Chris Mooney was just at YearlyKos (next year, I swear, I’ll try to go) and wrote his experiences up at HuffPo. He is describing science versus the fantasy-thinking practiced by this White House, and describes it thus:
In other words, you might say that now more than ever before, we’re finally waking up to the fact that the practices of science themselves encode a set of values — a way of approaching the world, understanding it, and acting within it. At its core, it’s a world view that is humble about what we know and don’t know, flexible about what we do and don’t decide to do, and open about admitting past mistakes and listening to contrary opinion. In short, it’s the utter opposite of Bush’s stubborn, inflexible, unwavering certainty about everything.
This is absolutely 100% precisely correct (and I admit being so certain of that may be somewhat ironic).
These are exactly the strengths of science. Many fundamentalist religions want the Universe to be simple, simple enough to be precisely and inerrantly documented in books written thousands of years ago, and simple enough to explain to people in a misleading way that can convince them to do things contrary to their own (and humanity’s) self-interest.
Science is the diametric opposite of that. Reality-based people know the Universe is complicated, that the first explanation that comes to mind might not be the right one, that things can be nuanced, that finding answers means revealing more and ever-subtler questions.
Reality is complicated, and offers little comfort except the fun of the pursuit of understanding, and sometimes — not always, but sometimes — the incredible satisfaction of actually attaining that understanding.
August 13th, 2007 at 9:51 pm
I firmly believe that religion of all kinds needs to go. Mankind has been held back far too long because of it. The brainwashing of children and the degradation of their minds is unacceptable in the 21st century. Humanity needs to grow up and realize that the supernatural is a fantasy. The word itself is an oxymoron. If its real then its a natural phenomon and would be consider natural not “supernatural”.
Question: Does any here believe that science is losing the battle against religion. A battle of trying to teach our kids the value of logic and reason versus superstition, ie: creationism in public schools. I can only hope that science will prevail but I fear for our future as a species. Is it possible to have a scientific driven society similar to the Star Trek fantasy or am I just dreaming. Just food for thought….
August 13th, 2007 at 9:58 pm
[...] Court Contact the Webmaster Link to Article white house Chris Mooney nails it » Posted at Bad Astronomy Blog on Monday, August [...]
August 14th, 2007 at 12:56 am
Off topic, but you’re on TV right now, Phil. Is It Real? on National Geographic, about the Mars face. You looked good.
August 14th, 2007 at 1:13 am
>>> YearlyKos (next year, I swear, I’ll try to go)
Sweet smoking Jesus, why!?
Bleah… I’m amazed the whole thing didn’t collapse into an ideological singularity, completely cut off from critical thinking by the event horizon.
Seriously, is there a place for a real skeptic at such a political convention? Politics and ideology are mental illnesses as far as I’m concerned. I wouldn’t go near such a thing without an anti-meme hazmat suit. So a few pay lip service to science. Big deal.
August 14th, 2007 at 2:30 am
The philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways. The point however is to change it.
August 14th, 2007 at 5:18 am
I went to YearlyKos, and I can honestly say that it had variety of liberal viewpoints. Most of the people there were mainstream democrats, and I know that Phil would have fit in.
As for true skeptic conventions, I’m sure you would enjoy the CSI and Randi conventions because they’re organized for skeptics of all political beliefs.
August 14th, 2007 at 6:37 am
I’m religious, but I hate the obsessive point to which the administration takes it as much as you, BA. Obssession killed Robert Scott and Captain Ahab.
August 14th, 2007 at 7:30 am
(Writing from a safe distance to Bush: Netherlands/Europe)
Nicely written!
You pointed out, very clearly, in a few words WHY Bush and the likes:
1) Did never learn anything
2) Will never learn anything
And that is why they will never understand anything.
The scary part is that those traits of character don’t stand in the way to become the most powerful man on earth. (In my opinion they actually HELP, given the respect many people have for ’strong men who never bulge for critisism’, which is in many respect an antiscientific attitude.)
Scientific research/thinking is the only way to reliably extend knowledge.
It actually works. Produces results. Is testable. Etc.
Religion does not produce anything, except more stupid narrowminded idiots who are trained to pass it on to their (big) offspring.
xav0971 asked: Question: Does any here believe that science is losing the battle against religion.
Well, depends on where you live. In China it is not. In USA, well maybe. I feel sincerely sorry for all wellthinking Americans for the fact they have to put up with so much misinformation, spead happily by some powerful religious spindocters, who, of course, try to accumulate as much political power as possible.
From what I see things are getting more and more religious in the USA, but I could be wrong. (I hope I am wrong)
Here in the Netherlands things are a little better, religionwise speaking: less fundamentalists. And most religious people I know have a very relaxed attitude, and don’t mind having such an atheist like me around.
Of course we have our share of 1-bitters too.
But back to your important question: Is science losing?
I hope all freethinkers feel the urge, and have the energy, to talk with people they meet to talk about this.
Religion is just a bunch of crap, inconsistent, and based on fairytales, and if humankind wants to have the slightest chance for survival, this is where to start: stop religion and teach children to think for themselfs.
Don’t tell it like that of course.
Personally, I am not very optimistic. I am afraid the human mind prefers simple explanations (God-did-it) above real explanations.
Real explanations are so difficult, and you must study so much. Many take the easy road.
August 14th, 2007 at 8:22 am
Removing Bad Astronomy from my bookmarks.
August 14th, 2007 at 8:23 am
That IS very well said.
Mooney is spot on.
August 14th, 2007 at 8:35 am
> Removing Bad Astronomy from my bookmarks.
Now look what you did, Phil. Aren’t you sorry now that you were so mean to George Bush and the sad wastes of skin who crave a strong authority figure?
August 14th, 2007 at 8:38 am
Egghead, why bother posting anything? Just go away and hide in your bible or something. Mooney is so dead on it’s not even funny; I struggle with religious fundamentalists all throughout Southern WV. In fact, there is a vote going on right now to allow table games, and of course the fundies and zealots are all about stopping this since gambling is so sinful. They of course try to hide this politically by stating that gambling ruins families, but the truth is that addiction ruins families, not gambling, so let’s just ban everything which can be addictive!
Thanks for keeping this site going Phil, I read everything you write. Perhaps we’ll convert a few people into thinking for themselves and ignoring fantasy and other nonsense.
August 14th, 2007 at 8:47 am
If only our drive for technological advancement found its motivation outside of war and capitalism. That sounds funny coming from me (a fairly conservative American), but I see no reason why a religious society would choose to fully understand its environment in lieu of accepting the tales of an ignorant past carried on as irrefutable fact.
Religion will have a place in the 21st century and always as long as humanity feels the loneliness of existence. My dream is that someday, our loneliness will be matched by a unity humankind and an ability to see the beauty of logic and truth.
“Removing Bad Astronomy from my bookmarks.”
It’s exactly that attitude that hopefully someday will be regarded as cowardly instead of applauded as righteous.
August 14th, 2007 at 9:06 am
Now MY irony gland is on over load:
“we’re finally waking up to the fact that the practices of science themselves encode a set of values”
Science isn’t a religion. No, wait it is. No, it’s just an encoded set of values. Oh, that clarifies things…
Dogmatic religious fundamentalists are a problem, but so are dogmatic scientists. I know posters here have claimed that dogma doesn’t exist in science, that “true science” is about testing hypotheses and developing better theories, etc. Fine, I can accept the latter definition. But science is performed by people, and if you think people don’t get attached to their “pet projects” if you think people enjoy the opportunity to see their life’s work invalidated by someone else’s research, you’re just kidding yourself. Dogma exists in the scientific community.
If the existence of a dogmatic “right wing” is so useful for disqualifying religion as a viable way of life, why isn’t the existance of dogmatic scientists just as valid for disqualifying science as a valid worldview?
August 14th, 2007 at 9:08 am
[existance, existence, it'd be nice if I'd pick one spelling and stick with it...]
August 14th, 2007 at 9:14 am
The scientific method is humble and always prepared to change in the face of new evidence, but individual scientists are human, so they can’t and don’t always live up to that ideal. Scientists as people can be just as dogmatic as anyone else, but the scientific method tends to ensure that deas that are unsupported by evidence are rejected or replaced in the long run.
August 14th, 2007 at 9:21 am
DennyMo, it is the purpose of peer review; the individual biases of an individual are spotlighted by peers who have no interest in their work. While it may be a major blow to the ego to have “work overturned”, it is that very scientific method which will expose any incorrect methods and/or findings. Where in religion do we find checks and balances exactly, prayer? You’re not arguing science, you’re arguing bias. Yes, people can become biased and very defensive of their work. But the scientific method will find the truth. What part of the bible is peer reviewed?
August 14th, 2007 at 9:29 am
DennyMo, that is why no one scientist, or even a group of scientists, is given final authority on truth (unlike religion). A given scientist might have his or her own beliefs, own pet projects, own biases. But these all tend to conflict between scientists and, for the most part, cancel out. Even if they don’t immediately, as new evidence comes to light then new personal views will form and conflicts will form until they are resolved by the evidence. That is how science progresses. There is no final authority that must be accepted without question, unlike religion, and thus people tend to form their own opinions and then butt heads until the evidence is such that one, or both, sides accepts that they were wrong (which often happens relatively quickly since the scientists on all sides are scrambling to accumulate evidence).
August 14th, 2007 at 9:51 am
I agree with these sentiments fully, as far a science goes, but I am saddened that the only sources quoted (there are plenty of others) are Daily KOS and Huffpo, which are politically biased to the extreme and full of some of the vilest expressions I have seen anywhere, whenever I choose to walk in the dirt.
August 14th, 2007 at 10:14 am
xav0971 said:
> I firmly believe that religion of all kinds needs to go. Mankind has been held back far too long because of it. The brainwashing of children and the degradation of their minds is unacceptable in the 21st century.
I think one must consider what is meant by the word “Religion”. I suggest that word encompasses a number of concepts and elements that are loosely tied together. I submit there are experiences in “Religion” that are part of the human nature, and will not go away. I think the real issue is to identify the parts of human experience and how they are useful and strip out the elements that are deleterious. The blind adherence to the ancient mythology and self-righteousness fostered by the sense of surety of purpose are traits that get in the way and cause or increase suffering. If we are to improve the human condition, we need to find ways to foster the elements of religion that serve us while eliminating the elements that constrict us.
DennyMo said:
> Now MY irony gland is on over load:
“we’re finally waking up to the fact that the practices of science themselves encode a set of valuesâ€
> Science isn’t a religion. No, wait it is. No, it’s just an encoded set of values. Oh, that clarifies things…
You seem to be under the mistaken impression that only religions may have values. This is incorrect. Values are inherent in every social enterprise. They are what allow us to interact for a common goal.
What are the values of science? Integrity, honesty, diligence, thoroughness. These are underlying principles that science requires. That is why the most serious error, the greatest accusation and the thing most likely to get you kicked out of the science community is falsifying data. You are allowed to be wrong, but lying gets you shunned.
That doesn’t mean there aren’t hoaxes and lies in science (Piltdown Man, South Korean cloning, the Lobo-Wirth-Cha study on prayer, etc). People are human, and will continue to be human. But scientists scrutinize each other, in part to keep the hoaxes and lies out – to find them and expose them.
> Dogmatic religious fundamentalists are a problem, but so are dogmatic scientists… But science is performed by people, and if you think people don’t get attached to their “pet projects†if you think people enjoy the opportunity to see their life’s work invalidated by someone else’s research, you’re just kidding yourself. Dogma exists in the scientific community.
It is accurate to say that science is performed by humans, and that scientists get attached to their ideas, their theories, their positions. But science is a process, not a person or group of people. The process of science is structured to fight that dogmatism.
> If the existence of a dogmatic “right wing†is so useful for disqualifying religion as a viable way of life, why isn’t the existance of dogmatic scientists just as valid for disqualifying science as a valid worldview?
It’s not about the people, it’s about the process. The processes of religion include personal revelation and faith – belief without evidence. Faith is diametrically in opposition to science, which is all about evidence. Personal revelation is also a subjective experience that cannot be validated objectively. Yet the structure of religion as practice is typically a structure of authority – follow this leader, do what you are told, obey this set of rules, don’t question just have faith. Even the traditions that encourage questioning ultimately have a point where they demand faith, and expect submitting to the authority of somebody’s interpretation of “God”. And when Religion as practice speaks to moral behavior, it does so too often from the position of surety – this is right and other is wrong. That surety is what drives people to force others to comply. And when the religious practice is coupled to mythical belief structures about critical issues such as survival, safety, and “ultimate rewards”, it becomes very easy to justify the most atrocious and inhumane acts in the name of good.
That is what Stephen Weinberg meant by his line, “With or without religion good people will do good and bad people will do bad. But for good people to do bad, that takes religion.”
Science doesn’t try to speak to how things should be.
August 14th, 2007 at 10:20 am
DennyMo: “Now My irony gland is on over load: ‘we’re finally waking up to the fact that the practices of science themselves encode a set of values.’”
Maybe you and I interpreted the phrase “encode a set of values” differently. Maybe you were thinking it referred to political or social values. I took the words “set of values” to refer just to scrupulous adherence to the scientific method itself.
August 14th, 2007 at 10:27 am
The Bush administration has provided the definitive proof that Humankind cannot live of Faith alone…
Anybody believing in God should have a clearer understanding now of why we’ve been provided with a brain too.
Anyway, since “the first explanation that comes to mind might not be the right one”, “things can be nuanced” and “reality is complicated” can we expect fewer cries against “climate change denialists” from the people visiting the BA blog, if one dares to doubt the contemporary consensus?
Some hope!
August 14th, 2007 at 10:43 am
Actually, stubborn, unwavering faith in something isn’t always a bad thing. Without zealous, fanatical Christian activists, slavery might still be widely practiced in the western world today.
August 14th, 2007 at 10:52 am
Actually, I would argue that slavery was due to fanatical Christians. White Man’s Burden anyone?
August 14th, 2007 at 11:41 am
I think that a lot of critics are missing the boat in the criticism of the Bush administration. I am not a supporter of Bush, but I believe that the real motive going on with this administration is that they are not going to do anything that will hurt the economy in the short term. Many of the solutions to problems proposed by the science community have long term benefits, but short term costs. It you want to address the issue of global warming you better be prepared to cause economic chaos. And, the people that will suffer the most are the poor. These guys are just whistling in the dark to keep the monsters away and will let the next administration deal with it.
Now, while I am highly critical of this neglect of their responsibilities, I will also admit they are not the first ones to do this. This has pretty much been the policy of all administrations since the Arab oil embargo in 1973/74. It will be interesting to see if the next administration, however it is, will continue this policy or will work to fix the problems we are facing.
August 14th, 2007 at 11:42 am
Well, slavery was widespread thousands of years before Christianity existed, so it would be really extraordinary if it was due to fanatical Christians!
Evangelical Protestant Christians were the first group to actively campaign against slavery.
August 14th, 2007 at 12:03 pm
Religion,,,is an INTERPRETATION of one persons spiritual experience. It is not the experience itself. Research into the particular cerebral mechanisms involved in that experience may be productive and allow us to replicate it on demand. What then will become of the dogmatic acceptance of religious authority? Hopefully, it will dissipate and we can get on with the attempt to really comprehend the universe.
I just started reading Stephen Webbs book “Where is Everybody?”, an attempt to categorize the various ideas which try to answer Fermi’s Paradox. If we discover, as the Dead song says,”We’re all there is, we’re all alone,,,”, that we’re the first techno civilization to develop the potential for space travel, then we will be left with the responsibility to propagate life through out the universe. What a tremendous responsibility that will be. I just hope we’re up for it.
GAry 7
August 14th, 2007 at 12:43 pm
I would say that it is wrong to use the phrase “fundamentalist religion”, as a person can be a fundamentalist follower of a religion, but you can’t describe the religion itself in that way. Within any religion, there is a conservative to liberal spectrum, with conservatives being the “fundamentalists” that dogmatically stick to ancient ways even in the face of overwhelming reason, and the liberals being those who accept the core values of a religion and adapt that to the modern world. It seems that conservatives or fundamentalists are the ones that get the most air time and are the ones that drive everyone else batty. I think there is a silent majority in any religion that can actually be quite reasonable, and I count myself among them.
August 14th, 2007 at 1:04 pm
Another beautiful post, Phil. MY favorite: “This is absolutely 100% precisely correct (and I admit being so certain of that may be somewhat ironic).”
::wipes tear of happiness from eye::
August 14th, 2007 at 1:08 pm
>”it is the purpose of peer review; the individual biases of an individual are spotlighted by peers who have no interest in their work”
Anyone that thinks the peer review process eliminates bias is deluding himself. Read Robert Higgs’ article:
http://hnn.us/blogs/entries/38532.html
(I specifically refer to his discussion about peer review).
August 14th, 2007 at 1:23 pm
And why, exactly should I trust an economist on matters of science? Especially one who admits he knows pretty much nothing about physical science and has had little experience with physical sciences? Especially one who considers economics a “science” and lumps social science in with physical science. I have no clue whether he is talking about physical science, social science, both, neither, and to what degree. Even further, the article contains a bunch of long-debunked climate change myths that do not help his credibility
No one is claiming peer review is perfect, but this guy is basically saying it is garbage which it most definitely is not.
August 14th, 2007 at 1:38 pm
Maurizio,
Regarding the term “climate change denialists”: global warming is currently discussed in two arenas, a scientific one and a political one. Some of us, hopefully, let the science determine our position. The fact that there seems to me to be a consensus among climate scientists about the reality of anthropogenic global warming inclines me to believe that this position is more likely correct, and this, in turn, greatly influences my political stance on the issue. If my beliefs about the science change, my politics will change.
Many people approach the issue the other way around. They favor one side or the other because their preferred political party favors it, or for economic or even visceral reasons. They then argue that the science supports their view whether or not it actually does.
If a man of integrity doubts the consensus because of sincere doubts about the validity of the science, then I respect his honesty and would never refer to him in derogatory terms. In fact, I usually try not to refer to anyone in derogatory terms because I respect humanity. Nevertheless, I do get annoyed by people who treat the truth with contempt, as something to be misrepresented and distorted to further their preferred ends.
By the way, I am much more interested in science than politics. I usually visit physorg.com before I come here. If BA didn’t post about politics, I certainly would not miss it. Some of the people who come here, attracted by Diggs or by a link are probably not really particularly interested in science at all, so some of the discussions attract a motley group indeed.
August 14th, 2007 at 2:11 pm
BlackCat,
You completely missed the point, and Richard Wolford did claim above that the peer review process eliminates bias. My point, and Higgs’, is that the peer review process (even in the world of science) is worked by humans who have biases – greed, ego, etc. Therefore, the flaws allow bias to persist.
It can take generations (even centuries) for entrenched flaws to be rooted out.
This bleeds into the discussion as a whole. Although Irishman made some good points, he then veered off and missed the main point that even a flawless process is corrupted by biased people. “Scientific process” is an idea that is practiced by biased people. These people interpret evidence differently. The naturalist interprets evidence differently from the supernaturalist. They have different starting points (axioms), and neither has an ability to prove their axioms (that’s why they’re axioms).
BTW, I am a meteorologist with a background in climate, but my point here is not even to speak about “climate change.”
BTW(2), I disagree on scientific grounds with much of what is purported about anthropogenic climate change, as do many other atmospheric scientists.
August 14th, 2007 at 2:36 pm
The Black Cat wrote, “There is no final authority that must be accepted without question, unlike religion, and thus people tend to form their own opinions and then butt heads until the evidence is such that one, or both, sides accepts that they were wrong (which often happens relatively quickly since the scientists on all sides are scrambling to accumulate evidence).”
I’m not a scientist, but I value science and I try to stay reality-based. I think I share with many (most?) scientists two assumptions I can only support from pragmatism, not from evidence:
o There’s a natural explanation for every natural phenomenon
o Given two equally powerful explanations of the evidence, the simpler one is “better” (Occam’s razor? Parsimony?)
Is that dogma? I think a religious person would say those are my articles of faith. I’m not comfortable with that characterization, but I can’t refute it convincingly.
[test]
August 14th, 2007 at 2:42 pm
Really? Do you have any examples of this? In physical science, not social science. This is a common claim for people criticizing the scientific method, but they never seem to have any good examples backing it up. And don’t say “Newton”, his ideas were right based on the best knowledge available at the time. When better theories were developed they became accepted in a matter of a few years.
You are the one who is missing the point. Yes, scientists have biases. But they often have opposing biases, so that the biases cancel out.
The fact is that it is very rare in the physical sciences for articles to not get published at all. The truth is that yes, biases and grudged can get in the way of publishing articles, but this happens less than a lot of people criticizing science like to portray. Think about it this way. Remember, in the article, how he says how small many scientific communities are? How they all publish in the same journals, go to the same conferences, send their students to each others’ labs? If an editor (editors are not anonymous) showed strong, overt bias in his choosing of reviewers how well do you think he or she will be able to function in that small of a community? Do you really think the other scientists are going to put up with him or her? And even if he or she did, people could just publish in a different journal on the same subject, or present in a conference, or wait for the editor to change (editors are always temporary). Yes, what Higgs is describing is theoretically possible, but in practice it is much more difficult and much less common than he makes it out to be.
Now people may not get published in “top-tier” journals, but that isn’t a big deal. Few articles get published in top-tier journals, that is why they are top-tier. In fact most of the time researchers don’t even bother trying, and many researchers go their entire career without ever getting published in a top-tier journal. For laypeople like Higgs (no matter how he tries to portray himself, that is what he is), as well as journalists, top-tier journals are all they ever hear about. But for scientists top tier journals are fairly irrelevant. It may be prestigious to get published in them, but pretty much all real scientific work is done in smaller, subject-specific journals. Higgs seems to think it is some sort of insult to not get published in top-tier journals, but that couldn’t be further from the truth. In reality, top-tier journals have their own limitations that make publishing in them problematic as well.
I am not saying that peer-review is perfect. It is a human process designed by humans and run by humans. But these critics of the scientific method generally greatly exaggerate the extent of the problems in order to dismiss scientific knowledge they don’t like (which is exactly what Higgs was trying to do, he is trying to dismiss knowledge gained from the scientific method in general in order to attack global warming). Overall peer review works very well. If it is is flawed and arbitrary as Higgs presents it as, why would scientists put up with it? If, as Higgs says, getting published is pretty much random, why do it at all? The fact that scientists, who know far more about peer review in physical sciences than Higgs does, support it so strongly probably indicates there is some benefit to it.
August 14th, 2007 at 2:57 pm
Why are we still discussing if Science is perfect and impartial? I thought Gould’s “The Mismeasure of Man” would have settled the question once and for all.
Science is made by scientists, and scientists are people too. Therefore there will always be biases, and there will always be seismic changes every 20 or 30 years, when the old professors enjoy their pensions and their dogmas are finally challenged.
Peer review is a flawed process, as demonstrate by the very long list of IgNobel prizes. But as with democracy, we do not know of anything better. The best weapon is to keep the minds ready to accept new ideas, and the mouths ready to question every idea.
August 14th, 2007 at 3:36 pm
I tried to read Higgs’ article, but it, literally, turned my stomach. He supports his position solely through cynical characterization.
August 14th, 2007 at 5:07 pm
“Science is made by scientists, and scientists are people too.”
Actually, that’s good. I like people. They remind me of me.
August 14th, 2007 at 6:11 pm
“…there will always be seismic changes every 20 or 30 years, when the old professors enjoy their pensions and their dogmas are finally challenged.”
Well, the sciences that I am most familiar with are physics and astronomy. It seems to me that for the last 70 years or so, most of the great advances were in some way the result of better physical equipment (better telescopes viewing in more wavelength ranges, linear and circular colliders, etc.). I can’t immediately think of any “old dogmas” being overturned except in the light of new, previously unavaialble, empirical evidence.
August 14th, 2007 at 7:07 pm
“I can’t immediately think of any “old dogmas” being overturned except in the light of new, previously unavailable, empirical evidence.”
Well here I am objecting to my own previous comment. I really don’t like the term “old dogmas.” I used it as an accomodation to Maurizio’s post (2:57 pm), but I think it is a miscasts the situation. Scientists typically love to challenge not only other peoples’ ideas but even their own ideas, sometimes maybe not so much challenge as to explore alternatives.
If you can’t understand this, think of the time you proved a difficult geometry theorem or completed a challenging crossword puzzle. There is a sense of satisfaction in “solving it”, “getting it right”, “nailing it”, or however you relate to the process. Think of the time you completed something, then realized that there was a way to improve it, and then modified your own previous creation. It felt good. You savored it. Now suppose that you are actually exploring the very frontiers of human understanding, on the verge of a more penetrating or comprehensive view of reality. Would you enjoy that? I bet you would.
So would you (personally) want to perpetuate an “old dogma”? Well, I guess that you (personally) can only answer that personally. Doesn’t sound very satisfying though – sort of like pretending that that crossword puzzle was finished when you knew something was still wrong.
August 14th, 2007 at 9:46 pm
Maurizio:
The fact that there seems to be a consensus among atmospheric scientists in favor of anthropogenic global warming, is in large part (although not entirely) due to the dynamics of the political debate on the subject.
Namely, there’s a large body of money being handed out by various political groups – including governments, the UN, and “environmental” activist groups that have been protesting against any sign of capitalism or prosperity or industrialized-world economic progress for 40+ years, among others – to scientists on the one side. I don’t have a link handy, but I’ve read a reference to a research proposal being rejected to study “whether global warming is affecting xxxx” – but approved and funded after they changed the first word of the title to “how”.
And on the other side there’s a much smaller (but still quite large) body of money being handed out by various political groups – including oil companies and automakers, among others – to scientists mostly on the other side.
Now the scientists who take money from power-hungry organizations and come to conclusions amenable to those organizations are somehow thought to be praiseworthy, while the scientists who take money from money-hungry organizations and come to conclusions amenable to those organizations are thought to be vile.
Whereas the scientists who take money from money-hungry organizations and come to conclusions unfriendly to their sponsors are thought to be brave and important (and can then get money from power-hungry organizations), while the scientists who take money from power-hungry organizations and come to conclusions unfriendly to their sponsors are thought to be retired and unimportant. Unless they then get jobs with money-hungry organizations, in which case they are thought to be sell-outs and even more vile.
See, all politics. I haven’t once mentioned the quality of the science being done.
(But then… scientists are human, and they observe other humans. Can anyone imagine the above pattern of behavior NOT having a negative impact on the quality of the science being done?)
Now in this specific subject, what I see is that there WAS good reason to question whether global warming is occurring at all. However, one after another, the reasons have been dealt with. The evidence overwhelmingly says, yes it is occurring. There may be a small fringe that still denies this, but I don’t quickly recall seeing a credible report of an instance of this that is less than two years old.
Meanwhile, though, anyone who questions whether said global warming is human-induced or even more specifically induced by human releases of CO2, or whether more power to government is the best response, is assumed to be denying that global warming is occurring at all.
And that includes scientists quoted in the UN report on the subject (who presumably have some credibility), who publicly claim that the UN report misquotes them AND falsely claims their endorsement in order to add credibility to a conclusion the evidence doesn’t support.
There is a profound difference between “global warming isn’t happening” and the current criticisms of the anthropogenic theory. But if the supporters of that theory won’t give the critics a public airing, they can’t publicly address the criticisms.
(Perhaps I should say “don’t have to” rather than “can’t” – unfortunately it’s hard to know, in the absence of a public airing, which is more accurate.)
August 15th, 2007 at 5:10 am
Brian
I know of many young scientists that have had difficulties in getting their ideas considered seriously, because University “Barons” thought otherwise.
For an example of the dogmatic attitude that sadly appears to come natural with power and age to many people, check the travails of S Chandrasekhar.
http://tinyurl.com/yrrdpp
August 15th, 2007 at 6:29 am
Wow. Thank you all for the most civilized “religious” debate this blog has had in a long time. Special kudoes to Irishman, I think I’m up to 4 or 5 “beverages of your choice” if we ever meet in person.
August 15th, 2007 at 7:19 am
Richard Wolford asked “What part of the bible is peer reviewed?”
I think it could be argued that the current form of the Bible exists precisely because it went through a “Peer review” back around the 3rd Century, with learned men debating which books should and should not be considered canonical.
The problem is, those men were learned for their time. There are those who try and “move Christianity with the times” (the Anglican church being perhaps a prime example, with ordination of women now firmly ensconced), and there are those who remain adamant that God’s word is God’s word, then and now, and that the Bible is literally true. In the US, the latter seem to be emphatically in the ascendancy, no matter how many inconsistencies are pointed out to them.
Those who try and move with the times may be wrong, but they are attempting to understand how to balance the conflicts of experience and faith. Those who do not simply discard experience (=evidence) and remain adherent to their dogma.
August 15th, 2007 at 7:58 am
The Bible is a book written by a government committee chosen by a dictator for life in order to prevent what he considered to be heresies. I think that is all you really need to know.
@Don Edwards
Nice theory, but think about it this way. Climatologist are saying the situation is all but settled, that we know it is happening and we need to divert funding from climate research to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Does that really sound like the sort of thing a bunch of greedy, money-grubbing people would say?
August 15th, 2007 at 8:55 am
tchernabyelo: That’s not a peer review, debating an interpretation of some “supernatural” text is not a review. Peer review would involve the analysis of data used to formulate the contents of the text. Where is the data? If I were to peer review an article and critique it without seeing the data used to construct the text and methodologies used to come to the ultimate conclusions, what good is it? Who has sat down and said “Ok, the universe was made in six days, let’s look at the data and make sure we’re right about that”? It is more like a women’s book club than anything else.
Paul S: My apologies, I forgot that all of the slave owners were atheists and it was the large number of christians who fought for their freedom. Give it up, religion was not on the forefront of abolition of slavery. It may have been a minority group of them, but the majority were not in this basket.
August 15th, 2007 at 1:15 pm
Don Edwards,
Perhaps my view of human nature is different from yours. I think that most climate scientists are sincerely trying to get the most accurate assessment they can. I’ve had quite a large exposure to professional scientists, both in college and in graduate school, and virtually all the ones I’ve met seem to really enjoy getting the best answer they can. There’s also a sort of pride in being rigorous. I think I understand them, because I seem to have a lot of the same traits that I observe in them. I think you underestimate what motivates most of them.
Furthermore, what really ultimately helps someone’s scientific career and reputation is being right. Remember that the truth of the situation will become more and more clear as time passes. How many of these guys really want to be sitting there at age 80 telling their grandchildren that they were one of the people who was wrong?
You contend that the G8+5 governments feel that taking steps to slow global warming is somehow in their economic interest to the extent that they bribe people to claim that global warming is not anthropogenic. This seems almost 180 degrees backwards to me. For instance, the Bush administration seems to think the reverse. Does the economy of the United States somehow work the opposite of the those of the other major industrial countries? If the United States Government feels that curbing AGW would reduce its GNP and monetary standard of living, why would the other G8+5 countries feel the opposite about its effect on theirs? Each of these governments is influenced and lobbied by its richest domestic entities, many of which fear that their profits will decrease rather than increase if they are forced to take steps, for instance, to reduce emissions. So I just can’t visualize your depiction of governments paying off climate scientists to lie to the detriment of the countries’ own present economies.
My first guess is that almost all the “bought” people, if there are any, would be on the side of denying AGW because that seems to be the side whose profits might be jeopardized. I certainly don’t mean that everyone who dissents from the consensus is insincere. I do not doubt that there may be those whose best considered opinion is on the other side. My second guess is that most climate scientists are quite scrupulous, so the consensus view is probably sincerely held.
August 15th, 2007 at 2:47 pm
[...] Astronomy’s “Chris Mooney nails it” # Maurizio Morabitoon 14 Aug 2007 at 10:27 [...]
August 15th, 2007 at 2:59 pm
Maurizio,
I read the piece about Chandrasekhar, but I don’t know how to avoid this sort of problem. It is not so much a problem specific to the scientific community as a universal problem in all human ventures. Two people sincerely disagree with each other, and some sort of decision has to be made. The decision turns out to have been wrong.
One self-correcting aspect of the scientific endeavor, arises from the fact that posterity will declare a winner, and everyone wants to be right in hindsight. No one is typically so much smarter than ALL his colleagues that NONE of them can grasp his point. Eventually, good ideas convince some others (who are excited by the prospect of being right), and the field moves on. For example, Einstein dissented from the Copenhagen interpretation of the quantum theory, but those who believed in it forged ahead with it.
August 15th, 2007 at 4:38 pm
“Paul S: My apologies, I forgot that all of the slave owners were atheists and it was the large number of christians who fought for their freedom. Give it up, religion was not on the forefront of abolition of slavery. It may have been a minority group of them, but the majority were not in this basket.”
Most of the slave owners were not atheists, but certain strains of Christianity (notably the Quakers and some Methodists, Congregationalists, and Presbyterians) were indeed on the forefront of the movement to abolish slavery. They were a minority of all Christians, but I say that if one is going to condemn Christianity in general for the Crusades or the Inquisition or other persecutions that were carried out by particular groups of Christians, then one should also credit Christianity in general for the positive things accomplished by other groups of Christians.
August 15th, 2007 at 5:01 pm
It would be different if the crusades or the inquisition were a minority, but they weren’t. They were pretty much all of the Roman Catholic branch of Christianity at the time (i.e. all of western Europe and much of Eastern Europe as well).
It would also be different if the bible didn’t specifically endorse slavery, which it does consistently.
August 15th, 2007 at 7:03 pm
Don Edwards: “Namely, there’s a large body of money being handed out by various political groups – including governments, the UN, and “environmental†activist groups that have been protesting against any sign of capitalism or prosperity or industrialized-world economic progress for 40+ years, among others – to scientists on the one side.”
And where exactly are the alleged handouts? In my studies as a grad student in atmospheric science, I have encountered representatives from many climate-oriented research organizations and universities, and nowhere have I seen researchers rolling in dough because of their scientific claims. In fact, what I have very often seen is organizations asking for money from organizations asking for money from someone else. Beggars begging beggars. As far as I can tell (and I’m not the only one on the internet with this opinion), that’s the state of current climate research, the same research that the conservatives claim is needed to clarify the question on global warming.
I’m going to have to ask you for some hard evidence that these handouts exist, or I will have no choice but to conclude you have little idea what you are talking about.
August 15th, 2007 at 7:15 pm
Actually, only a small minority of Roman Catholics actively participated in either the Crusades or the Inquisition. There were actually priests and monks who condemned the crusades because they felt that it was contrary to Christianity to spread one’s religion by armed force.
In any event, the total number of people killed by the Inquisition and the Crusades was not any greater than numerous other wars and persecutions throughout history, committed by people of every religion and no religion. It is important to draw a distinction between religion and the things that were done in the name of religion but in reality were motivated by political power, military ambition, and simple cruelty and sadism.
If this seems unreasonable, do you think that it would be appropriate to say that atheism is responsible for all of the people killed under Stalin and Mao, because those two dictators and their followers were avowed and apparently sincere atheists?
In regards to the Bible and slavery, it would be more accurate to say that some passages of the Bible accept slavery rather than endorsing it. Other aspects of Biblical ethics, especially in the New Testament, are very much contrary to slavery, which was what motivated certain groups of Christians to become strongly opposed to slavery.
August 28th, 2007 at 8:51 am
Kudos to all!! It appears to me that science is losing in the US. (I’m in the South) We need to speak up. An atheist/science coalition with some lobbying power is needed. Commercials, advertising, c’mon Paul Allen, help us out :0!!!