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.
Me too. Figures don't lie, but liars do figure. The problem is when any agenda driven entity, whether YEC or AGW begins to decide what the figures are saying.
You aren't trying to drag this discussion into a rehash or refutation of heliocentrism are you?
Likewise there are no unbiased buyers and sellers. Does this mean there are no unbiased markets?
Of course not. Markets (properly realized) are unbiased setters of prices even though, in that particular case, ALL marketeers are biased, and markedly so.
Your logic is flawed. (Fallacy of Composition/Division) It is not the case that, in order for an institution to be unbiased, that all (or even any) individual participants be unbiased.
No.
Science has a MAGICSTERICAL, too.
It’s a toss up as to whether the RC’s or Science’s MAGICSTERICAL
is more . . . outrageously silly, obtuse, laughable, distorting of reality, !!!!TRADITION!!!! bound, twisted by narrow power mongering bias . . . etc.
Could it not be said these 'climate-warmers' are in fact heliocentricts?.... I posted Solomon's words NOT because of heliocentrism but rather to point out the vanities of flesh man. Solomon says what is, has already been of *OLD* time, of which there is no retrieval memory in the flesh body.
With all science these days you must be very careful to note what are actual facts and what are theories and conjecture masked as facts. Too often much of what you read and see are not facts but are presented as facts. The worst part is that one so called fact is based upon another so called fact. Soon you have to unravel lots of unreliable conclusions before you can get down to the bare facts and you can decide what you believe they may or may not mean.
That is a very good reason to stay off the IRC website and to ignore these posts by GGG. You see, GGG is involved in a self declared war with real science because it has rejected his crack pot theories developed, published, and posted over a nearly 30 year stint under many, many names, accounts, and net IDs. Like a petulant child, if he can't have mass adulation by the science community he is going to try his best to strip it away from the likes of Charles Darwin. In his grand scheme, Young Earth Creationists are only useful idiots, to borrow a phrase.
You might want to note that Ben Stein’s film “Expelled” is now being shown on the cable channels. The film documents the manner in which people who speak out against Chuck Darwin’s brain-dead ideology or even so much as mention the fact that there might be competing theories in any sort of a classroom or professional setting are subject to attack by the system and in many cases are having their ability to earn livings impacted. It’s just about to the point where somebody has to be outside of the system to talk about it.
Getting lonely over there at Darwin Central?? Get used to it, it’s gonna get lonelier...
Courtesy ping to GGG to post 47 since it has been neglected........
AGAIN......
Then why do you keep coming on these threads?
You see, GGG is involved in a self declared war with real science because it has rejected his crack pot theories developed, published, and posted over a nearly 30 year stint under many, many names, accounts, and net IDs. Like a petulant child, if he can't have mass adulation by the science community he is going to try his best to strip it away from the likes of Charles Darwin.
Sources? Got evidence of that?
Nearly 30 years? When was it that Al Gore invented the internet?
In case your reading comprehension isn’t what it should be, this is not a article from a creationist website, nor is it religious in nature.
Just because there’s a passing comment about the Catholic Church in it as a comparison, doesn’t mean that it’s religious.
Science as it’s practiced today is in big trouble and the sooner those involved with it quit knee jerk reacting to any recognition of that and start addressing the real problems involved, the better.
Yes, evolution is not a crack pot theory. It is a crack PIPE theory.
Natural, your ‘Science’, while very useful in everyday life, can not possibly hope to explain all.
Do you REALLY feel that GGG is such a THREAT to the established ‘scientific community’? Would that that would be the case!!
But no, he is not. But the little he does is great and mighty, as he relays information that shows that science can NOT explain all. Information that shows that Darwinists have nothing more than their own belief-system, faith and religion.
Ah, there’s that pesky word again, religion. Natural, you really need to get to know your Creator, in a personal way.
Ding Dong! (Sound of doorbell)
LOL. GGG’s no threat to real science...he’s the Art Bell of FR...deadpan serious, with a small group of dedicated followers in his Amen Corner, tossing out wild theories about science complete with incredible conspiracy theories to back up his opinions...it’s a guilty pleasure to read and sometimes irresistible for the real scientists on FR to respond to ...magritte
Art Bell, good one. The ‘Theories’ are based in a Faith. And they are certainly as valid as anything in the ToE.
Yes REAL scientists. The ones who ‘believe’ in a Theory, who have ‘FAith’ that what man says is true, who construct a Theory that can not be proven, then declare it as settled by ‘concensus’.
LOL again...scientific theories can never be “proven”...proof is reserved for mathematics...this is one of the reasons that threads like these never get beyond the Art Bell level...Art & the Amen Corner doesn’t have a grasp of the basics of scientific discussions...heck, what fun would it be if they did?...magritte
You might find this interesting:
“Climate Change and the Death of Science”
http://buythetruth.wordpress.com/2009/10/31/climate-change-and-the-death-of-science/
Posted before the UEA/CRU revelations, it describes the emergence of a “post-normal science”, one that exists to promote leftist, Marxist ideas of redistribution. Some of the now familiar suspects (Mike Hulme and the UAE crowd) are mentioned.
Interesting comparison between “normal” and “post-normal” science as well.
Then why are they passed off as fact and why the derision against those who don't accept it as fact?
Never be proven. Never. Well then, you self-admittedly show you have a non-provable-belief. My hats off to you.
While I can not prove to you (today anyway) that the earth and all on it were Created, I do believe it.
So, what’s the deal? You have your belief, I have mine. The difference is that, in general, you may have your evo-faith threads without someone who believes in the Word of God saying much, but a Creationist thread is quickly inundated by those who ridicule.
I pray for those who do, that they may come to know their Creator.
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.