by Judith Curry
” ‘I believe in science’ is an homage given to science by people who generally don’t understand much about it. Science is used here not to describe specific methods or theories, but to provide a badge of tribal identity. Which serves, ironically, to demonstrate a lack of interest in the guiding principles of actual science.” – Robert Tracinski
Robert Tracinski has published a superb essay entitled Why I don’t ‘believe’ in ‘science’. Excerpts:
begin quote:
For some years now, one of the left’s favorite tropes has been the phrase “I believe in science.” Elizabeth Warren stated it recently in a pretty typical form: “I believe in science. And anyone who doesn’t has no business making decisions about our environment.” This was in response to news that scientists who are skeptical of global warming might be allowed to have a voice in shaping public policy.
[I]t captures a lot of what annoys the rest of us about the “I believe in science” crowd. It reduces a serious intellectual issue—a whole worldview and method of thought—to a signifier of social group identity.
Some people may use “I believe in science” as vague shorthand for confidence in the ability of the scientific method to achieve valid results, or maybe for the view that the universe is governed by natural laws which are discoverable through observation and reasoning.
But the way most people use it today—especially in a political context—is pretty much the opposite. They use it as a way of declaring belief in a proposition which is outside their knowledge and which they do not understand.
There are a lot of people these days who like things that sound science-y, but have little patience for actual science.
The problem is the word “belief.” Science isn’t about “belief.” It’s about facts, evidence, theories, experiments. You don’t say, “I believe in thermodynamics.” You understand its laws and the evidence for them, or you don’t. “Belief” doesn’t really enter into it.
So as a proper formulation, saying “I understand science” would be a start. “I understand the science on this issue” would be better. That implies that you have engaged in a first-hand study of the specific scientific questions involved in, say, global warming, which would give you the basis to support a conclusion. If you don’t understand the basis for your conclusion and instead have to accept it as a “belief,” then you don’t really know it, and you certainly are in no position to lecture others about how they must believe it, too.
Because science is about evidence, this also means that it carries no “authority.” The motto of the Royal Society is nullius in verba—”on no one’s word”—which is intended to capture the “determination of Fellows to withstand the domination of authority and to verify all statements by an appeal to facts determined by experiment.”
That’s the opposite of what “I believe in science” is intended to convey. “I believe in science” is meant to use the reputation of “science” in general to give authority to one specific scientific claim in particular, shielding it from questioning or skepticism.
“I believe in science” is almost always invoked these days in support of one particular scientific claim: catastrophic anthropogenic global warming. And in support of one particular political solution: massive government regulations to limit or ban fossil fuels.
The purpose of the trope is to bypass any meaningful discussion of these separate questions, rolling them all into one package deal–and one political party ticket.
The trick is to make it look as though disagreement on any of these specific questions is equivalent to a rejection of the scientific method and the scientific worldview itself.
But when people in politics proclaim “I believe in science” what they’re doing is proclaiming a belief in the current consensus. Do you think Elizabeth Warren and Andrew Yang have given serious study to climate science? No, they believe in global warming and its preferred political solutions because they have been told that a consensus of scientists believes it (and because this belief confirms their own political biases). Notice that Warren’s statement was about a panel of scientists who are skeptical of global warming, led by a distinguished physicist, William Happer. When does a scientist count as someone who “doesn’t believe in science”? When he departs from the “consensus.”
end quote.
Pseudoscience
The ‘I believe in science’ crowd is very enthusiastic about labelling as ‘pseudoscience’ any actual science that has implications that are counter to their political beliefs.
As a case in point, consider Media Bias/Fact Check. In particular, check out their entry on Climate Etc. which is reproduced here in full:
beqin quote:
Sources in the Conspiracy-Pseudoscience category may publish unverifiable information that is not always supported by evidence. These sources may be untrustworthy for credible/verifiable information, therefore fact checking and further investigation is recommended on a per article basis when obtaining information from these sources. See all Conspiracy-Pseudoscience sources.
Factual Reporting: MIXED
Notes: Climate Etc is the blog of Judith A. Curry who is an American climatologist and former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology. The Climate Etc blog publishes news and information regarding climate science and climate change. The majority of articles minimize or deny the impacts of human driven climate change. According to a Scientific American interview, Judith Curry admits to receiving funding from the fossil fuel industry. This article also labeled her a “climate heretic.” Judith Curry has also been invited by Republicans to testify at climate change hearings regarding alleged uncertainties regarding man-made climate change. Climate Feedback, a climate change fact checker, debunked much of Curry’s testimonials. Further, Skeptical Science has labeled Judith Curry as a “Climate Misinformer.” Judith Curry is also cited in a Pants on Fire claim by Politifact. Overall, we rate Climate Etc as a pseudoscience website due to its promotion of anti-climate science propaganda. (D. Van Zandt 10/14/2017) Updated (1/28/2018)
end quote.
Well, Climate Etc. didn’t quite make it into the ‘Tin Foil Hat, Quackery’ category.
The Wikipedia isn’t too impressed:
“The Columbia Journalism Review describes Media Bias/Fact Check as an amateur attempt at categorizing media bias and the owner of the site, Dave Van Zandt, as an “armchair media analyst.” Van Zandt describes himself as someone with “more than 20 years as an arm chair researcher on media bias and its role in political influence.” The Poynter Institute notes, “Media Bias/Fact Check is a widely cited source for news stories and even studies about misinformation, despite the fact that its method is in no way scientific.” ”
With regards to me personally, I have seen numerous statements on twitter or wherever that I have ‘abandoned science’ or have ‘stopped being a scientist’ since I began publicly questioning aspects of the so-called scientific consensus on climate change (whatever the ‘consensus’ means at any given time to any particular person).
Tracinski’s essay does a superb job of identify the intellectual laziness, tribalism and politics surrounding these ignorant ‘arbiters of science,’ who are easily identified by their statements ‘I believe in science.’
” Van Zandt describes himself as someone with “more than 20 years as an arm chair researcher on media bias and its role in political influence.”
Twenty years? Is that all? I hate to break this to you but that’s not a lot of experience. You don’t even include the days before Fox News came on the scene in 1996. You know, the time when the Leftwing News Media had a monopoly on reporting the news of the day. That was a lot of fun listening to all that propaganda.
The reporting back then wasn’t much different than today. Republicans were still characterized as little Hitlers and racist and every other evil thing. The only difference was there were only three channels putting out the political BS, and no Repubicans fought back, so there wasn’t much public controvery over the distortions of the truth by the Media. Limbaugh was a lone voice in the Wilderness.
Then Fox News came along in 1996, and started putting things right by telling the other side of the Leftwing story. What a relief! Something I had been wishing for all my adult life. And now we have Trump fighting back effectively which is another dream I have had all my adult life. I’m on a roll! Actually, it’s truth and justice that are on a roll.
If a media bias researcher is biased, is he able to perform his job properly? I don’t think so.
Close. Rush Limbaugh got on AM radio. 1988. I am not a fan, but I have to recognize how revolutionary he was to conservative media, conservatism, and American politics, altogether. Almost single-handedly, with half his brain tied behind his back.
what do you mean “close”? Close implies something Tom said was wrong or inaccurate but nothing you said contradicts any of what Tom said (he pointed out that prior to Fox coming along in 1996, Rush was a “lone voice” – all you did is put a date on when Rush’s lone voice appeared on the scene, a date which was before Fox in 1996 thus confirming what Tom said.)
Yeah, and then Sean Hannity’s radio show came along and we had two staunch conservatives blasting away on the radio!
I remember when Bill Clinton was trying to blame Limbaugh for the Oklahoma City terrorist bombing in 1995. That’s how much Rush got under his skin even from the radio!
Politicized science is nothing more than a secular religion with scientists as priests. Its not just climate science , you see it with those pharma backed scientists proclaiming the safety of vaccines when the science refuses to conduct the proper safety studies using true placebos. And Big Telecom telling us the EMF smog around us is safe despite numerous studies showing the adverse biological effects while their inadequate safety standards are limited to consideration of thermal effects. Wait until 5G -hoo boy. They will have to invent a new virus to explain the health effects and no doubt come up with a new vaccine to profit form while blaming climate change and increasing the carbon tax to fight the disease and climate change.
Smedley Butler said war is a racket. This wars on you and paid for by you.
The Gateway Pundit has an article:
Not that Doctor Curry’s experiences are directly related, but it is still indicative of leftist progressive intents and actions.
Four logical domains: science, philosophy, faith, and fantasy. Perhaps a fifth: twilight a.k.a. “penumbra”, where secular causes and emotions supersede and conflate the other logical domains. Science is a near-domain philosophy and practice, where observation, replication, and deduction are practicable.
Excellent article! Yesterday I met a Greenpeace rep trying to sell “global warming due to CO2 emissions” to subway travellers like me. I told him this is nonsense. His reaction: I believe in science. My first question: What is the occurance of CO2 in the air? I helped him by adding: CO2 is a trace gas. His answer: I don’t know but I think 5%. I told him the correct number: 0.04%. Then I told him to be happy that it goes up and not down, because below 0.02% would mean the end of humans and most animals. Greenpeace believes in science but does not understand it.
Belief is important. There are things that it is hard to confirm by direct observation and experience.
I believe in electrons. I have never seen an electron. I believe I can explain, predict, and control the behavior of electrons. That’s all that matters to me.
CommieBob
You can confirm electrons by direct observation. Stick you finger in a plug. If an electrician turns up somewhere to do an electrical job it’s not belief that allows him/her to continue but training, qualification and identification.
However, self belief and belief in others can work.
No. Electrons are a good explanation for what happens. On the other hand, can you explain why monophasic photons are not a better explanation?
Belief is important
There’s nothing wrong with belief, per se. But Belief is not science and it’s not required for science.
Notice what is *not* in that definition: Belief.
There are things that it is hard to confirm by direct observation and experience
Indeed, but belief isn’t required to understand them. Indeed, belief can inhibit understand as once one forms a belief when new facts contradict that belief human nature tends to try to alter the facts to fit the belief rather than alter the belief to fit the facts.
I believe in electrons
Good for you, but your belief (or someone else’s lack of belief) in electrons (or anything else) has nothing to do with science.
I have never seen an electron. I believe I can explain, predict, and control the behavior of electrons.
In science there is no belief, there is only attempts to explain & predict (though formation of hypothesis and theories). Attempts to control come from applications of said hypothesis and theories. Belief does not enter into it. period.
“When you believe in things you don’t understand
Then you suffer…”
– remarkably profound words from Stevie Wonder
Is Climate Change™ as that term is commonly understood a pseudoscience?
Wikipedia may not be everyone’s cup of tea but I found it helpful with a list of indicators of the possible presence of pseudoscience (at least for now):
# Use of vague, exaggerated or untestable claims ✓
# Over-reliance on confirmation rather than refutation ✓
# Lack of openness to testing by other experts ✓
# Absence of progress ✓
# Personalization of issues ✓
# Use of misleading language ✓
Those indicators may not be necessary and sufficient.
“Use of vague, exaggerated or untestable claims”
That’s current day climate science in a nutshell.
Often in such discussions, the blanket use of the single generalised word “science” to describe a huge ramshackle assemblage comprising a multiplicity of subjects and fields, ranging from: the ‘hard’ sciences to the ‘soft’ sciences (some of which are so soft it could be argued they are not sciences at all), and from the ‘pure research’ sciences to the applied sciences and medicine and engineering. Likewise the single term ‘scientist’ covers a huge range of talents and tasks ranging from the rare great geniuses down to the armies of school science teachers, lab technicians, field workers etc.
Thank you!
I always force people to rephrase, “What you do not believe in Climate Change?”, if they want to have a serious conversation with me on the subject. I thoroughly confuse them by answering, “No, but for the reason you think; my apologies not for the reasons you BELIEVE.”
I remind them that an endeavor in to a study, particular of the scientific nature of atmospheric thermodynamics, requires no belief.
I ask them do they believe in the 2+2 that creates the 4? The scary part is that most people will say “yes”.
I then ask them to write it as a mathematical statement. The ask them, “Does that mathematical statement require any sort of belief?”. Very few will do this.
I have even go so far as asking them: Which of these statements is an immutable fact: “2+2=4?” and “On planet Earth, the Sun will always rise in the East.”
Of course it is no accident as to why they are using the word BELIEVE. It is an emotional word. It is NOT a semantic convenience or parlance. It is very much to trap uninformed and ill-informed people into the “Wizard’s 1st Rule”
BELIEVE ~ BELIEF ~ FAITH only leads to DOGMA.
Sorry, I don’t names and other facts for this story. There were names e.t.c. when I read it, but that was some time ago.
An eminent scientist had finished his latest research paper presentation at a conference and it came to question time – from the floor came, “In your opinion”…….. whereupon the scientist cut in: “I don’t have an opinion”.
It left me with a lasting impression. It sums up pure science perfectly IMO.
M
Belief is a closed system of thoughts. One cannot verify neither its inputs nor its outputs nor how an input drives an output. Some of such closed system examples are religion, politics, arts, economics, and all observational “sciences”, such as “social sciences”.
Science, on the other hand, is an open system of thoughts. One should and could verify its inputs or its outputs or how an output is related to an input.
I’ve been thinking about this since it was posted. Maybe the answer is not as obvious as it seems.
Of course scientific conclusions don’t require belief. They require testing, and if many tests have been made and the conclusions are consistent with the results, you can assign them a relatively high degree of confidence. Knowing that at any time a single contrary test result may demand a refinement of a well-established conclusion.
But almost no one is familiar enough with all of science that they can confidently assert that they know it all. The days when you could read Aristotle, Plato and a few others and call yourself educated are long gone. Everyone has to rely on summaries and texts written by “experts”.
So you could say, instead of “I believe in Science”, “I believe in what so-and-so said about science”. Some don’t even read papers and texts, relying instead on news reports about summaries of scientific reports. Others don’t read at all and rely on sound bites from the media. The perfect recipe for pseudoscience brain salad.
For those too ignorant or innumerate to even look at any real science, the statement “I believe in Science” is just as sensible as “I believe in Socialism” or “I believe in Astrology”. They confidently claim that they don’t believe in anything stupid, like religion or patriotism, but they do proudly believe in a broad array of pseudoscientific hoaxes.
“The motto of the Royal Society is nullius in verba—”on no one’s word””
Has someone here gone completely off the rails? Newton’s club as the authority? What utter hogwash.
That pitifull little tribe tried to stop the industrial revolution, wouldn’t give Watt an interview, grabbed the patent for all fire machines from Papin, claimed Newton invented the calculus, on no evidence whatsoever.
As Lord Maynard Keynes wrote in Newton’s biography – he was the last alchemist, not a scientist at all.
Interesting that today’s CO2’ers sound rather like Newton and his “green” essences.
The word ‘science’ is actually quite fuzzy in my opinion.
Does it mean ‘the current compendium of data, analysis and conclusions drawn through applying the scientific method’?
Does it mean ‘the funding streams, organisation and people associated with activities applying the scientific method in defined areas of enquiry’?
The term ‘scientific method’ is a more precise term. It is possible to have a belief in its practical utility, when applied professionally, honestly and diligently by suitably trained individuals and teams.
The scientific method is quite clear:
1. A scientific hypothesis to explain specific phenomena cannot be proven to be true, it can however resist attempts through experimental measurements to demonstrate its falsehood.
2. Measurements, like judicial evidence, are regarded as sound only when independent confirmation of the data and analysis has been delivered by other competent members of the relevant community.
3. Hypotheses strengthen when predictions made through applying the hypothesis are confirmed through experiment.
One of the most important things that those wishing to engage with scientists, the scientific method etc is understanding what questions particular branches of science cannot answer. As far as am aware, science cannot yet falsify the hypothesis that ‘God does not exist’. It is perhaps the obvious reason why religions, sects, and communities exist which choose to have faith in certain unverifiable postulates.
Each generation of scientific discovery usually leads to new arenas being opened up where science can now answer specific questions. DNA sequencing technology, PCR amplification technology and modern computing technologies have made mass genetic data analysis feasible. Children born in 2050 will likely have their genome sequenced after birth and their medical care will often be accompanied by them supplying their biological ‘passport’, allowing customisation of therapies aligned to genotypic content.
In climate science, sensor technologies, wireless technologies, satellite technologies and the like are ushering in a modern Climate Big Data era, allowing step change developments in understanding how climate events acros the world may be interlinked and deterministically related. Given the huge complexities of the climate system, the ability to distinguish signals from noise is undoubtedly one of the ongoing challenges.
One of the biggest challenge science often faces is how to reverse out of a blind alley without destroying careers. I have seen folks make honest mistakes, over-interpret prematurely and then be treated treated like quasi-criminals instead of folks saying ‘we got it wrong, let us start again and try to get it right’.
Scientists are an imperfect community, like every community on earth. There are huge egos to be found, like everywhere on earth. There are those prioritising money making and many quasi-marxists who believe the very concept of making money from science is evil.
The biggest challenge I see in the world as a whole believing in the scientifc endeavour is the transition from seeing scientists through adoring uncritical eyes of emotional children to seeing them as imperfect adults with partcular skills and experience, without turning them into figures of hate like politicians, estate agents, Wall Street traders and folks like Enron became.
Climate Science’s follies have the potential to do that to science.
The next 11 years will see a resolution of that tension, one way or the other.
“You don’t say, “I believe in thermodynamics.” You understand its laws and the evidence for them, or you don’t.”
I believe in thermodynamics. I understand its laws and the evidence. But what I am supposed to say instead?
““I understand the science on this issue” would be better.”
Not really. “I believe I understand the science on this issue” would be better for some people.
But most of us do not fully understand some part of science. The big bang and universe expansion at one end and quantum mechanics at the other end, and a lot of what is in between.
With climate science I would say that the number of people who understand it fully is approaching zero.
You could believe in Newtonian Mechanics and even say you understood it, but after relativity, that didn’t mean you were right. Oh, and get back to me when you decide on String Theory.
I believe in the process of science. I believe in the scientific method and in its evolution.
But the findings of science, even the settled science, even the facts, all that is provisional and conditional.
Some of it may be useful, some of it may be wrong. Belief in it depends on who is saying it; not on their authority, but on their trustworthiness.
There is a belief system in science: that everything is the result of the laws of nature (to be determined) and not of supernatural powers.