al Gore, Warming Evangelical, are interchangeable figures promoting religion agendas to save mankind from their sins while creating a massive amount of wealth for themselves. Neither has ever had an original creative insight about their supposed religious doctrines, other than to create a more lucrative conduit to their personal bank accounts. Neither of them has any academic or other credentials that would at least indicate a lifetime of study to give some validation to their esoteric claims of superior knowledge versus their laic followers. Yet both have been recognized as having some sort of divine knowledge as if from on high or at least in Gore’s case the ionosphere. While there are many others like Jim Hansen of NASA who was caught manipulating the climate record and Michael Mann of Penn State whose famous Hockey Stick was shown to be a complete farce of the scientific method no one has achieved the recognition or wealth of Al Gore as the foremost spreader of the Warming Gospel.
When you get it done, let us know, please. And make sure you have an index and a bibliography. Joel Osteen is doing this now? I wondered why I don’t like him.
You know, I always thought that in “science”, you did the experiment more than once to get consistent results. It was never a one-off, because with a one-shot-at-it effort, you proved nothing, and your results were only one sample That was in high school, a long, long time ago. In order to prove your experiment, you had to repeat it, others had to repeat it, and you all had to get the same results. But that was in a controlled setting, e.g., chemistry class, where you controlled the ingredients and could repeat the experiment to get the same results.
So here on this little planet of ours, with atmosphere, geology, orbital and physical eccentricities, and absolutely no control of any of it, would someone please tell me how these people expect me or anyone else to believe that:
A) – the results of their number crunching are correct when they are altered to suit a specific agenda
B) – we can control what happens to the planet when we can barely control our own emotions and appetites
C) – we should believe a “forecast” for an entire planet when weather forecasters are accurate only to about a week out, and that frequently changes with the way the wind blows. (Irma’s track forecast changed almost hourly.)
This whole thing smacks of greed for your money and your willingness to follow the “consensus” religion, as if we’re still as uninformed and uneducated as people were in the Dark Ages, which is completely untrue. It’s an attempt to gain control by turning a nerdy branch of study into a religion, and nothing else. Thanks to TV and the internet, there are more opportunities to follow the progress of the more fanatical and greedy individuals like Tyson and Nye, people who are more than happy to be in the spotlight and who truly believe that the rest of us are too stupid to live or argue with them and prove them wrong. It’s a great time to be alive, because we can rightfully scoff at them, disagree if we wish to without fear of punishment like an Inquisition, and go on about our business. Frankly, I find the Farmers Almanac and the Old Farmers Almanac to be more accurate that people like Tyson, in many respects.
Since we don’t have time machines yet, we can’t jump into the future and view the results of these “forecasts” (and I use that term loosely). Therefore, everything they say is pure speculation, in my view, and not acceptable as a given.
When they insist on forcing down someone’s throat, or making repeated idiotic appearances (wearing a boutonniere, for Pete’s sake???) to flog their subject, they are less and less convincing.
Refusing to allow an opposing view is an act of fanaticism, which has to be stopped. I know that they depend on mob mentality to support them.
They are, in fact, so insistent and sometimes vehement about it that you have wonder what’s next? Medieval stuff? Spanish Inquisitions? Hey, nobody expects a Spanish Inquisition! (Cue the Cardinals!)
I hope that some day soon, we can look back at all of this over hot chocolate and cookies after a snowball fight, and point at them, and laugh. I sincerely believe that they are completely wrong, and the only thing they are interested in is the cash they can get out of flogging their view.
As Princess Leia said ‘The more you tighten your grip, the more star systems/people will slip through your fingers.’
Let’s continue to be skeptical. Really, really skeptical. Loudly and annoyingly skeptical.
It’s allowed, and we need it.
Since Neil is an astrophysicist he’ll know full well about the mystery of the Sun’s Corona, well into the millions of K and no one really knows why. So much for radiative physics.
And that’s not a jibe. It really is a mystery that you can have a rarefied super hot plasma halo around a star sitting a million miles out when the temperature is “supposed” to go down as you come out from the centre.
Or that every model of a star has to pass the Sun sniff test. The Kurucz model for temperatures is a good one but many have failed.
“This week researchers announced that a storm is coming–the
most intense solar maximum in fifty years. The prediction comes from a team led by Mausumi Dikpati
of the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR). ‘The next sunspot cycle will be 30% to 50%
stronger than the previous one,’ she says. If correct, the years ahead could produce a burst of solar activity
second only to the historic Solar Max of 1958.” (From Science @ur momisugly NASA.)
Of course it must have been true. That was the consensus of the scientists.
Neil deGrasse Tyson left the scientific world behind when he chose acting as a career.
Now, Tyson is solely a paid mouthpiece reading from his cue cards,
Just as other scientists, before him, who prefer acting over hard mental work.
My earlier comment seems to have gotten lost in the shuffle.
@neil deGrasse Tyson – The path over the earth’s surface of the moon’s shadow wasn’t predicted, it was calculated. So, a statement regarding the next solar eclipse won’t be a prediction per se, it will be a statement of calculated fact.
The “methods and tools of science” regarding the climate aren’t even close to being as well known as they are regarding some astrophysical actions and events. Skeptics recognize this, and so should anyone claiming to be a “scientist” in this day and age.
As an aside –
If I predict the sun will rise in the east tomorrow and repeat this prediction for 100 days, will I then be able to proclaim I have a 100% accuracy in my predictions?
Even claiming a scientific equivalent of Papal infallibility isn’t going to rescue climate science from its difficulties.
“I don’t see people objecting to [the prediction of an eclipse]. I don’t see people in denial of it. Yet methods and tools of science predict it. So when methods and tools of science predict other things, to have people turn around and say “I deny what you say,” there’s something wrong in our world when that happens.”
This example says it all. Belief (with religious faith) that we can just pick all the right mathematical equations to plug into global climate models and simulate the atmosphere for the next 100 years with the same skill as predicting a solar eclipse is stunningly naive.
20 years ago, scientists could be excused for believing this. However, the poor performance of global climate models since then, which have been too warm, other than when natural El Nino’s spike the temperature higher, and close to what models project without an El Nino is enough for an objective scientist to know better.
If true science and objective truth are based upon consensus, then why do we not still believe we live on a flat earth with sun, planets, and stars circulating about us on transparent spheres?
Anyone who tries to compare predicting eclipses to predicting the climate has demonstrated that they have no knowledge of either.
Orbital mechanics is based on a single, well understood and precisely defined equation. The only variables are the force of gravity and the speed and direction of the objects in question.
While the first is still being refined, it is known to quite a few digits of accuracy. The second, can also be easily measured with a great deal of accuracy.
The climate on the other hand involves tens of thousands of equations, many of which are still poorly understood. Likewise,many of the most important the initial conditions are also not well known.
Saw part of this interview. The part that floored me was the comment basically saying we do not have the right to question the consensus, or something to that effect.
The gods of the internet have smiled upon your request.
Tete de Grasse: French for Fat Head.
I’m truly shocked that this is the thinking of an astrophysicist who must have had (I would hope) a classical scientific education of the purest kind. Steve MacIntyre’s observation in examining and critiquing climate science papers (resulting, in some cases, retractions) is apropos here:
“…. In my opinion, most climate scientists on the Team would have been high school teachers in an earlier generation – if they were lucky. Many/most of them have degrees from minor universities. It’s much easier to picture people like Briffa or Jones as high school teachers than as Oxford dons of a generation ago. Or as minor officials in a municipal government.
Allusions to famous past amateurs over-inflates the rather small accomplishments of present critics, including myself. A better perspective is the complete mediocrity of the Team makes their work vulnerable to examination by the merely competent.”
– Steve McIntyre, Climate Audit Aug 1, 2013 at 2:44 PM
Steve’s humility is refreshing in this day and age. Question: why is Tyson not referred to as Dr. Tyson? It strikes a jaded sceptic like me that his title is being studiously avoided but an impression left with pronouncement of his lofty field of study, whenever he pops up. I’m not one who reveres higher degrees per se, and I don’t have a PhD myself, nor does Steve MacIntyre nor many other talented analytical minds one meets on sceptic pages. But the quality of his discourse suggests a poster boy status like Bill Nye and not a rigorous research boffin. His language is that of one seeminly talking about his betters. Now I will stop here, because one could expect a European police service knocking on my door at 3am if I were on the wrong side of the Atlantic.
Gary,
You said, “Now I will stop here, because one could expect a European police service knocking on my door at 3am if I were on the wrong side of the Atlantic.” I want you to know that I do appreciate your sense of humor. Unfortunately, there is too much truth to the statement, and Voltaire is probably turning over in his grave.
Clyde, they arrested a British preacher for handing out leaflets with quotes from the Bible in a Muslim sector of a UK city.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/7668448/Christian-preacher-arrested-for-saying-homosexuality-is-a-sin.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2058935/Police-advise-Christian-preachers-to-leave-Muslim-area-of-Birmingham.html
Christianity merely regards homosexuality as a sin. Islam recommends killing homosexuals.
In my opinion science does not seek to find out what is true that is philosophy but we do expect science to be objective and put all sides of a debate fairly which Neil degrasse Tyson does not . There is a confusion today between social science which is not objective(economics is not a science neither is climate science) and science which is objective and is independent of what we would like to be true.
Dr. Tyson seems to be a practioner of Post-Normal science and not a follower of the scientific method as elucidatecd by Karl Popper. It seems to me to be like a Yankees-Red Sox game where the Yankees would get 4 outs per inning and the Red Sox, but 3. I would really like to see a scholarly article on WUWT, scientifically rebutting consensus.
+I’d like to ask Tyson if an astronomer has been quoted as saying “We must do away with the medieval eclipse.”
We weren’t allowed to question drug companies when they paid scientists to tell us thalidomide was safe for pregnant women.
>>>Because, they said, the science was incontrovertible.
We weren’t allowed to question oil companies when they paid scientists to tell us that cars wouldn’t run on unleaded fuel.
>>> Because, they said, you couldn’t argue with science.
We weren’t allowed to question the Nazis when they paid scientists to tell us that Jews, gays, and gypsies were subhuman.
>>> Because, they said, the science was beyond question.
We weren’t allowed to question sugar manufacturers when they paid Harvard scientists to tell us sugar was good for us.
>>> Because, they said, the science was unassailable.
We weren’t allowed to question our government when they paid scientists to tell us agent orange was not a health risk for veterans.
>>> Because, they said, the science was settled.
Why can’t we question the government when they pay scientists to tell us the world will end if we don’t stop global warming?
For thousands of years ordinary people have been questioning scientists, their governments, and religious institutions.
Asking questions of the powerful should never be a crime nor a reason for ridicule.
Good article. My take on DeGrasse Tyson here:
http://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2017/04/get-ahead-celebrity-scientist/
WordPress getting bought by Google…
God no…. help us.