Guest Opinion by Kip Hansen — 12 October 2020
Judith Curry recently highlighted the 9 October 2020 Wall Street Journal piece by Matt Ridley titled: “What the Pandemic Has Taught Us About Science”. [ It is annoyingly paywalled, so Dr. Curry offers extensive excerpts at her own blog, Climate Etc. ]
[ Full version of Matt Ridley’s piece is available at his own website here. — h/t to Malcolm Robinson]
The Ridley piece, intentionally or not, is a foil to a science column published in Forbes on 30 July 2020 by Ethan Siegel, Senior Contributor, which declared in its headline “You Must Not ‘Do Your Own Research’ When It Comes To Science “. The piece is marked by Forbes as an “Editor’s Pick”.
I encourage readers to take the time to read both of these fine essays, in full. Please don’t just stop when you find something with which you disagree (and you will find things, I promise). If you have access to the Wall Street Journal read Ridley’s full piece there. If not, you can read the extensive excerpts supplied by Judith Curry here. The Siegel column is available at Forbes.
What follows is a rather long Opinion Piece on the topic:
Should we “do our own research when it comes to Science”?
Both of these essays are valuable – and contain truths we need to be aware of and accept. But they also represent the problem we see all across human endeavors in today’s rather complicated world, and particularly in scientific fields: It ain’t that simple.
The arguments in opposition can be simplified to these two quotes:
SIEGEL — “You Must Not ‘Do Your Own Research’ When It Comes To Science”:
“The reason is simple: most of us, even those of us who are scientists ourselves, lack the relevant scientific expertise needed to adequately evaluate that research on our own. In our own fields, we are aware of the full suite of data, of how those puzzle pieces fit together, and what the frontiers of our knowledge is. When laypersons espouse opinions on those matters, it’s immediately clear to us where the gaps in their understanding are and where they’ve misled themselves in their reasoning. When they take up the arguments of a contrarian scientist, we recognize what they’re overlooking, misinterpreting, or omitting. Unless we start valuing the actual expertise that legitimate experts have spent lifetimes developing, “doing our own research” could lead to immeasurable, unnecessary suffering.” [the link is given by Siegel in the original – kh]
RIDLEY — “What the Pandemic Has Taught Us About Science”:
“The Covid-19 pandemic has stretched the bond between the public and the scientific profession as never before. Scientists have been revealed to be neither omniscient demigods whose opinions automatically outweigh all political disagreement, nor unscrupulous fraudsters pursuing a political agenda under a cloak of impartiality. Somewhere between the two lies the truth: Science is a flawed and all too human affair, but it can generate timeless truths, and reliable practical guidance, in a way that other approaches cannot.”
“Organized science is indeed able to distill sufficient expertise out of debate in such a way as to solve practical problems. It does so imperfectly, and with wrong turns, but it still does so. …. How should the public begin to make sense of the flurry of sometimes contradictory scientific views generated by the Covid-19 crisis? The only way to be absolutely sure that one scientific pronouncement is reliable and another is not is to examine the evidence yourself. Relying on the reputation of the scientist, or the reporter reporting it, is the way that many of us go, and is better than nothing, but it is not infallible. If in doubt, do your homework.” [my bolding — kh]
I agree with both of these fine, well-meaning individuals.
Who are they?
Matt Ridley is a scientist (DPhil or PhD in zoology from Oxford), the author of several science books, a celebrated British journalist and a Conservative hereditary peer since 2013, with a seat in the UK’s House of Lords. He has been called “a heretic on most counts”.
Ethan Siegel is a theoretical astrophysicist and professional science writer. He studied physics at Northwestern and got his PhD in astrophysics from the University of Florida. To get a fuller picture of the man, see his personal science blog: Starts With A Bang!.
I agree . . . but . . .
Ethan Siegel makes most of the points I would make about the average Joe or Jill “doing their own research”. I speak from experience…I do a lot of my own research. And I deal with family and friends and readers here at WUWT who “do their own research”. I wrote the following comment in response to the WUWT re-post of Judith Curry’s essay on Matt Ridley’s piece:
“Do Your Own Research!
Even this common-sense idea is strongly contested.
You Must Not ‘Do Your Own Research’ When It Comes To Science by Ethan Siegel — Senior Contributor — Forbes Editors’ Pick — Jul 30, 2020 [link in text above]
I always do my own research when it is important or some current proclamation or pronouncement pins my BS Meter to full on.
But in the real world, many people are incapable of doing their own research — either from lack of adequate general and/or specific education or from (and it is dangerous to even say this bit…) low IQ (meaning here: inability to understand/comprehend complex data).
These people, instead of “doing their own research”, do something that they think is that [doing their own research] but is in reality just surfing the web or channel searching the TV looking for opinions that agree with their own biases or new information that “seems true” to them — something that mixes well in their muddled understanding of reality.
Gads — that sounds so elitist, doesn’t it? Unfortunately, it is all too true.
I have relatives that are terrific people — do anything to help anyone in need — but who, for various reasons, would find it totally impossible to research and come to any kind of reasonable evidence-based or fact-based opinion on any of today’s complex problems. They simply don’t have the educational background, don’t have enough foundational understanding of basic science, political theory and practice, biology, physics, philosophy, etc — and, truthfully, they have never learned how to think clearly or critically. This includes people who are “professionals” — but only in their narrow fields.
Asking many of our neighbors and relatives — people on the street — or even professional journalists and columnists — to “Do Your Own Research” is like YoYo Ma asking them to “Play the cello like me!”.
I agree with Dr. Curry and Matt Ridley — with the above caveat.”
At first glance, I agree with Siegel that many people are unable to “do their own research”. The call for people to do their own research is hampered by the points above and by other simple facets of the human condition. What does this mean?
PRIDE: Many, if not most, if not all, people suffer from Pride. In this sense, that means they think they already know and are unwilling to read, research or accept information that doesn’t agree with their pre-existing “knowledge” – in quotes because this knowledge becomes, almost always, a bias that prevents further learning and understanding. This is true even for scientists and professionals who are even more prone to believing that their existing knowledge is superior to any contrary knowledge being offered by others, even by other professionals in the same field of study.
LAZINESS: Let’s admit it – far too many of us (occasionally including myself) are simply too lazy to bother fact-checking, reading original sources or comparing the value of evidences offered by various voices – too lazy even when it is important. This laziness often leads to ready acceptance of “consensus science” – we rest assured that what “the experts say…” is correct — even when we are fully aware that the consensus is politically, and not scientifically, based.
BUSYNESS: Many people simply don’t have the time to “do their own research” even when motivated to do so. Busy professionals, busy students, busy mothers and fathers. How many of us even fail to read the whole essay or column on topics we are interested in, instead skipping ahead to write a comment, only to be told the answer is in the essay? Unsure about Global Warming? Sure! Do Your Own Research! If you already have all the basic science and math under your belt and have a year to spare….
As Ridley points out, we are human. Scientists are human. Doctors are human. Astrophysicists are human. And we are all fallible. We make mistakes, we misunderstand things, we are prideful, we are hubristic, we fall in love with our own theories and opinions, we have “better things to do”. And, being human, we all have differing abilities – some are mathematical, some artistic, some philosophical, some spiritual, some intellectual, some mechanically practical.
So, in this sense, Ethan Siegel is right. However, Siegel’s column is spoiled by his selection of examples (you really must read his essay) which exposes his biases and misunderstandings and leads him to a conclusion not supported by his argument.
It does not follow that
- Because “doing your own research” is hard or even “impossible” for many people
- And “doing your own research” can be done incorrectly, even by scientists
- That thus “you need … to turn to the consensus of scientific experts” and that we must “all agree that we should base our policies on the scientific consensus”.
This is what I call “almost true”. The most dangerous kind of mendacity. Certainly, we can all agree with Newton’s Laws of Motion in a practical sense. But not because there exists a “scientific consensus” on the issue, rather because they have been found to be true (enough) in actual practice through innumerable tests and trials.
Siegel, in effect, concludes: “Always stick with the apparent consensus.”
I say “apparent”, because in many fields there is almost always a vast difference in the publicly perceived – media presented – apparent consensus and the real professional-field-wide-scientists consensus. See my series on Modern Scientific Controversies.
Even worse is Siegel’s proposition that “When they [people] take up the arguments of a contrarian scientist, we recognize what they’re overlooking, misinterpreting, or omitting.” In this, Siegel uses the “Royal We” so often seen in declarations in support of consensus science – a usage with the definition here of “Us Right-Thinking Scientific Elites”. Somehow Siegel overlooks that his very own field, theoretical astrophysics, is itself filled with conflicting theories, “contrarian scientists” and that many would assign Siegel himself to that category.
Matt Ridley is correct: He calls for us to “examine the evidence yourself. ….If in doubt, do your homework.”
Why? Because, in the end, “The only way to be absolutely sure that one scientific pronouncement is reliable and another is not is to examine the evidence yourself. Relying on the reputation of the scientist, or the reporter reporting it, is the way that many of us go, and is better than nothing, but it is not infallible. If in doubt, do your homework.”
Matt Ridley is pragmatic. For instance, on the virus, his view is straight-forward:
“The health of science depends on tolerating, even encouraging, at least some disagreement. In practice, science is prevented from turning into religion not by asking scientists to challenge their own theories but by getting them to challenge each other, sometimes with gusto. Where science becomes political, as in climate change and Covid-19, this diversity of opinion is sometimes extinguished in the pursuit of a consensus to present to a politician or a press conference, and to deny the oxygen of publicity to cranks. This year has driven home as never before the message that there is no such thing as “the science”; there are different scientific views on how to suppress the virus.”
I maintain that there are “different scientific views” on almost all modern scientific questions. Why? Because for these questions we are just starting along the necessary scientific path to discovering the basic truths of these topics. When we are uncertain what to believe, what to think or how to understand one of these topics, we can, as Matt Ridley suggests try “Relying on the reputation of the scientist, or the reporter reporting it, is the way that many of us go, and is better than nothing”.
Or, if it is important enough to us individually or societally and we are capable of doing so, we should examine the evidence ourselves – we should do our own homework.
We should, however, acknowledge that not everyone is capable of doing so, for the reasons I identified at the beginning of this essay. Some people can overcome their deficiencies, they can study up, read widely, retrain their minds to think clearly and critically and learn to ignore their own biases. Others may not be able to do so. In this case, they need to call upon others, who are capable, to help them examine the evidence – honest information brokers.
This task becomes the responsibility of Science Journalists. People like myself and many other professional authors, paid and unpaid. It is not our job to dictate what “the Science” says. It is our job to publicly examine the evidence on different topics in a way that the general public can understand it – carefully giving the various major viewpoints and laying out the evidence for all to see, in a way that they can comprehend it and come to their own understandings.
# # # # #
Author’s Comment:
It is interesting to me that Ethan Siegel could be right about the details of the human condition that impede efforts to do one’s own research and yet come to the exactly wrong conclusion of discouraging people from examining the evidence for themselves. Because he fails to take Matt Ridley’s advice, and does not examine the evidence for himself, he ultimately falls back on “Listen to us, we’re the experts!” and denigrates all other professionals who don’t agree with the “us” as “contrarian scientists” unworthy of serious consideration. And that last part, my friends, is an intellectual crime most foul.
# # # # #
Siegel’s simple reason shows how Science can become a religion.
“The reason is simple: most of us, even those of us who are scientists ourselves, lack the relevant scientific expertise needed to adequately evaluate that research on our own.”
When even other scientists from unrelated fields are thought to be unworthy, what hope for the rest of us.
Here is a lighthearted article about our daily interaction with “Science”:
https://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2004-05/106-science-claims-and-truckful-baloney/
‘When laypersons espouse opinions on those matters, it’s immediately clear to us where the gaps in their understanding are and where they’ve misled themselves in their reasoning. When they take up the arguments of a contrarian scientist, we recognize what they’re overlooking, misinterpreting, or omitting.’ If scientists and educators took on the task of informing the public exactly where their reasoning is incorrect, and filling in the gaps in their knowledge in a polite and forthright way, we’d all really get somewhere. A healthy, high-functioning society like that would develop effective responses to real dangers. Compare my description, though, to the response of many in academia and the media to requests for clarification and substantiation of claims about Anthropogenic Global Warming and ‘Climate Change’. We are often told to shut up and go away, and just believe what we are told, often in a peremptory and defensive manner. Not a response, I think you’ll agree, which breeds confidence and trust.
“Or, if it is important enough to us individually or societally and we are capable of doing so, we should examine the evidence ourselves – we should do our own homework.”
And all homework needs to be turned in.
you are missing the last step.
So recently I had a Phd student send me some of his work.
he did it all himself
he was smart enough to realize that the last step is passing it to someone else to check.
Doing your own home is necessary, but not sufficient.
turn it in,
Literature or social science , mosh ?
Mosher ==> The step you are speaking of is sometimes called “side-checking”. Having someone at your own level — say another grad student or your professor, take a look at your work and pointing out where you might have gone wrong.
Perfectly valid thing to do. I worked for an outfit that actually required this for all important work — not quite peer-review, more like another pair of eyes.
In real life, sorting out what recent science media pronouncement to have faith in, doing one’s homework, examining the evidence for oneself, and forming a “for today” opinion doesn’t require such a step.
Mosher
And most of us, having egos, don’t like to be embarrassed by publishing something that has stupid mistakes in it — things like no capitalization, incomplete sentences, and lack of punctuation. So, we ‘turn our homework in” to someone we trust to edit it, and if we are really paranoid (and the better ones usually are) we try to find someone to review it for content — the adult equivalent of the 6-year old we have to explain it to. It is ironic to be lectured by someone who doesn’t follow his own advice.
Every conscious being engages in science! There is an uninterruptible continuum between sticking your toe in the water or smelling the air to calculating Newton’s mechanics in high school but – in my humble case – not attempting to solve quantum wave equations!
Look it up, “science” is an invented word that grew out of Natural Philosophy, used to describe and perhaps elevate, the amateur hobby of those with leisure to spare, observing nature and making “rational” conjectures based on reasonable assumptions.
The basis of science is Logic and while it can be taught the underlying “laws” have long been know to be “a priori”. This most fundamental aspect of thought is not learnt, studied or taught, it is akin to sentience itself, the root of the word science.
What these guys* are actually engaging in; is gas-lighting. The word “science” is debased to an ideological term like the words climate, carbon or racism!
These words are being abused for political purposes. And sadly, the particular purpose is to justify totalitarian authoritarianism. ;-(
*Siegel and Ridley
Seigel’s weak point is that all you really need is an decent understanding of human nature and basic politics, from there one can use simple tools to then examine the evidence. It’s actually not that difficult, it’s more that people don’t start from a Skeptical, reasoning position to begin with.
I had an argument recently over a politically charged Australian legal case with a bunch of lawyers and social workers, about a particular conviction, which ultimately went to the Supreme court. They were all adamant the legal system worked, the initial judgement was very likely correct, but I was very skeptical. The Supreme Court later overturned the decision, on exactly the same doubts and issues I was highlighting. It actually wasn’t that complicated, it was more about the approach one uses to begin with. Their judgement was ultimately clouded by their initial approach, they didn’t actually look in any real detail at the basic evidence to begin with, and just trusted that the system ‘worked’. Many in science make the same mistake. (Science research is like sausages and legislation, those who admire these things shouldn’t see how they are made. It’s the same with some legal convictions, the way this case came to a conviction was a biased mess. )
Don’t read non primary sources. Don’t trust call to authority.
Dig for experimental data, check data backs inferences, check for sources of error and controls. Check maths used. Check simplifying assumptions are valid.
Attempt to reproduce the experimental observations yourself.
If the observations don’t fit the model, change the model!
Well Andrew, since the whole renewables ‘experiment’ has proven to be an epic failure, how do we stop it?
All Siegel is doing is regurgitating often-faked consensus memes. !
Then saying no-one should question them.
In that way, he is no better than griff or loy !
Michael Faraday, a book binders apprentice. Humphreys Davy apprenticed to a surgeon. Antoine Gombaud a gambler, Hedy Lamar an actor, Albert Einstein a patent office clerk. Scientists masquerading as lay people. There are many more, and discoveries by scientists and engineers outside their fields of expertise, Michael Mann for example
(voice of siegel) plebes be silent. your betters will tell you what to think.
Not a ‘scientist’ but well educated, I have no difficulty in researching the climate change question with an incredible accuracy and strength. I merely run Mann versus Montford, Mann vs Steyn, Cook et al vs Duarte, Monckton vs the U.K. Met Office; Ridley vs windmills, Heller vs NASA, Homewood vs the BBC, Booker vs a lot, WUWT vs many issues incl UHI effects, Curry vs that appalling Congressman. , any one who says ‘carbon’ when they mean carbon dioxide, the composition of the UK’s Climate Change Committee vs the Global Warming Policy Foundation’s Academic Advisory Council and there doesn’t seem to any need for RESEARCH as such.
I will continue to do my on research, anyone trying to stop me just makes it that much more important. Until all the leftist political hacks and liars are driven out of science non-scientists have to keep slamming their heads into every available wall. The louder they screech the harder we have to slam.
There’s a lot I can’t understand in the scientific research. I have to rely on experts or science writers to help me understand what is likely to be true and what is likely to be important. BUT, common sense and reasoning skills are a separate skill and I consider mine to be at least on par, and often superior to that of the scientific experts.
For instance, with climate science, I may not be able to understand much of the hard science and I need science writers to help me digest the current state of knowledge, but I know what it means to prove an argument and if it is clear that data is being misused, alternative explanations are ignored, or uncertainties are downplayed or also ignored, I have no problem calling bullshit. And when it happens with regularity and all the fudging is in a particular direction, I am comfortable rejecting the entire effort even if I’m not an expert.
The main precondition to do science is a high IQ. Although it can be trained, it is mainly a gift by nature and any lack of it, can not be compensated by education. Being in the top 0.1% range I find it relatively easy to dive into certain scientific disciplines and soon overmatch its most experienced proponents. “Climate science” was not a hard nut to crack.
On the other side universities mass produce low IQ “scientists” (<130), whose only ever contribution to science will be (hopefully) quoting others correctly. Regrettably it is not just useless, but actively harmful to science. We are priorizing quantity over quality, formalism over materialism, and get spam instead of science.
Leitwolf
There is more to being a scientist than the good luck to have a high IQ. More important is an attitude or a way of looking at the world. It is a desire to understand things as part of a coherent mental model. It is a reaction to an unexpected result: “Now that’s interesting!” Idiot Savants that can provide the 5th root of a 17-digit number might score well on a math test, but I don’t know of any that became famous for their discoveries about how physical processes inter-relate. Someone like Edison probably had a higher score for perseverance than general intelligence. He probably frequently said to himself, “What if …?” However, most importantly, exceptional scientists have to ‘think outside the box,’ not go along with the consensus.
However, I do agree with your opinion that, in general, the quality of today’s scientists pale in comparison to the giants of the past. Could any of today’s self-anointed climatologists duplicate the work of Maxwell or Fresnel?
Well, “‘thinking outside the box’ is the key intelligence function, not drawing 5th roots out of whatever. Actually those boxes are the auxiliaries for those not gifted enough. They do “science” by imitation, not by innovation. And the whole education system is totally supporting it.
“Could any of today’s self-anointed climatologists duplicate the work of Maxwell or Fresnel?”
Probably not! But at least one could consequently apply the work of Fresnel on climate science to make same real progress..
https://notrickszone.com/2020/09/27/plenty-of-physics-flaws-accumulate-into-a-huge-ghe-hoax-the-dark-secret-behind-surface-emissivity/
Leitwolf
A minor complaint is that, strictly speaking, all indexes of refraction are complex, having an imaginary component commonly referred to as the extinction coefficient. The extinction coefficient is small for water, but probably shouldn’t be ignored. Also, since a ray of light is composed of orthogonal components of p and s polarization (one can resolve the p and s components by passing the light through an anisotropic, transparent crystal such as calcite) it makes more sense to show the total reflectivity as the sum of the p and s, rather than the average. However, the Fresnel equation can be manipulated to get the right answer either way.
In case you missed it, you might find this interesting:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/09/12/why-albedo-is-the-wrong-measure-of-reflectivity-for-modeling-climate/
Well Clyde, I read your article a while ago and to a certain degree it was helpful back then. Please don’t feel offended, but it was because a) it showed some of the things to be explored, and b) how much you guys struggle with logic. It got clear that if I would not deal with it, no one ever will.
“I also did a discreet summation of the frustums of a hemisphere (Af = 2πR DX). Multiplying the normalized (to a unit area for the hemisphere) frustum areas by the average reflectivity for the angle of incidence, for each of the frustums, gives the area-weighted reflectivity for each frustum. Summing them gives an area-weighted average reflectivity of about 18%. This is the instantaneous area-averaged reflectance over a hemisphere. This is almost an order of magnitude larger than the sunlight reflected from a small spot on the surface of the ocean directly below the local noon sun during an equinox. It is far greater than the apparent albedo (≪2%) of our hypothetical Waterworld!”
If I use n = 1.34 that result is 17.5%. But let me explain the problem. Let us look at the hemisphere gradient by gradient, with 0% being where the sun is in the zenith and 90% for the terminator. Then obviously the gradient 0-1° makes up for a tiny share of the surface (0.02%), while the last gradient (89-90°) covers the largest surface (1.74%). Thus the high reflectivity towards the terminator (according to our Fresnel equations) get a large weighting.
However that last gradient only receives a tiny share of sun light, because it is hardly visible from the sun’s perspective, if you will. On the other side the first gradient receives the maximum share of sun shine. If we allow for this, then both the first and the last gradient have a weighting of only 0.03%, while gradients 45 (and 46) have the largest weighting of 1.74%. That is because they have both a relatively large surface AND get a decent amount of insolation. Then, as explained in the article with n=1.33 hemispheric reflectivity (or albedo) is indeed 6.6% and NASA is essentially right.
Important: the same weighting applies to emissions from the surface into a hemisphere, if you include lamberts cosine law. So even in this regard absorption and emission are symmetric!
“There has been work done with modeling CERES satellite measurements; however, judging from the following illustrations, they don’t have it right. The right-hand illustration of Fig. 2 shows a hemisphere with a large amount of land. The oceans are shown as darker than vegetated land (8% –18% albedo). Indeed, a value of 6% for open ocean seems to be totally inappropriate”
No it is not, as explained above. However if you look at satellite pictures the question is always if they include clouds or not. But then, even if the sky is clear, a lot of light is actually coming from the sky. I think it is best understood if you look at a picture like the one below. The sky is bright, while the (open) water is pretty dark. So looking from space onto the ocean, most light you see is not from the water, but from the atmosphere above it. Even with a clear sky! Even then, as you can see in the picture, most light from the water is only the reflected sky. Where the water, due to waves, is more directed to the observer, it is almost pitch black.
https://www.fotocommunity.de/photo/open-sea-ssszphotography/34162180
“Clouds can vary widely in their albedo, but a commonly accepted average value is around 50%.”
I would say clouds have naturally a higher albedo. The question is just if they are opaque or thin and transparent.
“When sunlight does reach the surface, the 100% reflectivity at the Earth’s limbs helps explain, in part, why the poles are so cold”
Interestingly snow behaves very differently in the near IR spectrum, that represents are large part of insolation. There snow reflects little to almost nothing and turns into an excellent absorber. On the other side we know water reflects o lot of light at flat angles. For that reason melting poles are not such a significant feedback to “global warming”.
Finally, with clouds, as I have pointed out “climate science” is totally on the wrong path. There would be an aweful lot to explain, but my article covers some of it.
https://notrickszone.com/2020/09/11/austrian-analyst-things-with-greenhouse-effect-ghe-arent-adding-up-something-totally-wrong/
Leitwolf,
The 18% in my article is double what it should be, as was pointed out by another commenter. I don’t have the luxury of being able to go back and change things as certain other privileged posters do. Otherwise, I would have.
Yes, the reflectance of IR by snow is low, but also the output of the sun is low at IR wavelengths, and the atmosphere is most transparent in the visible range, so visible light is most responsible for heating of land and water.
Your article states, “The 1 below the comma, which is usually omitted, represents emissivity, …” Did you mean “division operator symbol” rather than “comma?”
Your analysis is flawed. The reflectivity at any point is what is is. However, the energy reflected is the product of the reflectivity and the intensity of a point ray, integrated over the surface area of the water.
Despite your brilliance, you have missed the most important part. Namely, the climate models, using only albedo, miss the energy that is scattered forward and only estimate the back-scattered energy. Therefore, the estimate of light that is absorbed in water is biased high.
Your article states, “The 1 below the comma, which is usually omitted, represents emissivity, …” Did you mean “division operator symbol” rather than “comma?”
Oh yes, sorry for that!
Also I fear I failed to decipher what you wrote after “Your analysis is flawed”..
Would be interesting to compare IQ with say golf handicap or ability to play piano.
I have a sly feeling that top scientists have more than a high IQ.
We have arrived at the point of the churches of medieval times. Only the professional clergy was allowed to read and interrupt the scriptures, lest any one else, who could read, interrupt them differently. Indeed, they determined what scriptures were canonized and what were not. It shows clearly that CAWG is a religion-not a science.
At that time only few of the population could read or write, even their native language, much less high Latin or Greek. This hi-lights another problem. The slide back into basic scientific illiteracy among the general population.
Many here received basic scientific education decades ago. Moreover, many here were taught how to self learn. Neither of these basic pillars exist in today’s education systems.
The solution to this problem is not as Siegal proposes, but rather it is doing your own research. The only way to learn how to do you own research, or to apply the skill if have been fortunate to have been taught how to self learn, is by doing it.
oops
These two articles are missing a discussion of bias, which can affect both laymen and scientists.
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” ― Upton Sinclair
Follow the money, and you find Big Pharma behind a lot of “news” and Medical Journal articles. These promote the drugs/vaccines/etc. They deal with nasty results like Wakefields’ discovery that vaccines cause autism by blithely claiming “Oh, that’s been debunked,” when in fact his research has been repeated in several other countries.
One of these is a heavy defense of the Logical Fallacy “Appeal To Authority.” Yet it is absolutely correct in saying that most of us are doing Confirmation Bias “research,” and that most people simply do not have the background needed to “do your own research.”
One thing that helps a lot and needs to be said more often is “follow the money.”
“follow the money.” THAT is precisely the kind of “do your own research” that is frowned upon. How dare you try to hold your superiors accountable.
LadyLife ==> Both the full essays are primarily about abilities, training and focus on bias as a major feature of the problem.
Siegel: “There is no excuse, with all the wonderful scientists and science communicators telling the truth about a whole slew of issues in our world, for people to seek out only the opinions that confirm their own biases. ” and “However, do not fool yourself: you are not doing research. You are seeking information to confirm your own biases and discredit any contrary opinions.”
Ridel: “The scientific method remains the best way to solve many problems, but bias, overconfidence and politics can sometimes lead scientists astray.” and “A fourth mistake is to gather data that are compatible with your guess but to ignore data that contest it. This is known as confirmation bias. “
I hark back to the old bromide: A specialist is someone that knows more and more about less and less until he knows everything about nothing”
So many of the so-called scientific studies presented here on WUWT are perfect examples. E.g. a study saying that rising maximum temperatures will negatively impact the harvest of wheat and rice and we need to spend trillions to lower CO2 emissions. The problem is “assuming” that maximum temps are going up because the “global average temperature” is going up. You simply can’t make that assumption. Even a layman can look at the record grain harvests we are seeing for more than 15 years and question what that study is really telling us.
I could go on and on with other examples but the real takeaway is that even if you don’t have the math skills to analyze the study data independently, it is still possible to determine if the data actually describes reality – and that is true measure of science.
Questions to ask:
1. Where are the controlled physical experiments that led to this conclusion?
2. Are the data and analysis behind the conclusion freely available and presented unambiguously?
3. Does the conclusion make definitive predictions on a timescale relatively smaller than a human lifespan and that for any possible human responses?
4. Does someone have a financial or political stake in this conclusion?
5. Is the debate over this issue free and vigorous or has the debate been suppressed or restricted?
6. Can the supporters of the conclusion provide a hypothetical situation which would cause them to reject or modify their conclusion?
7. Can the skeptics conceive of a hypothetical situation which would cause them to accept the conclusion?
Another easy starting point is to recognize what you are being presented with.
Is it a Story Referencing A Study?
If so, you already know the info in front of you is too superficial to be scientific.
You then have to do some of your own digging to find if you are being presented with anything useful somewhere buried or linked.
Usually, the Study is inconclusive anyway, and you can move on to the next. The Study is very often just a Sciencey Sounding Plot Device for the Story.
Andrew
Trust the Science! Science Over Fiction!
Put Statins into the Water Supply
Dr John Reckless (great name), chairman of Heart UK and a consultant endocrinologist at Bath University, put forward the case.
“So maybe people should be able to have their statin, perhaps if not in their drinking water, with their drinking water. The issue is how far we should be encouraging wider use,” he said.
All Post-Menopausal Women Should be on Hormone Therapy
This was based on the “Nurses Study”. Only one problem: it killed a lot more women than it saved.
The Continents are Fixed and Do Not Move
This one was disproved while I was still in school. No text book we ever had mentioned Plate Techtonics. This was less than Sixty years ago. We were taught that the continents were fixed and immovable.
The Universe is Fixed and Does Not Expand
A guy by the name of Hubble (they named a telescope after him) proved this one wrong early in the 20th century.
97% of Scientists in Agreement About Global Warming
If you don’t believe this one is total BS, do a search on ‘Doran Zimmerman 97%’. They handpicked 79 respondents to a questionnaire (sent to over 10,000) and found that 77 of them agreed with them. 77 / 79 = 97%. For those of my age, this is no different than hearing, “Good news Comrades! Chairman Khrushchev was re-elected by 97% of the vote!”
Cataclysmic Events Do Not Cause Evolution or change the planet
Tell that to the dinosaurs. Thank you, Alvarez father and son.
Saturated Fats Will Kill You
No, they won’t. There is overwhelming evidence on this one. If you don’t believe that, ask yourself, “Should I consume food invented in the past few years in a laboratory, or just eat what humans have been eating for over a million years.”
Computers Will Get Huge and be Bigger Than City Blocks
The first computer system I ever worked on (a Univac) filled a room, was noisy as hell, generated an enormous amount of heat, and gave answers after a few minutes. My cell phone has millions more bytes of storage than that Univac, generates almost no heat, and gives answers in milliseconds.
comments attacking my position will most likely be in an ad hominin attack, so I should be referenced as ‘greaser’ or ‘redneck’
It’s called due diligence and anyone who accepts one side of controversial science without applying the proper due diligence TO BOTH POSITIONS lacks the legitimacy to choose either side.
Siegel points out the cavity rate among children is 40% higher in non-fluoridated areas. His argument boils down to parents are unfit to raise children so the state must take over. It’s been a disaster wherever the state tried it’s hand rearing children. For example in children’s homes.
Siegel should ask himself how much ‘science‘ contributes to public fear? By promoting linear no-threshold, cholesterol-the-killer, ‘climate crisis’, and now the virus lockdown scams. How many more scams and lies should the science establishment be allowed to con the public with?
I don’t know why he says us. He has no critical skills.
1. I’ve spent a fair bit of time mastering critical thinking. Studying it. Debating (including logical fallacies – avoiding, refuting). Understanding the scientific method including many of its critics. Studying philosophy in general. But what about this ‘scientific expertise‘ thing? I have no qualifications in climate science.
Guess what Professor Ferguson has qualifications in virology. He’s a mathematician.
GISS climate modeling boss: Gavin Schmidt has no qualifications in climatology. He’s another mathematician.
Where is Ethan Siegel when we need him: identifying faux-scientists who aren’t? Nowhere to be found it seems. I have a first degree in Maths/Computer Science. That gives me basic qualifications to look at mathematical models. Plus a HND in Chemistry and Microbiology. Microbiology included viruses. Chemistry includes pH, and ocean acidity.
Siegel presents a chart of average global temperature anomalies since 1880.
His chart is illegitimate:
(1) There was hardly any data before the 1920s. Even after, and now, there are large areas of the world with no surface thermometers.
(2) The data is all first homogenized, infilled, and kringed. The chart is not an average of raw data.
(3) Many of the surface stations used are greatly influenced by the urban heat affect which makes urban temperatures far warmer than rural temperatures. About 50% of the climate stations used on land are, potentially, corrupted by the urban heat effect. The only legitimate solution is for scientists to relocate the vast majority of climate stations to rural areas. They haven’t.
(4) There’s no good evidence for a signal from man-made climate change. The causes of climate change since 1880 could mostly be natural
(5) In the case of the USA, which has the best network of ground climate stations in the world: USCRN, there’s a major anomaly. The hottest years on record are in the 1930s!
(6) Globally when we split ground temperatures into two series
6.1 Ocean air sheltered (OAS)
6.2 Ocean air affected (OAA)
We find warming for the OAA but not for the OAS. No warming for the OAS since the 1950s. None for USA OAS since the 1930s.
That is incompatible with the expected behaviour of the greenhouse gas effect; or man-made warming (AGW). AGW should show warming irrespective of OAA or OAS.
– 2018: Lansner and Pedersen.
After the chart, Siegel flies off to outer space with wild, and unsubstantiated claims about the climate revealing him as another hysterical climate alarmist. [Something Forbes is now expert at] Siegel should stick to making stories up about space and space travel. Leave the science commentary to adults willing to take jumped-up modelers to task.
Mark P ==> I originally included a great deal of discussion on each of Siegel’s examples….including, of course, his use of a Jan-Dec Land/Ocean Anomalies graph in support of this “global warming” claims.
I removed the whole section as it made the essay far too long.
There was a certain man, a scientist, who did his own research and proposed a theory based on that research. His research was not in his recognized field of expertise, and was roundly criticized and insulted by the REAL experts in the field. He was then ostracized, along with anyone who dared to agree with him, and he died some 15 years after presenting his paper, largely despised.
It took another 30 to 40 years before most people finally agreed that this scientist was basically correct. Unfortunately it was too late to apologize to him for the way he had been treated. You can read the story of Alfred Wegener on the internet today.
I graduated in the top quarter of my class with a 4 year degree in physics and no intent of becoming a physicist, but that is a long, unrelated story. About 14 years ago I became aware of this climate change debate, and decided to do my own research. On a trip to Alaska I learned about the melting of the 65 mile long Glacier Bay glacier, which started melting about the year 1800, and was 3/4 melted by the year 1900, prior to the invention of the airplane, the mass production of the auto, and with worldwide population about 1/4 of today in 1900, even less in 1800.
By the way, it appears that the information on the melting, obtained from the charts of the early mariners, has been deleted from the charts by the National Parks Service.
The problem with science is once those in high places have spoken, the rest will follow, and thereafter it becomes very much more difficult to break through the original groupthink biases and control systems put in place to enforce their consensus. Once scientists attain power they have no incentive to change their minds.
Recently I recieved emails from the AGU and the NAS/NAM with offical sounding statements regarding the need to keep politics out of science, but the problem is it’s too late – they are already captive to politics.
Most of the climate science leaders came up under Al Gore and the IPCC’s influence, who’ve directed climate science politically for decades. All government money is channelled to it, enhancing it’s power. Now Democrat Senators Harris and Warren have called for legally enforceable climate discussion censorship to stop the strawman ‘denyers’. Their main argument seems to be we deny the climate changed. Pretty weak.
In this way no textbook has to be changed and no scientist who is fundamentally wrong has to lose face by admitting failure, nor any politician who promoted those ideas and scientists, and everything can keep blissfully rolling along built on a foundation of error. Imagine how far they would go with unrestrained power, all because they don’t want anyone to do research that contradicts them – so true for COVID-19 too.
Fortunately we still have the freedom this year to explore the hows and whys of what the elite got wrong.
-the solitary inventor tinkering in his shop
When it comes to “Do your own research”, it would be a major step forward if people just did enough research to see what scientists and the cited authorities actually said, and interpret that for themselves, instead of relying on newspaper articles and the like to tell them what it means.
I just kind said the same thing upthread.
Andrew
Well put TonyG. I have only a BS in Biology, however, thanks to Willis, Anthony, Kip and others on this site, I have little trouble spotting the BS. It doesn’t take too much effort to spot the biases, assumptions, over-reliance on models, appeals to authority and other nonsense being passed off as science by those who want us to bow to their ‘superior’ knowledge.
TonyG ==> Yes, bare minimum….
I would love to trust the experts, but i have read too much about mickey mann, peer review and how a bunch of checks and balances have been subverted or bypassed.
So, no, horse has left the barn.
Love it when the people most responsible for destroying public faith in science say we need to trust the consensus.
Again, no.
At least, not any more
+100 Pat
I fully understand the core arguments from both Siegal and Ridley and it is difficult to to tease out from the pros and cons of a scientific argument who is right and who is wrong or if both sides are flawed. But, and this is a big BUT, you only need to see a single a flaw in an argument to reveal that it is likely to be unsubstantiated. So while other factors may be out of your scientific purview it could be a methodology issue rather than a scientific principle which gives the game away.
Siegel says:
“In our own fields, we are aware of the full
suite of data, of how those puzzle pieces fit together, and what the frontiers
of our knowledge is.”
It is to laugh!
I recently had a consultation with a youngish hip surgeon, considered the best by some of his colleagues at the fourth largest hospital in the province of Quebec. I sought his expert opinion on whether recent symptoms on my metal on metal Birmingham hip might be related to metallosis, and specifically whether he would order a nickel sensitivity test for me.
He told me that my cobalt and chromium test results were not worrysome, and that my BHR was properly positioned (all of which I knew already).
I replied that Derek McMinn, (the originator of the Birmingham Hip Resurfacing (BHR), and arguably the most successful hip surgeon in the world), was quoted in an interview of February, 2019, saying that, in the course of implanting and following 5,000 metal on metal hip emplacements over 28 years, he had not seen a single case of cobalt toxicity. But that, even in properly positioned BHRs, nickel sensitivity was a serious issue in that “ the BHR patients’ immune system is
affected , with some patients being rendered highly sensitive to nickel.”
My local “expert” airily dismissed this, saying the he was certain that cobalt poisoning is the primary metallosis issue for MOM hips, and that Nickel is an insignificant factor.
I had brought a copy of the McMinn interview of almost two years ago, which my consultant clearly had not read or heard of, and offered it to him. But he refused to look at it, and his subsequent report shows no indication that he had learned anything from our meeting.
Siegel is simply an apologist for dogma, and “established authority”, as shown by his use of phrases like:
“arguments of a contrarian scientist”,
“valuing the actual expertise that ‘legitimate’ experts have ‘spent lifetimes’ developing”, and
“scientific consensus is so remarkably valuable: it only exists when the overwhelming majority of
qualified professionals all hold the same consistent professional opinion”
The latter can fairly be equated with the statement, “60 million Frenchmen can’t be wrong”,
just substitute “x thousand scientists”, or even “7 billion sheep”. Siegel would surely have called for Galileo’s execution.
Ridley, OTOH, is unbelievably naive in his suggestion that:
“The only way to be absolutely sure that one scientific pronouncement is reliable and another is not is to examine the evidence yourself.”
If this were true, we would be doomed. It’s comparable to saying that if you want your hip done correctly, you’ll have to do it yourself.
It’s impossible for anyone to master all of the technical terminology, the tools, and the data available, even if they were universally accessible to everyone. Which is very far from the case.
Nor are the two fallible methods suggested:
“Relying on the reputation of the scientist, or the reporter reporting it, is the way that
many of us go, and is better than nothing.”
the only, or even the best ways to determine plausibility.
The first technique is to detect the liars, the cheats, the inconsistent data, the experiments set up to fail, etc.. This alone will allow us to eliminate the great majority of claims.
Hydroxychloroquine is a good example.
Two reports in The Lancet claiming that this commonly used drug with a long record of use was highly dangerous to cardiac health were withdrawn when it was discovered that the source and integrity of the data could not be confirmed. But the CDC immediately stopped clinical testing.
A JAMA report of another clinical trial maintaining no benefit and making the same assertions of serious health risks of using the drug was fatally flawed in that it failed to follow the clearly detailed protocol of successful clinical use around the world by starting the treatment when the virus was already replicating and by using a dosage close to the established toxic level.
Yet the CDC failed to resume testing, and so hydroxychloroquine was not approved for use in the US (nor Canada), and the CBC, BBC, and PBS all reported this drug as dangerous and useless. I recall particularly the PBS Newshour’s resident “science reporter”, saying that “several studies” had proven this, long after they had been discredited.
Well, this will not teach you anything about the safety or efficacy of hydroxychloroquine taken at 400mg/day for five days starting during the first five days of Covid-19 symptoms, with or without zinc or remdesivir. But it should teach you something about the reliability of these three public broadcasting sources, the CDC, Dr. Fauci, and a whole boatload of sheepish epidemiologists, virologists, and infectious disease specialists, etc..
And I’m not saying this because I like Trump. In fact, I consider him a bloody coward for not following his own advice and taking the established hydroxychloroquine treatment when he got the virus. And more importantly, for not using his executive power to prevent the State Governors from blocking public access to this affordable drug.
I would rather trust the reports of the many physicians around the world of successfully treating dozens to thousands of Covid-19 infections with this protocol.
I developed a nasty case of psoriasis on my right knee a few years ago. My family doctor prescribed an ointment, which had limited effectiveness, so I decided to look up psoriasis on the internet. A statement there reported that nobody really knew what caused it, but it seemed to be related to an overactive immune system. Overactive immune system describes me perfectly, and suddenly I realized that the right knee was the one with the partial knee replacement, put in a couple of years or so previously. So I went out and purchased one of those 24 hour antihistamines, and the knee cleared up quite adequately. It is not the first time it has taken me a couple of years to develop a reaction to something new!
A few months later I ended up in the hospital for 2 1/2 days for an unrelated problem, and was asked on the second day what prescriptions I was taking. I told them, and requested a daily antihistamine also. “What do you need that for? I was asked. I told them, and the request went down to the hospital pharmacist. Back came my prescription pills and the sarcastic comment “Antihistamine isn’t for knees!” I knew I was getting out soon, so didn’t fight it. By the time I got home, the knee was a mess again and it took a few days on the antihistamine to get it cleared up.
I have had allergy problems all my life, and it is sad to report the times I have had to solve them myself, with much lack of knowledge and even denials from the professionals, including allergy specialists.