

Science is dead - jakarta
http://finemrespice.com/node/74

======
grellas
Science and advocacy is an interesting topic.

As a lawyer, I have witnessed the phenomenon of the "hired gun" very often in
a courtroom context. A "neutral," "objective" expert comes to the very
conclusion for which he or she is paid and dresses it up with all the right-
sounding phrases and data to support the desired conclusion. Does this mean
every court expert is a mere hack? No, not at all. There are honest experts.
But you have to fight your way through all the others (and there are many of
them) to find the occasional expert with sufficient integrity to withstand the
temptation to twist results to suit a pre-conceived goal sought by the party
paying for the services.

Fast forward to private industry scientists. Many of us are quick to disparage
scientific statements made by "paid lackeys" of, say, the oil industry. We
simply assume that such results are tainted. Why? Because we automatically
associate the scientists involved with the party paying the bills and take it
as a given that anyone in that role will not be truly objective and will
likely be a paid hack. Thus, the environment from which the scientific
statements emanate determines for us whether to believe the statements or
regard them as tainted. In a private industry context, we have a strong
predisposition to assign taint to the outcome.

Now, if human nature is such that it can be "bought" in a courtroom context or
in a private-industry context, why should it magically transform itself in a
public policy context to that of a saintly disposition that has nothing at
heart but an intense desire to discover objective truth? This is where the
problem arises with global-warming scientists. If results are tainted because
someone favoring a particular outcome lavishes rewards on the scientists and
then uses their results for a tendentious purpose, why are they not similarly
tainted in a public policy context?

Consider that the science of global-warming has assumed the role of a reigning
orthodoxy (what else do you call something that has taken on the status by
which its proponents insist that it is beyond the pale even to question its
correctness?). Consider further that it is being used to justify the potential
imposition of taxes and payment transfers running into the trillions of
dollars, thus serving to enlarge the powers of governments exponentially from
levels previously known and accepted in free societies. Consider finally that
it is serving as the basis to justify potential government intervention and
control in the most minute details of what used to be considered every
citizen's private life (the size of our cars, how many times we flush the
toilet, whether we use this or that substance for this or that purpose).

Even a casual glance at this situation suggests that _massive_ "vested
interests" lie behind the science of global warming. This is not even to
mention that, as a reigning orthodoxy, it has set up an environment where all
the rewards and perks for a scientist from established institutions exist for
those who become proponents of this particular viewpoint and, conversely, all
the detriments and penalties lie against those who oppose it.

Why, in such a context, would anyone expect the "public interest" scientists
to be anything _other_ than mere advocates for a position as opposed to
objective seekers of truth.

I grew up worshiping at the shrine of reason and the enlightenment and have
the utmost respect for what true science represents. But the enlightenment had
one huge flaw in its premises, and that is that reason will ultimately triumph
over other aspects of human nature that parade variously under the titles of
"desires," "appetites," "lusts," etc., i.e., the so-called baser human traits.
Sadly, those baser traits do not go away and often affect the results of so-
called scientific findings. We immediately recognize this with the paid hacks
of a courtroom scenario or with with lackeys associated with a private
company. It is time we see that the same factors massively pervade those who
are nothing but self-interested proponents of a viewpoint that furthers the
massive appetites of governments for power and control over people's lives.

Is there such a thing as objective science discovered and delineated by
persons of integrity? Absolutely. Is this form of science likely to be found
in the midst of a politically-driven movement? Possibly, but highly unlikely.
Science and politics are indeed different and mixing the two is far more
likely to yield tainted results than objective outcomes.

This piece, by the way, reads like an almost bittersweet reflection on how the
lofty claims of science have run upon the rocks of sad reality and fallen all
too short of their aspirations.

~~~
philwelch
It doesn't actually benefit anyone to convince people that anthropogenic
climate change exists unless anthropogenic climate change actually exists. In
fact, it's a huge pain in the ass for everyone. It doesn't even help the
political classes, because they have to waste political capital pursuing this
issue rather than the half dozen other things they could worry about. However,
it's in the direct benefit of oil companies to convince people that
anthropogenic climate change doesn't exist. One side has motives and vested
interests to lie, the other really does not.

Incidentally...

 _Consider finally that it is serving as the basis to justify potential
government intervention and control in the most minute details of what used to
be considered every citizen's private life (the size of our cars, how many
times we flush the toilet, whether we use this or that substance for this or
that purpose)._

Perhaps the largest proposed government intervention does nothing of the kind:
it simply addresses the externality of greenhouse gases by submitting them to
the same kind of cap-and-trade system we have for sulphur dioxide. Rather than
addressing specific regulations for fuel consumption and energy usage, this
would simply restrict the amount of greenhouse emissions Americans can produce
so that ordinary market forces would apply this pressure as efficiently as
possible. If you really object to those kind of regulations, support cap and
trade. I honestly see no good rationale for any type of conspiracy theory
about scientists being government lackeys for some sort of arbitrary statist
takeover of your SUV and toilet.

~~~
yummyfajitas
It doesn't actually benefit anyone to convince people that sex outside of
marriage is bad unless it really is is bad. In fact, it's a huge hedonic loss
for everyone. It doesn't even help the political classes, because as rich high
status men, they are prevented from having the extramarital sex which comes
easily to them (or at least they must hide it). However, it's in the direct
benefit of perverts and sex freaks to convince people that extramarital sex is
harmless. One side has motives and vested interests to lie, the other really
does not.

If your logic is valid but mine is not, please explain to me why.

~~~
philwelch
Your argument is invalid because there are practically no scientists (social
or otherwise) coming out against premarital sex in modern societies with
adequate screening against STDs and responsible use of contraception.

Honestly, sex outside of marriage probably was bad in the medieval society
where the Roman Catholic Church pushed that doctrine on all of us. It wasn't
until the invention of reliable birth control in the 20th century that it
wasn't a bad idea, but religious doctrines tend not to keep up with the times
as well (hence modern day Muslims and Jews eschewing entire categories of food
because they couldn't be trusted to be healthy in ancient Israel).

Interestingly enough, the RCC hasn't managed to buy off enough scientists to
fabricate much evidence that condoms and the pill are a bum deal. I guess to
some Catholics though, all the scientists who publish studies saying that the
pill is 99% effective and condoms can stop the spread of HIV are secretly
agents of godless secular humanism.

While I'm sure some environmentalist devotions rise (sink?) to the level of
unexamined religious belief, most of them push silly pseudoscientific
hypotheses ("Gaia") which do not, in fact, actually get much scientific
literature to support them.

~~~
yummyfajitas
Phil, you didn't make an argument about scientists. You made a blanket
statement about everyone, and singled out the political classes.

 _It doesn't actually benefit anyone to convince people that anthropogenic
climate change exists unless anthropogenic climate change actually exists. In
fact, it's a huge pain in the ass for everyone...It doesn't even help the
political classes..._

Incidentally, scientific communities have gotten behind theories with little
evidence for political or religious purposes: Lysenkoism and various eugenic
theories, for example.

~~~
philwelch
The topic under discussion is "social pressure on scientists to fabricate
evidence towards some sort of ulterior motive". Perhaps I should have
explicitly restated that, but I assumed the way our respective comments are
threaded implied it well enough.

~~~
yummyfajitas
Your argument explicitly mentions "anyone" and "political classes"; in no way
does it single out scientists. It's a very general argument which, based on
context, I assumed you were specializing to scientists.

If you wish to claim it is true for scientists, but not people in general,
you'll need to explain what special features of scientists make the argument
true for them.

In any case, there is direct benefit _to climate scientists_ to exaggerate the
dangers/probabilities of climate change: it raises the importance of their
field and by extension themselves. Exaggerated fears of global warming benefit
climate scientists, just as exaggerated fears of the next great depression
benefited Nouriel Roubini.

~~~
philwelch
I was responding to the vague claim that statists, who have an interest in
increasing the power of the federal government, are exerting influence on
climate scientists to fraudulently manufacture a rationale for a presumably
wide-ranging and invasive intervention in the economy. My argument is that
it's very hard to identify any sufficiently powerful group with any
identifiably vested interest in fraudulent climate science other than the
petroleum, automotive, and energy industries.

~~~
ellyagg
Actually, it's not the slightest bit hard:

> Consider the case of Phil Jones, the director of the CRU and the man at the
> heart of climategate. According to one of the documents hacked from his
> center, between 2000 and 2006 Mr. Jones was the recipient (or co-recipient)
> of some $19 million worth of research grants, a sixfold increase over what
> he'd been awarded in the 1990s.

Source:
[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870393940457456...](http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703939404574566124250205490.html)

There is no rational way one can claim that dramatizing your findings doesn't
increase your exposure and make you more likely to get grants, and there's no
rational way to claim that scientists don't really, really want grants.
There's also no reason to believe scientists/policy promoters aren't just as
passionate about their goals as Exxon executives are about theirs.

And, no, scientists' chief goals are not the clear and unvarnished pursuit of
truth. Scientists are people who want to be recognized for the amazing truths
they've uncovered. If, after 30 years, you find that the evidence of your
research does not support any significant insights into public policy, then a
scientist, like any other person, will feel that their life has been wasted.
Worse still is when the expectation has been set up, by 30 years of press and
publicity, that their studies did matter and were of the most urgent
importance. Losing that would be almost impossible to endure. And there's zero
reason to believe scientists are able to endure this more than anyone else.

(It would be amazing if scientists had the ability to say "Hey, this path
didn't lead anywhere, but I contributed to our understanding of the world by
cutting off these possibilities". Sadly, scientists are human just like the
rest of us. Science is the worst way to apprehend the world, except for all
the others.)

Remember, no one is claiming that climate scientists are in a conspiracy to
trick people into thinking there is global warming when they don't think there
really is. That is a pure straw man by pro-AGW folks. What many people _do_
feel is that numerous factors, including the natural vanity, zeal, and self-
importance of the small community of climate scientists, are causing them to
overstate their findings.

~~~
philwelch
Fine, let's test that hypothesis: climate scientists overstate their findings.
If climate scientists overstate their findings, we would expect them to, among
other things, overestimate the rate of glacial melting. But in fact, most of
the findings (the IPCC findings in particular) _underestimate_ the rate of
glacial melting. Hmm....

------
madbatter
This was a rambling waste of time--why is this drivel getting up-voted? There
are many branches of science and many practitioners. Peer review is not dead
or some secret cabal, it does improve papers and help weed out some bad
papers. As near as I can tell the posting is by another global warming denier
dressed up in fancy gibberish--quoting Crichton is a strong hint in this
direction.

------
araneae
_Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid
enough._

No. Consensus is invoked when science becomes a political issue. This is
because politicians and their voters do not have the time or the inclination
to examine data. Instead, the battle is a political one where the playing
field is about who has more authority.

In political issues (evolution, global warming) politicians (and scientists
that are political) try to use the authority of science, not the science
itself.

------
timr
What a disjoint, rambling mess. If this is the quality of thinking that
concludes that science is dead, then I think I'm going to continue to put my
money on science.

~~~
tdoggette
_It is not often that one finds a particular discourse shot through with the
sort of threads, intertwined silver filaments, that touch at once on so many
personal interests and gather so many errant thoughts into a larger whole that
the emotional aftermath is best characterized as the shock of a sort of
theoretical unification._

What?

~~~
bigsassy
Perhaps someone modified SCIgen for political opinion pieces?
<http://pdos.csail.mit.edu/scigen/>

------
troystribling
Arguments like this one, trying to make the point of a decline in morality,
rigor, intelligence or what ever, tend to use the post WWII world as a point
of reference. I recently watched a Noam Chomsky documentary,
[http://video.google.com/videosearch?oe=utf-8&rls=org.moz...](http://video.google.com/videosearch?oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-
US:official&client=firefox-a&q=Power+and+Terror:+Noam+Chomsky&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ei=bwggS9ylBsiUtge0mOmxCg&sa=X&oi=video_result_group&ct=title&resnum=1&ved=0CBAQqwQwAA#oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-
US%3Aofficial&client=firefox-a&q=Power+and+Terror%3A+Noam+Chomsky&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ei=bwggS9ylBsiUtge0mOmxCg&sa=X&oi=video_result_group&ct=title&resnum=1&ved=0CBAQqwQwAA&qvid=Power+and+Terror%3A+Noam+Chomsky&vid=6909612995471559345),
in which when discussing the history of social activism he made the point that
the post WWII era up to the 60's was anomalous and that we are now settling
back to business as usual. It is may be that this is true of many other
activities.

If we look at Victorian Era science it was rife theories and notions that were
scientifically somewhat mainstream, Phrenology, Spiritualism, ..., that we now
consider pseudoscience. It is possible that some of the points raised in this
article may be contemporary manifestation of what will in time become
pseudoscience.

I think it more likely that we are seeing th normal state of science not the
decline.

------
cakeface
I really like this quote:

 _If you needed any more reason to believe that the traditional model of
science and peer review, a system closely guarded from the tyranny of
outsiders and their unending and infernal questions, is dead you might simply
indulge in the realization that obfuscation is simply the last fig-leaf these
institutions have left to cling to and reflect on the fact that in the 240
hours following the leak more pure knowledge and analysis was made available
to the public than in the 24 years prior._

In general I haven't been too interested in the drama that has been going on
in relation to the "Warmergate" thing, but I do like that there is a renewed
interest in the actual data involved and integrity of the science.

~~~
nollidge
I agree it's good people are talking about science, generally, but this:

    
    
       in the 240 hours following the leak more pure knowledge
       and analysis was made available to the public than in
       the 24 years prior
    

requires a citation.

~~~
duncanj
Or at least one example.

------
jpwagner
Separation of science and state!

------
onlyafly
This article was such a rambling mess. I read the whole thing but learned
nearly nothing from it except that Crichton didn't believe in anthropogenic
global warming.

------
pwnstigator
I find it ridiculous that people are quick to claim "science is dead" because
a few scientists, being human, err or embarrass themselves, or because society
as a whole may be having an anti-science backlash.

None of that has anything to do with science's value, and so long as science
is valuable and some people are able to understand it, it won't die (barring a
severe and sudden loss of knowledge by humanity as a whole).

Also, scientific consensus _is_ meaningful. It'd be superfluous to say
"scientific consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles from the earth",
because that's basically a measured fact. On the other hand, that the species
formed by natural selection is a scientific consensus, and a valid one. 99+%
of those who have reviewed the debate have concluded that it's the best
explanation there is, and that there are no good reasons for rejecting it.

~~~
tensor
I'd like to add that scientific consensus is often a consensus of _evidence_ ,
not a consensus of opinion as it so often is in politics.

~~~
pwnstigator
Excellent point.

However, people sometimes misuse the phrase "scientific consensus". For
example, on the near-death experience, it's often said that "scientific
consensus" is that the NDE is a biochemical phenomenon. Wrong. There is no
scientific or medical consensus on that issue.

The discrepancy regarding "scientific consensus" is much like that surrounding
word "theory" in science, which has a precise meaning different from the
colloquial definition. "Theory of Universal Graviation" and "Theory of
Evolution" involve a much stronger definition of this word than "conspiracy
theory". Evolution isn't "just a theory", in the colloquial sense of "theory";
it's an extremely well-supported probable explanation.

------
Raphael
Science is dead. Long live science!

