Does Science Have a Magisterium?

The American ^ | December 9, 2009 | Jay Richards

[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.

[magritte]

If you come across your link, it would be appreciated! ...magritte

[YHAOS]

metmom: Are you biased or not?

You: Not!

You mean to say that you’ve solved the Observer Problem? This is huge! The hugest since the Shoemaker-Levy Jupiter impacts of ’94. Huger, I bet. And to think, it was first announced on FR! (It was first announced here, was it not?) When will your peer-reviewed paper be appearing? And, in what journal? They will need to run at least one additional printing.

[YHAOS]

It’s customary to ping someone when you’re talking about them (and you were – rather extensively).

“. . . 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”

I don’t take your remarks to be malicious, so I will respond to them gently. If you read anything sarcastic in the response, either I’ve phrased something badly, or you’re reading things that aren’t there.

You could take two words in your quote above (science and scientists) and substitute three words, Judeo-Christian Traditions and Judeo-Christians, and you would have an exact summation of the thoughts of many of us belonging to that Amen Corner, as you call it (sometimes called an echo chamber by many of our less gracious antagonists).

[xcamel]

Be careful.. the “Ghost of Christmas Purge” is roaming about...

[Hank Kerchief]

“When will your peer-reviewed paper be appearing?”

Ah, I see you’ve bought the “peer-reviewed” Kool Aid. So sorry.

Wonder who “peer-reviewed” Newton, Galileo, the Wright brothers—oh that’s right, while the Wright brothers were flying around the “peer-reviewed” academic scientists were still publishing papers proving heavier-than-air human flight was impossible.

Global-warming science is “peer-reviewed”. I have absolutely no interest in the opinion or approval of my “peers” whom I regard as mostly fools—how many of them have bought into global-warming and every leftist idea in the world?

Hank

[YHAOS]

“Sources? Got evidence of that?”

Amen, mom. We would all like to know those “accounts,” “many, many names” and “net IDs” GGG used to push his “crack pot theories,” including what publications and other venues. Nothing like a good National Inquirer expose to get the juices flowing. How ‘bout it, Natural Law? Put up or show yourself to be nothing more than a close relative of Harry Reid’s.

“Nearly 30 years? When was it that Al Gore invented the internet?”

As I recall, the ‘Net has been available commercially for something a little over 15 years, but a limited availability to academia for twice that period (perhaps, if my memory serves). So, if GGG has been on the ‘Net some thirty years or so, then he was one of the privileged academics who were. Can you attest to that, and on what venues,Natural Law?

“Look, we all know what GGG’s threads are all about by now. If you don’t like that sort of thing, the adult thing to do would be to simply avoid them.” - Jim Robinson -

[metmom]

Oops. That’s going to put you on the outs with the self-declared defenders of science.

I’ve made comments like that and gotten shredded for it.

Peer review is a sacred cow in spite of things like Climategate and the Bogdanov Affair.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bogdanov_Affair

[YHAOS]

"Wonder who “peer-reviewed” Newton, Galileo, the Wright brothers—oh that’s right, while the Wright brothers were flying around the “peer-reviewed” academic scientists," etc, etc

If you're putting yourself in the same class with those boys, then you've problems that far out weigh your inability to demonstrate that you have no bias.

"Global-warming science is “peer-reviewed”. I have absolutely no interest in the opinion or approval of my “peers” whom I regard as mostly fools—how many of them have bought into global-warming and every leftist idea in the world?"

You ought to feel right at home with this last bunch you mention. You can't back up what you say either.

[Hank Kerchief]

“You can’t back up what you say either.”

Back it up to whom for what? Do you think I care what you or anyone else thinks about my opinions or me?

I live my life by the principles I know to be true. You live yours in any way you choose. But I have to say one thing out of kindness, ff you do not have enough character to know you are right without the approval and agreement of others, you are a second-hander who will never know what true freedom and integrity are.

You second-hander collectivists will never understand the independent individualist. I wrote the following article years ago for those who were truly independent individualists so they would learn they never had to apologize to the likes of you.

http://theautonomist.com/autonomist/articles13/hated.html

Hank

[GodGunsGuts]

I already told Natural Plagiarizer to put up for shut up. He hasn’t been able to put up, but of course that hasn’t shut him up either. He has no morals, and just loves to accuse others of what he himself is guilty of.

[Natural Law]

"Sources? Got evidence of that?"Plenty. Start with these:

http://www.ediacara.org/ted.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/holden.html

http://www.bearfabrique.org/

http://www.skepticfiles.org/neocat/rose.htm

http://www.geo.ucalgary.ca/~macrae/t_origins/teds_intermed.html

http://www.thefossilforum.com/index.php?showtopic=8663&st=140

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/sauropods.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ted-qfa-reply.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/teds-world.html

http://www.geo.ucalgary.ca/~macrae/t_origins/fort.html

http://www.the-fed.org/articles/volume20/issue6/dino.html

http://www.velikovskian.com/backissu.htm

http://wiki.killfile.org/mirror/net.legends/1/

Let me know when you are done h these, there are a lot more where they came from.

"Nearly 30 years? When was it that Al Gore invented the internet?"

He was publishing crap long before the internet was commercially available.

[YHAOS]

Doubling down on blunder.

”Do you think I care what you or anyone else thinks about my opinions or me?”

Obviously you do or you would not bear so hostile a demeanor.

You’ve made a reckless brag you cannot support. Now you think to bull your way through with bluster and aggressiveness. Pee Wee Herman with a ball bat.

“. . . do not have enough character to know you are right without the approval and agreement of others”

Compounding your error by demonstrating your ignorance of the purpose for peer review. Peer review is not done to seek approval. It is done to catch error. Error in the data; in the methodology; in the statistical base; in the reasoning or the logic of the construction or the conclusions of the study; error where ever it is to be found. It may be difficult for you to understand this, since you seem unable to admit it in yourself, but people do commit error, and the peer review process is intended to correct this human failing, the sometime obvious abuse of the process notwithstanding.

Now, I’m going limit the further humiliation you can do to yourself by closing with an offer to you that you may have the last word.

[wendy1946]

“Look, we all know what GGG’s threads are all about by now. If you don’t like that sort of thing, the adult thing to do would be to simply avoid them.” - Jim Robinson -

Getting the feeling we're not really dealing with adults here yet??

[YHAOS]

"Getting the feeling we're not really dealing with adults here yet??"

Have had that feeling for a long time now (not in all cases though)

[Natural Law]

Chatting with yourself? Is this your Norman Bates personna? Say “hi” to TomZZ and rickydylan for me too.

[Natural Law]

"Net some thirty years or so, then he was one of the privileged academics who were. Can you attest to that, and on what venues,Natural Law?"

Reread my post. I didn't state that GGG had been posting on the internet for 30 years I said he had developed, published and posted over a three decade period. With comprehension skills like that it is no wonder you did so poorly at science.

[wendy1946]

When you took debating in highschool (before you dropped out), did they try to teach you anything beyond character assassination or making bad guesses at forum posters' IDs??

[Natural Law]

Say goodnight, Ted.

[YHAOS]

“Reread my post.”

Follow your own advice. Besides the ‘Net, I specifically inquired “what publications and other venues,” since you seemed rather vague, stumbling all over the place. Now, in trying to avoid the question and in trying to play the big Alpha hoo-haw in this place, you’ve managed to call into question your own reading comprehension. You’ve kicked up a lot of dust and made a lot of noise, but other than that, all you’ve done is make yourself look petty and foolish.

But, if that’s the best you can do . . .

[metmom]

You had to use HTML????