Posted on 12/10/2009 4:24:15 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
At National Review Online, conservative curmudgeon John Derbyshire has weighed in on the Climategate scandal by encouraging conservatives not to jump on the anti-science bandwagon. I share his worry and find his advice is good so far as it goes; but I think Derbyshire’s defense of science might actually encourage the skepticism he wants to prevent. Most of the trouble comes from his invocation of the word “science,” and his claim that science has a magisterium.
His article is called “Trust Science.” I’m not sure what that means. What is “science,” and how do we “trust” it? Imagine if someone said: “Trust philosophy” or “Trust humanities” or “Trust religion.” The command in each case is far too vague to inspire confidence. “Science” isn’t a person or a finite set of propositions that can be tested or divine revelation. It’s not even a single institution. So how exactly do you trust it?
What we should trust is solid conclusions derived from valid reasoning based on publicly available empirical evidence, especially when it leads to reliable results—such as getting your 737 from Seattle to New York. But the abstract noun “science” is too vaporous to capture that. Perhaps “science at its best” would be a better substitute.
A related problem is that Derbyshire appeals to a scientific magisterium: “Science contains a core magisterium, which we can and do trust.” This should give anyone who has followed the climate change debate the creeps—a reaction Derbyshire anticipates in the column. But he seems blind to why talk of a scientific magisterium is creepy; so let me spell it out.
Other than listing the things Derbyshire thinks are settled and “without serious competitors,” he doesn’t really even identify what the magisterium is. This gives the impression that the magisterium is the subjectively determined list of things that people with power claim are settled. And that impression encourages the postmodern doubters of truth that Derbyshire hopes to keep back from the gates.
Science is different from the Catholic Church, which has a magisterium. This refers to the settled teaching authority of the Church, based on Scripture, the divine traditions reliably passed down from the apostles, guided by the Holy Spirit, and represented in the bishops in communion with the Bishop of Rome. And even this magisterium is only considered infallible under certain narrow circumstances. Although the Catholic explanation of the magisterium is subtle, the basic teachings of Catholicism—and the distinctions between negotiable and non-negotiable teachings—are contained in texts such as the Catechism. The magisterium is easily identified with a single institution, which one is free to trust or not to trust.
But science has none of that, and doesn’t claim to. It’s not a single institution. It doesn’t claim to be based on divine revelation or be guided by the Holy Spirit. It doesn’t have a priesthood or a central authority. It doesn’t even have a settled body of teachings. Science isn’t, and ought not to be, a surrogate religion.
Of course, most of what we believe to be scientifically verified truth is based on the testimony of scientists, textbooks, and journalists. In fact, most of what we all believe about most things is based on testimony. That’s okay. But anyone with a passing acquaintance with the history of science knows that every age has had a reigning intellectual orthodoxy or orthodoxies, declared to be “settled science” (a term Derbyshire summons) that were later seen to be erroneous. It doesn’t follow that because most scientists believe something to be true, or hold to a “consensus,” it ought to be doubted. Sometimes there are well-founded consensuses. But if you have good reason to be suspicious of a claim made by scientists, including lots of scientists, then you’re not under an intellectual obligation to submit to it.
In fact, no one appeals to consensus on the really solid stuff. Have you ever heard anyone cry consensus when talking about the Periodic Table of the Elements? More often than not, “consensus” is used to intimidate and silence dissenters. A scientific magisterium sounds like consensus-on-steroids, and brings to mind the big, state-funded “science” of which philosophers of science like Michael Polanyi have rightly been suspicious. It’s reminiscent of the way the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is often invoked to silence debate about the causes of climate change.
Derbyshire is right that no one, conservative or not, should infer from the collusion and evidence manipulation of leading climate scientists that science is just one more political power trip. But in light of Climategate and the previously known shenanigans confirmed by the scandal, it’s up to scientists and the journalists who serve as their megaphones to rise to the defense of science at its best—science based on solid, publically available evidence, valid arguments, and reasonable conclusions. We’ll see if they do that. In the meantime, invoking the authority of a scientific magisterium looks too much like an extreme form of an appeal to consensus, which may be one of the reasons for public skepticism in the first place.
Great insight, MortMan!!!
Here's something I'd just like to get off my chest: How "disciplined" can a science be if its very method is based on "mimicry"; i.e., computer simulation and modeling.
It is necessary for the designer of such a model to decide what are the relevant "ingredients" that need to be inside his "black box," which purports to be a trusty, reliable "mimic of" or "proxy for" the global climate system, upon which further experiments can be carried out. That such judgments are necessarily subjective ought to be obvious. And historically, science has not been comfortable with "subjectivity." Indeed, its mission was to stay as perfectly "objective" WRT the natural world as possible.
So RE: this travesty coming out of East Anglia's Climate Change Unit: What's in this black box? I've just been wondering whether, among other seemingly relevant things, considerations of solar activity ever made it into the mix....
I'd think it would be very good to take old Sol's own behavior into consideration as potentially relevant to issues of climate change. For the Sun is evidently a vast, plasmoid thermonuclear reactor of unimaginable power, and it's right in our own "backyard," so to speak. What is intriguing about the Sun is that it seems to have its own behavioral cycles, on many different timescales.
Certainly I consider it worthwhile to ask whether fluctuations of solar electromagnetic radiation affect global climate patterns. And if so, how.
So, what's inside Phil Jones' black box??? Enquiring minds want to know....
Thanks so much for your excellent post, MortMan!
The name is actually Holden.
But regardless, I doubt that you are he either.
And it’s interesting that you, knowing who you are, deny that you are the guy he’s talking about, and that NL, not knowing who you really are, keeps insisting that you are who he thinks you are.
So, he’s claiming that you’re a liar from all I can make of his posts, insisting that he’s right when he’s not.
Doesn’t even count for that much.
Spitting into the wind is more like it.
Re: Does Science Have a Magisterium? From Natural Law | 12/12/2009 8:43:30 AM PST readNL to GGG 12/7/09: “Listen up Teddy, you either back off or I will strip you naked in front of your little FR following and show them what a well established and long documented kook you really are and how your crack-pot theories themselves have “evolved” over time.”
GGG to NL 12/7/09: “Go ahead loser.”
Now, do you want me to post the entire email string with your threats?
Threats?? I mean, I've never had any freepmail contact with "Natural Law" prior to this and it seems obvious enough that his problems go well beyond any sort of a question of conduct on forums to say the least.
The question is though, have you guys actually been sitting around playing pull-the-dorks-tail on a day like this? I mean the next time you see weather like this might be next April.
He thinks you are me and I am you! What a dope.
That's what Trolls do. Troll does as Troll is.
NL, you have been.....
BUSTED
You might as well give up posting any responses because you have totally lost any credibility that you may have had remaining, having been exposed for lying as you were.
Are you really a scientist?
Do you actually practice science with the same level of meticulous attention to detail that you’ve displayed on this thread and others?
I have a lot of roles. Catholic, father, grandfather, veteran, scientist, in that order, are among them.
On the one hand, Ted "medved" Holden indeed could probably not resist trying to make a reappearance on FR. But, on the other hand, he could likewise probably not resist spewing his nuttier theories, e.g. about gravity. And I haven't noticed GGG ranting about gravity. Did I miss something?
Snort! Giggle.
Fizz up my nose. Pepsi Dry on my keyboard.
Its mute now, anyway.
Please don’t tell us you didn’t mean *moot* instead.....
Since GGG's account has been suspended I thought the pun was appropriate.
It has?
It was for a time earlier today.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.