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.
Anyone can do science and thus be a scientist and letting it become like an elitist priesthood has been a mistake as the Global Warming scam has demonstrated.
“You are not a scientist” is just a way of intimidating others into accepting the so-called “magisterium” of an elitist science.
Excellent......
Bears repeating......
God is Great...
“I was blinded by science!”
-Thomas Dolby
Poignant remarks, you will be resoundingly demeaned, but certainly not by me.
There is no unbiased science because there are no unbiased scientists.
Your failure to recognize that is demonstrating bias in itself.
What Metmom said!
Interesting the keywords spammed into the keyword list on a topic that does not address religion from a source that is not religious.
Then why does someone think that it *belongsinreligion*?
Or that it’s *notasciencetopic*?
Or whatever........
I beg to differ. Make and *all* instead of the *vast bulk*.
Seems to me that science worked pretty well for a long time before the government grant money provided the living.
You extremist you! J/K. The only reason I said “vast bulk” is because of national security related science. But then again, I suppose most of that could be contracted out as well!
But how many us would pull out our check books for a Super-Duper Collision Collector? Not very many just to provide jobs and prestige for the users and not even a hadron for our money.
I have researched 100's of things never once did I manipulate the data. In fact, on my masters thesis the facts actually disproved my original hypothesis (I actually found that interesting). Never once was I tempted to manipulate the data to make it turn out how I expected it to before hand.
” There is no unbiased science because there are no unbiased scientists.
Your failure to recognize that is demonstrating bias in itself. “
That is precisely why you judge the credibility of the science by what is published - it’s methods, means, and data, as well as any relevant disclosures on funding. That way everyone can look at it through the lens of their own biases - and if the science is good more often than not the conclusions are validated despite biases inherent in the human condition.
This is precisely why “creation science” is just like “global warming science” neither publish their full methods means and data, nor do they disclose other relevant facts - like pre-determined conclusions.
Your anti-science bias is clearly visible, thank you for making it so apparent so we may judge your comments accordingly.
BUT, that is not the same as taking raw data and secretly changing it to meet an end (destroying the original data that was painstakingly collected) and then distributing that knowingly false manipulated data to others who think they are getting original data. Who then do research based on the falsified data that reinforces a falsehood and perpetuates a lie.
Manipulating data in that way is akin to scientific heresy, and those responsible should be thrown out of the scientific community, lose their teaching and research positions, have all of their grants retracted, and be shunned for life from the scientific community.
That’s because you have integrity. It speaks well of you.
Unfortunately that is not a universal practice.
Studies examine withholding of scientific data among researchers, trainees
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1565120/posts
It May Look Authentic; Here’s How to Tell It Isn’t
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1563746/posts
Most scientific papers are probably wrong
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1473528/posts
Most Science Studies Appear to Be Tainted By Sloppy Analysis
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1896333/posts
Why Most Published Research Findings Are False
http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124&ct=1
One in seven scientists say colleagues fake data
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2264439/posts
You Can Trust a Scientist – Can’t You?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2262237/posts
I worked for an environmental consulting firm. Several people had “environmental scientist” on their business cards. I always got a laugh out of that. They collected samples for laboratory analysis, and mapped plumes of groundwater contamination, but conducted no real research. They had bachelor degrees, and one of them had no degree.
What profit hath a man of all his labour which he take under the sun?
One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh: but the earth abideth for ever.
The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose.
The wind goeth toward the south, and turneth about unto the north; it whirleth about continually, and the wind returneth again according to his circuits.
All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not full; unto the place from whence the rivers come, thither they return again.
All things are full of labour; man cannot utter it: the eye is not satisfied with seeing, nor the ear filled with hearing.
The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.
Is there any thing whereof it may be said, 'See, this is new?' it has been already of *old* time, which was before us.
There is no remembrance of former things; neither shall there be any remembrance of things that are to come with those that shall come after.
Ecclesiastes 1:2-11
I’d consider the national security stuff more technology related.
There is, however, the meteorology related stuff. :)
The NWS was started during the war to provide information for the military and has expanded due to the impact weather has on the citizenry.
Very useful information, that weather stuff. Even then, the research on storm development could be contracted out.
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.