David Tribe sent me a link to a piece by Steven Pinker titled ‘Less Faith, More Reason’. Here’s an extract:
“Missing from the report is a sensitivity to the ennobling nature of knowledge: to the inherent value, with consequences too far-reaching to enumerate, of understanding how the world works. For one thing, it is a remarkable fact that we have come to understand as much as we do about the natural world: the history of the universe and our planet, the forces that make it tick, the stuff we’re made of, the origin of living things, and the machinery of life, including our own mental life.
I believe we have a responsibility to nurture and perpetuate this knowledge for the same reason that we have a responsibility to perpetuate an appreciation of great accomplishments in the arts. A failure to do so would be a display of disrespect for our ancestors and heirs, and a philistine indifference to the magnificent achievements that the human mind is capable of.
Also, the picture of humanity’s place in nature that has emerged from scientific inquiry has profound consequences for people’s understanding of the human condition. The discoveries of science have cascading effects, many unforeseeable, on how we view ourselves and the world in which we live: for example, that our planet is an undistinguished speck in an inconceivably vast cosmos; that all the hope and ingenuity in the world can’t create energy or use it without loss; that our species has existed for a tiny fraction of the history of the earth; that humans are primates; that the mind is the activity of an organ that runs by physiological processes; that there are methods for ascertaining the truth that can force us to conclusions which violate common sense, sometimes radically so at scales very large and very small; that precious and widely held beliefs, when subjected to empirical tests, are often cruelly falsified.
I believe that a person for whom this understanding is not second-nature cannot be said to be educated. And I think that some acknowledgment of the intrinsic value of scientific knowledge should be a goal of the general education requirement and a stated value of a university.”
You can read the complete article here: http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=515314 .
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Synchronicity in the science process or the world at large of course is a very interesting thing. One is reminded of the film Magnolia about how interesting events concur and raining frogs.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnolia_(film)
This week we have:
http://www.news.com.au/sundaymail/story/0,23739,20992639-3102,00.html
In an interview Friday, the PM was reported to have said:
.. .. ..
• Long-term energy needs – including nuclear power– and climate change would be high on the agenda.
• The CSIRO report that said drought WAS part of a long-term cycle – not global warming – was a “reality check”.
Was this a report by CSIRO or someone who used to work for CSIRO? I didn’t see CSIRO make a press release. Must have missed it. Interesting to that the author is a long term active member of the Liberal Party.
Just another example of synchronicity I guess.
At the end of the movie Magnolia, “an unlikely event occurs: frogs rain from the sky. While the plague of frogs is unexpected, there have been real-life reports of frogs being sucked into waterspouts and raining to the ground miles inland.
However, there is a more meaningful explanation. Earlier, a boy named Dixon tells Jim that “when the sunshine don’t work, the good Lord bring the rain in.”
Luke ,it has been recorded that the report was written by a research fellow at the Melbourne CSIRO centre.
It is disappointing to think that a mans work would be judged not on it’s merits but on what political party he happens to support.
In another discussion on this site Tim thought that he being a monarchist was obviuos grounds for the reports dismissal and did not mention the report at all.
If the report is incorrect or irrelevent by all means state that, but please leave out the character assassination. It cheapens your views.
Luke – would love an explanation from you as to the criteria for purity in research. It seems that the rules are ;
1.It’s OK for researchers to accept money – except if it’s from a corporation , in which case all the research is suspect and can be disregarded?
Somehow the source of the money is critical?
Non profit organisations are OK unless they’re right of centre / free market in which case the author is an ideologue?
2. It now appears that membership of political organisations is also a factor?
So anything written by a member of The Greens has to be considered suspect or ” interesting” in light of that fact?
Is there a list somewhere that I can swot up on so that I know who’s reliable and how I can tell?
It appears that you’ve written a ” total(ly) ill-founded and gratuitous slag-off without an ounce of foundation.”
Or is that criticism only reserved for those who raise questions about the motives of those you agree with?
Dear Blind Freddy – maybe it’s a good report – I wonder if CSIRO know about it though – I was just commenting on synchronicity. It’s GCM modelling which the blog also has a history of not supporting. And this blog generally doesn’t like CSIRO but now it does – how interesting is that?
Anyway the PM seems fully briefed and that’s the important thing.
“ill-founded and gratuitous slag-off without an ounce of foundation” – gee that doesn’t stop commentators here on any other day of the week. Remind the others too.
(1) as I stated previously – read other post comments – I have time for Barrie Hunt’s work – it’s most interesting
(2) what the inherent background variability in the climate and climate models in an unforced situation (i.e. no changes in CO2 or solar) is a very interesting question, although I doubt the models representation of El Nino processes. (but that’s still OK).
(3) I’m not sure CSIRO know about the report – but that’s OK too
(4) If Barrie had done a climate change GCM run the blog would have denounced it as utter b/s – but can’t have it both ways guys ! – interestingly of course that would be the next simulation you would actually do !!!
(5) I simply find it curious that all this has occurred so quickly and the PM seems fully briefed. But then again John does need to keep up with developments.
(6) And yep – some of the greens stuff is sus and overheated !
Anyway – all in all – an interesting topic relevant to the theme as to how we view and analyse science and related information.
I’m afraid my emotional physiological processes have kicked in – I blame Dtribe !
HOW can we remove the political agenda from the science? Can you do it by accepting all info reported as science on face value without questioning hte source? (That’s certainly not a standard followed at this blog freddy).
Which scientific group would Jennifer, detribe or other readers here nominate as performing reliable, independent, objective, non-partisan science? This blog has slagged off all uni’s, environmental groups, UN organisations and the CSIRO as pinko left-agenda riddled.
copying Luke’s comment from othre thread, do we haev a metric for separating “evidence based” from scum-bag “activists with PhDs on NGO gravy trains”.
What is our standard for evidence-based? Is cherry-picking ok or should you consider all of the relevant evidence and draw a valid causal relationship between the evidence and the point being made?
Given your past support of GCMs as proof of AGW, Luke, you pretty much have to accept that the current drought is natural (can’t have it both ways guys !). A change from your previous position!
http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/001679.html
That’s if we’re trying to score debating points, of course.
Another question is, does Barrie Hunt’s work use a GCM or some other type of model?
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20980586-30417,00.html
500 square kilometers is not a very big area. Less than 25km per side. Not sure that GCMs can provide information at that resolution. (Perhaps they meant 500km per side, 2,500 sq km?).
Barrie Hunt is said to be a “senior climate expert at the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation”. Why wouldn’t the CSIRO know about this report?
http://www.abc.net.au/rural/sa/content/2006/s1819412.htm
Having been on the receiving end of several unprovoked slag offs from you in the past, it would be nice not to be “slagged off” this time. Remind the others, too.
Dear Luke , I’m “blind” because I interpret an issue differently to you? or a weak attempt at humour.
Freddy – humour in the circumstance – but I withdraw it.
Pinxi,
You raise an interesting point about cherry-picking. I suspect we all do it, either consciously or not. Also, the sheer volume of literature for and against an issue may force us to select that which we think is correct – but of course we may be biased. Also, before research is done, I suspect that the selection of research questions is highly subjective, due to funding, political or organisational pressure, need for a career boost through publicity, etc.
Are you a scientist? What are your views on research question selection, and, importantly, avoidance?
“HOW can we remove the political agenda from the science?”
Pinxi – my suggestions ( for what they’re worth )
1. Assume good faith from your opponent – until bad faith is demonstrated
2. Address only the argument – it is actually possible that a scientist paid by Exxon ( or the IPA ) might be an honourable , diligent , honest researcher who would never compromise their integrity by advancing a proposition they knew to be false. It is equally possible that well credentialled scientists may exaggerate , cherry-pick , “offer up scary scenarios” etc because of a messianic belief in their mission to save the world from evil.
In short, it’s almost impossible to be certain about motivation so speculation is fruitless.
3. Acknowledge the deficiencies in your position – pretending your argument is self evidently correct and beyond doubt when it clearly isn’t is dishonest and arrogant.
4.Be consistent – principles should apply to all sides.
Of course , I could be totally full of merde in which case I recommend the following I found on the net;
http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-winargs.html
Summary version;
” Drink liquor.
Make things up.
NOTE: Always make up exact figures.
Use meaningless but weighty-sounding words and phrases.
Use snappy and irrelevant comebacks.
Compare your opponent to Adolf Hitler.
Luke, thank you. I was a little harsh. It seems lately people tend to shoot the messenger not the message.
Where would we be without independent inquiry. ?Hot on the heels of the cunning Hunt contribution we have yet more out of the blue reinforcement for the conservative view of the current impacts of climate change. Blainey shows this current Australian drought ( this child cloned of natural variability alone a la Hunt) is not as bad as the Federation drought of around 1902. Gee thanks, but then in a shot in foot moment he concedes that the current Murray runoff was less than in 1902. So is this spin weaving a tangled web to reposition the impacts of climate change until the nuclear solution arrives or what? Will the left have a go next week.
Davey I think you’re probably right in some cases but not all. IMHO research scientists & engineers can get so consumed (in the absorbing/fascinating sense) that they don’t always draw a relationship with the broader agenda. (How many people think at that many levels at once?) I’d give most scientists the benefit of the doubt but what pressures are put upon them? Even if the hypothesis to completed research process has minimum bias there’s the added issue of how it then gets interpreted and presented, turned into policy or law and then how that’s interpreted and applied. It’s that aspect that I often question here because the science side is pretty well covered.
I do learn some things from the exchanges here but I rally when I detect that info is being distorted/misconstrued to support political motivations (by greenies too, just they don’t hang out here).
Jim I think no. 3 is MIA. No. 2 flies out the window here but gee that’s often in good fun isn’t it? I have to rib you for using the word ‘opponent’ in Assume good faith from your opponent :). But thanks for yr reply, ditto davey & bazza. Happy new year to you all & I’ll drink to your health and mine & the polar bears.
The report from Harvard throws up a fascinating conundrum; if science & technology students are to engage in the humanities (ostensibly to broaden their wordly vision) will arts academics be also required to be cognisant of the physical world? – I think not, ‘science’ based students are already required to take non core courses whilst the other mob cant do maths and cant do science.
Might be a throwback to my martial arts days Pinxi – you could treat an opponent with respect before kicking his ribs in!
I’m off to – a good party awaits complete with neo-cons , greenies , paleo-cons , neo-libs and at least one confirmed Nazi!
PLUS no kids and no driving!
See you all in 2007!!
What an indulgence -“a philistine indifference to the magnificent achievements that the human mind is capable of” and “the picture of humanity’s place in nature that has emerged from scientific inquiry has profound consequences for people’s understanding of the human condition”
My mind buzzed over the scientists and researchers I knew and it matters much who we are.
Just thinking about the fair lady doc from Iceland with runny nosed kids and the Prof from Germany with his doctored egg alongside the former Red Guard a barefoot doc thrust in country China at the height of the other revolution who volunteered her experience here, I can smile. Then there was the Indian who married up a class. He was a great curry host who I hope will make it in medicine with the help of better US facilities.
This was only one group.
But some of my best grins relate to close in experiences on the net, like the cross dresser who left his wife kids and other stuff in a life after a full transition however stayed on as a pro star gazer but located a bit more outback. We met a few met in R/L cause my dear departed was a great in-between councilor. Many cd – tv people only came to life though the www but work mostly in science and IT.
Oh what creative minds we have at our best. But raising research grants is a bit tricky after an outing.
What I really love at every level is the stuff industry pays for. Reputation and political allegiance can both come into play there. After age old engineering peer review procedures were bypassed in Australia by smart maneuvering by the SA group of companies the back door was open for early acceptance in this and that. One or two still stand out against it and Rosemary S is a good example of independence.
I trust most the work from those in research by direct employment in projects where the drive towards particular outcomes is obvious. Yesterday a water technician (chief engineer) told us we had a slight problem with geosmin in our secondary storage. Wiki recons we can detect 10 parts / trillion by taste alone; that’s very reassuring hey.
This time engineering is catching up to science on the www.
Don’t burn your fingers tonight with a damp sky rocket.
It is interesting that the quoted excerpt in Jennifer’s post regarding the nature of science has all the earmarks of faith–indeed, of religion.
It is said to be “ennobling,” and offers an “understanding how the world works,” including “the history of the universe and our planet, the forces that make it tick, the stuff we’re made of, [and] the origin of living things.”
It even has an evangelical aspect: The profession of faith imposes a duty to spread the faith. “I believe we have a responsibility to nurture and perpetuate this knowledge for the same reason that we have a responsibility to perpetuate an appreciation of great accomplishments,” the author writes.
There is even condemnation for unbelievers: “A failure to do so would be a display of disrespect for our ancestors and heirs, and a philistine indifference…”
A good cosmology is, of course, an essential requirement and it is not lacking: there is “the picture of humanity’s place in nature that has emerged…”
There’s even an element of revelation, with the claim that what it offers has “profound consequences for people’s understanding” which “have cascading effects, many unforeseeable, on how we view ourselves and the world in which we live…”
One of the most important hallmarks of a faith or religion is the claim that something has intrinsic value, i.e., a value that is not invented by humans or instrumental to their aims, but simply inherent–and that is offered up as well. “[S]ome acknowledgment of [its] intrinsic value … should be a goal … and a stated value…”
Which means, of course, that the title of the excerpted article, ‘Less Faith, More Reason’, suggests a sharp dichotomy which utterly fails to emerge in the discussion.
Schiller,
” It is interesting that the quoted excerpt in Jennifer’s post regarding the nature of science has all the earmarks of faith–indeed, of religion. ”
I remember something vaguely from my UNI days along the lines of ” forming the scientific priesthood ” Popper perhaps?
Science has a large pantheon, spread across disciplines as diverse as the “jurisdictions” of the old Roman and Greek gods. They have their votaries as well; but the position in this system most analogous to a priesthood is likely occupied by those who seek, demand or extort funding to support the efforts of members of the pantheon.
Popper is more on the order of a prophet or saint.
I have fewer brain cells today than yesterday & nodding off but wanted to post this:
“Personally, I see our role (as scientists) to be providers of more context to scientific discussions (that are going on in the public domain regardless) and to be correctors of examples of bad scientific arguments used by others. This is not per se political (in anything other than the absolutely broadest sense) and it certainly isn’t partisan. We do not criticise only those who have policy agendas we might disagree with, but have criticised abuses of the science both by those who would like climate change to disappear as an issue and those who would exaggerate the threat or our level of scientific certainty. This can be a difficult tightrope to walk sometimes, but I think we have done a reasonable job.”
The comments that follow are worth reading (a mention of Pinker too).
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/03/pielke-pere-et-fils-in-nature/
So spinx, scientific discussions are being conducted in the public domain by non scientists – by political scientists? – more of the faith and less of the reason.
Will scientists refrain from making political comments? – increasingly political comments and petitions on government policy and endorsement of candidates are being made by eminent scientists – science is being used as a political tool.
“I dread specialists in power because they are specialists speaking outside their special subjects. Let scientists tell us about sciences. But government involves questions about the good for man, and justice, and what things are worth having at what price; and on these a scientific training gives a man’s opinion no added value.”
C S Lewis warned that the marriage of modern science and politics could produce an oppression ostensibly to save man from himself.
http://cslewis.drzeus.net/papers/politics.html
Rog,
That is quite astute. Similar observations have been made about actors, musicians and others endorsing policies and candidates.
That raises an interesting question, though: do we all not “speak outside [our] special subjects” when we endorse policies and candidates? Who are most qualified for making endorsements?
rog how do you to propose to remove the politics from the man?
Anyone speaking out publicly on an issue is engaging in a political act. If it’s an issue relevant to complex science, should that person be a politician, a scientist, a lobbyist or a PR flak?
SHould we muffle scientists if they see the science is being misrepresented (irrespective whether it’s deliberate or accidental)?
rog: “Let scientists tell us about sciences.” Who uses science for political ends? What point are you trying to make rog? It seems you didn’t read properly of the link.
eg coby:
“BTW, I think it is essential, absolutely essential, to completely seperate in your mind the scientific questions of AGW and the socio-political questions of what should we do and if so how should we do it.
… Avoid political arguments and political sources and go straight to the scientific evidence. ”
About RC
“The discussion here is restricted to scientific topics and will not get involved in any political or economic implications of the science.”
Another question: if you want scientists to stick strictly to their specialist areas, how do you get experts from increasingly fragmented pool of knowledge together to co-operate on solving the big interconnected problems that don’t respect human disciplinary boundaries? So to what extent should scientists be permitted to stray beyond narrow confines? Are specialists allowed to talk to other specialists in the campus lunchroom but not to political scientists?
When should scientists be permitted to speak out? As analogy, if a civil engineer notices a developer building a council-approved, architect-designed building that’s structurally flawed & potentially life-threatening for its occupants, should he be muffled?
Pinx,
The central problem is that people who enjoy wide respect and possess certain credentials are given more political weight and credibility than they deserve.
So, for instance, rock stars and scientists with a significant following might be perceived as being more politically perceptive than their followers, and therefore exert influence in areas where their credentials are meaningless.
that point can apply to all persuasions schiller. How would you overcome it? I say it’s important for proper scientists working in relevant science to give voice to real science.
even RC says “criticised abuses of the science both by those who would like climate change to disappear as an issue and those who would exaggerate the threat or our level of scientific certainty.”
Perhaps I did read the link Pinks, did they not mention the various petitions by Nobel laureates eg the one endorsing Kerry – no?
Too many call on govts to do this and do that, the big brother in a welfare state. Its high time people mined their own business and not have to rely on super nanny to fix things.
fend for ourselves, look after yourself, put yourself 1st? abolish govt, anarchist rule instead? rog what position are you proposing?
and on scientists representing science? they should look out for themselves too?
You’ll promote free markets without govt involvement rog but want to restrict scientists from engaging in free-exchange information markets? How will you repress them without a govt? Oh I recall, the minimal govt unrestricted-free-market position still wants strong control over rule of law, police & prisons. Gotta keep the riff-raff at bay somehow while you’re indulging your personal greed me me me me me me me me me me me me me mine mine mine mine mine mine
So pinksee lets cut to the chase, when do you think Al Gore will announce his intention to run for president?
I mean, he really does go over the top;
“..Winston Churchill, when the storm was gathering on continental Europe, provided warnings of what was at stake. And he said this about the government then in power in England – which wasn’t sure that the threat was real, he said, “They go on in strange paradox, decided only to be undecided, resolved to be irresolute, adamant for drift, solid for fluidity, all powerful to be impotent.” He continued, “The era of procrastination, of half measures, of soothing and baffling expedience of delays, is coming to a close. In its place we are entering a period of consequences.”
Ladies and gentlemen, the warnings about global warming have been extremely clear for a long time. We are facing a global climate crisis. It is deepening. We are entering a period of consequences. Churchill also said this, and he directed it at the people of his country who were looking for any way to avoid having to really confront the threat that he was warning of and asking them to prepare for. He said that he understood why there was a natural desire to deny the reality of the situation and to search for vain hope that it wasn’t really as serious as some claimed it was. He said they should know the truth. And after the appeasement by Neville Chamberlain, he sad, “This is only the beginning of the reckoning. This only the first sip, the first foretaste, of a bitter cup which will be proffered to us year by year – unless by a supreme recovery of moral health and martial vigor, we rise again and take our stand for freedom….”
http://tinyurl.com/yfau3p
What is it you dont like about free markets stinky, is it the total lack of coercion and voluntary nature of transfering money, goods and/or services? You most certainly act without restraint in your delivery of numerous unreasoned constructions
Are you going to criticise this piece by Steven Pinker too? The cheek of him, to speak out so.
You are without principle stinky; I am not against debate. When are you going to stop twisting comments to suit your own agenda?
rog what have I twisted? What is my agenda? You came in with ‘So spinx, scientific discussions are being conducted in the public domain by non scientists – by political scientists? – more of the faith and less of the reason.’
What did this relate to – anything I said? What point are you trying to make? I’ve raised the issue of scientists talking about science. I’d like to know who is better qualified to speak out on matters of science than the relevant scientists. I suspect you want to agree.