|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
 Posted - 06/27/2010 : 16:52:15
|
Why am I not surprised by this headline?
Scientific Expertise Lacking Among 'Doubters' of Climate Change, Says New Analysis
| ScienceDaily (June 27, 2010) — The small number of scientists who are unconvinced that human beings have contributed significantly to climate change have far less expertise and prominence in climate research compared with scientists who are convinced, according to a study led by Stanford researchers. |
"We really wanted to bring the expertise dimension into this whole discussion," Anderegg said. "We hope to put to rest the notion that keeps being repeated in the media and by some members of the public that 'the scientists disagree' about whether human activity is contributing to climate change."
"I never object to quoting opinions that are 'way out.' I think there is nothing wrong with that," said Stephen Schneider, professor of biology and a coauthor of the paper in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. "But if the media doesn't report that something is a 'way out' opinion relative to the mainstream, then how is the average person going to know the relative credibility of what is being said?"
"It is sad that we even have to do this," said Schneider. "[Too much of] the media world has just folded up and fired its reporters with expertise in science."
The Stanford team is prepared for the doubters of anthropogenic climate change to object to their data.
"I think the most typical criticism of a paper like this -- not necessarily in academic discourse, but in the broader context -- is going to be that we haven't addressed if these sorts of differences could be due to some sort of clique or, at the extreme, a conspiracy of the researchers who are convinced of climate change," Anderegg said.
"When you stop to consider whether some sort of 'group think' really drives these patterns and could it really exist in science in general, the idea is really pretty laughable," he said. "All of the incentives in science are exactly the opposite. |
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
Machi4velli
SFN Regular
USA
854 Posts |
Posted - 06/28/2010 : 10:23:46 [Permalink]
|
One issue, why would someone who disagrees with human-caused climate change write 20 papers on climate science? It's sort of the only game in town. I don't know that anyone is even claiming denial of human-caused climate change has more academic acceptance.
The idea that group think in science is "laughable" is itself a bit laughable, I think. There have been instances of deferring to some authority in science over the years. It wasn't easy for Einstein to get acceptance of his ideas by any means, even after the evidence was in, being that he challenged well-established ideas.
I assume other scientists have been deterred from deviating from the norm to protect their reputation and career, though we wouldn't know their names. Of course I'm not comparing deniers of human-caused climate change to Einstein, but scientists should be on guard against group think and other frictions to scientific progress, these things have happened over and over. |
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking
"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus |
 |
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 06/28/2010 : 10:42:35 [Permalink]
|
This isnt a mathematical proof Mach, consensus is they best we can do in many fields. The point is you don't ask surgeons for their opinions on dam construction and more importantly surgeons don't offer their opinions on dam saftey issues pretending to be engineering experts.
Evolutionary science has had to deal with this nonsense for a century. |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 06/28/2010 : 11:29:50 [Permalink]
|
| "If you were a young researcher and had the data to overturn any of the mainstream paradigms, or what the IPCC has done, you would become absolutely famous," he said. "Everyone wants to be the next Darwin, everyone wants to be the next Einstein." |
Or the next Darwin, a point I've tried to make on a few occasions with the anti-evolutionarian screwballs.
Climate change, warming, is in process and we are fighting that fire with gasoline.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 06/28/2010 : 11:40:55 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Machi4velli
The idea that group think in science is "laughable" is itself a bit laughable, I think. There have been instances of deferring to some authority in science over the years. It wasn't easy for Einstein to get acceptance of his ideas by any means, even after the evidence was in, being that he challenged well-established ideas.
I assume other scientists have been deterred from deviating from the norm to protect their reputation and career, though we wouldn't know their names. Of course I'm not comparing deniers of human-caused climate change to Einstein, but scientists should be on guard against group think and other frictions to scientific progress, these things have happened over and over. |
That's not groupthink, but instead methodological inertia, which is absolutely necessary to sound science. New ideas should be rejected until such a time as there is sound and overwhelming evidence in their favor. It took over 40 years for continental drift to be accepted by mainstream geologists, and rightfully so, because nobody had the technology with which to gather the evidence.
Science wouldn't progress if every whacky idea that came along got equal footing, because research resources are scarce and have to be rationed out. And the largest rationing bias is towards those ideas that are most likely to produce actual useful results (with "useful" referring to either practical results or simply adding to our knowledge base - basic science). "Deviant" ideas thus tend to need to find private funding sources. So we also have an institutional inertia, along with the methodological inertia.
But without either, we'd just have a mess. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 06/28/2010 : 17:24:58 [Permalink]
|
Machi4velli:
One issue, why would someone who disagrees with human-caused climate change write 20 papers on climate science? It's sort of the only game in town. I don't know that anyone is even claiming denial of human-caused climate change has more academic acceptance. |
But they weren't looking for papers on "human-caused change." They were looking for climate research papers by climatologists. If someone claims to be a climate researcher, you would expect papers on whatever research that person is doing. Also, there isn't much disagreement that the climate is changing. The disagreement is over why it's changing. As it turns out, those scientists who are saying it's not due to any anthropomorphic causes are also not doing much research.
For more on what the paper has confirmed, take a look at this video. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Machi4velli
SFN Regular
USA
854 Posts |
Posted - 07/02/2010 : 00:48:59 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by BigPapaSmurf
This isnt a mathematical proof Mach, consensus is they best we can do in many fields. |
Yes, but to say the idea of groupthink in science is laughable is pretty dismissive of something that actually can be a threat, an obstacle.
| The point is you don't ask surgeons for their opinions on dam construction and more importantly surgeons don't offer their opinions on dam saftey issues pretending to be engineering experts. |
Of course, but the difference in expertise in this example is extreme. It would be sensible to ask a geologist for an opinion about the rock around the dam, or a biologist about the effects plant and animal life could have on the dam (and vice versa), etc. |
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking
"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus |
|
|
|
Machi4velli
SFN Regular
USA
854 Posts |
Posted - 07/02/2010 : 01:42:46 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
New ideas should be rejected until such a time as there is sound and overwhelming evidence in their favor. |
Of course they should, I am not arguing otherwise. I am arguing that there have been instances where acceptance has been unnecessarily slow after good evidence was available. Relativity was still controversial in 1921 when Einstein won the Nobel Prize (see comments around the time, plus it was awarded for photoelectric effect to avoid the unjustifiably controversial issue), which was a couple years after verifying the prediction about Mercury's orbit and Eddington's data on light curving around the sun. These were only important for general relativity, while special relativity was already well established, each of which was certainly considered at the time more important than the photoelectric effect.
| Science wouldn't progress if every whacky idea that came along got equal footing because research resources are scarce and have to be rationed out. |
Not arguing for equal footing...
| And the largest rationing bias is towards those ideas that are most likely to produce actual useful results (with "useful" referring to either practical results or simply adding to our knowledge base - basic science). |
That's easy to say when the difference is clear. Determining likelihood can be difficult, and I think this type of decision can become most vulnerable to group think because the choice is usually made by some sort of panel of people from a similar intellectual culture and field of science.
I don't know that knowledge (scientific or otherwise) really builds incrementally by the rationing of resources. |
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking
"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 07/02/2010 : 08:05:00 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Machi4velli
I don't know that knowledge (scientific or otherwise) really builds incrementally by the rationing of resources. |
I'm saying that we have to ration our limited resources (that rationing which gets worse every time the Federal science budget gets cut). If we had an infinite amount of money and researchers, then we could investigate every crazy idea that popped into someone's head, with no harm to any science that's simply building on established principles. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Machi4velli
SFN Regular
USA
854 Posts |
Posted - 07/02/2010 : 13:06:31 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by Machi4velli
I don't know that knowledge (scientific or otherwise) really builds incrementally by the rationing of resources. |
I'm saying that we have to ration our limited resources (that rationing which gets worse every time the Federal science budget gets cut). If we had an infinite amount of money and researchers, then we could investigate every crazy idea that popped into someone's head, with no harm to any science that's simply building on established principles.
|
I don't mind accepting your argument there, I just think it was unjustified for Anderegg to suggest groupthink is impossible in science. I don't know that the incentives are completely as he claims -- orthodoxy does become a factor where it shouldn't sometimes, though this is usually transitory and certainly unintentional.
If he said, "I don't think groupthink is a factor in this case because x, y, and z," I would have no problem. |
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking
"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus |
| Edited by - Machi4velli on 07/02/2010 13:08:14 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 07/02/2010 : 22:46:34 [Permalink]
|
I'm just saying that proper scientific conservatism and institutional inertia due to lack of resources shouldn't be mistaken for groupthink. The difference between dogmatically adhering to orthodoxy and waiting for more or better data will be overlooked on someone who is unsatisfied with the status quo.
Further, I know of nobody who's gotten rich by being scientifically inert. Nobody gets grants for proposals which say, "we plan on demonstrating what's already been demonstrated ten times." Nobody is winning Nobel Prizes for research that reveals nothing new.
The incentives for working scientists really are opposed to maintaining an orthodoxy. Unfortunately, the motivations for individuals on grant-giving panels aren't always the same, you're right. But I think that Anderegg was talking about scientists, and not the bean counters. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Bob Lloyd
Skeptic Friend
Spain
59 Posts |
Posted - 07/06/2010 : 05:01:24 [Permalink]
|
The issue of groupthink in science is pretty important but it is constantly challenged by peer review and public evaluation of the data. Certainly there are pressures on scientists to follow up those avenues most likely to produce both scientific advance AND career progression, and also to chase the areas that gather the most funding, but that's rather different from groupthink.
A good example of groupthink is in the area of economics where economists have constantly assumed that pushing down wages by using unemployment will somehow result in a more competitive economy and hence growth. It doesn't happen and even in theoretical terms it's a nonsense. Equally, the grand assumption that demand-supply curves cross at a single equilibrium point, or the one about all markets being competitive... these are clear examples of institutional groupthink, all of which would be blown out of the water by a scientific approach to the data. Groupthink is the reason the economic pundits including Barnanke have to admit they have no idea how the latest crisis could have arisen. Some folks believe everything they think but scientists don't do that.
The key point is that the scientific method, peer review, reproducible experimental data, evaluation of methodologies, etc, all mitigate against groupthink. But at the same time, it does place emphasis on those theories which are proving to be reliable predictors of behaviour in the real world. That's sometimes seen as groupthink by those who don't have a good appreciation of how scientific theories are tested, improved, and rejected. They see a lot of scientists all saying the same thing and think they're behaving like a pack of economists when they are vastly superior in terms of their accumulated knowledge of the real world and their methodology for extending it :) |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 07/06/2010 : 08:01:54 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bob Lloyd
That's sometimes seen as groupthink by those who don't have a good appreciation of how scientific theories are tested, improved, and rejected. They see a lot of scientists all saying the same thing and think they're behaving like a pack of economists when they are vastly superior in terms of their accumulated knowledge of the real world and their methodology for extending it :) |
That's one of the things I point out when asked about the difference between science and religion: due to the different incentives and methods involved, scientists should generally disagree but don't, while religious leaders should generally agree but don't. But the last person I spoke with about this saw scientific agreement as groupthink or even a conspiracy, and religious disagreement as being the fault of false prophets and their billions of sheep-like followers, and he didn't see any irony in this at all. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Bob Lloyd
Skeptic Friend
Spain
59 Posts |
Posted - 07/06/2010 : 08:34:52 [Permalink]
|
| Originally posted by Dave W.scientists should generally disagree but don't |
That's an interesting point because on a macro level about the underpinnings of any scientific discipline there is sufficient depth and breadth of knowledge to make disagreement over the fundamentals very rare. That just demonstrates the firm foundations of the knowledge itself.
On the other hand, within a scientific discipline there is enormous disagreement about all those things still being actively researched. The near invisibility of this disagreement, cloaked as it often is behind technical scientific discussion, encourages the conspiracy view of scientists suppressing open argument. Since science requires some study and not a little effort before it can be understood, those who simply comment on the results cannot see the actual discussion and perhaps cannot even recognise the disagreements.
Many people take this as a personal affront, that some scientific topic is beyond them because they haven't studied it, and they assume that if the science is right, it should also be obvious to them. They conflate having an opinion with having a researched, evidenced, tested theory. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 07/06/2010 : 08:55:16 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bob Lloyd
On the other hand, within a scientific discipline there is enormous disagreement about all those things still being actively researched. The near invisibility of this disagreement, cloaked as it often is behind technical scientific discussion, encourages the conspiracy view of scientists suppressing open argument. Since science requires some study and not a little effort before it can be understood, those who simply comment on the results cannot see the actual discussion and perhaps cannot even recognise the disagreements. |
It's been my experience that the vast majority of people who criticize scientists for not engaging in open, honest argument have never even cracked open a science journal to see what such a discussion might look like. Instead, they hear some talking point from some political group, wonder why they're not seeing mainstream scientists being interviewed about it in the popular press, and reconcile this internal (to their own heads) conflict by hypothesizing a conspiracy of scientists to "suppress" the "problems."| Many people take this as a personal affront, that some scientific topic is beyond them because they haven't studied it, and they assume that if the science is right, it should also be obvious to them. They conflate having an opinion with having a researched, evidenced, tested theory. |
That's good, old-fashioned American anti-intellectualism (perhaps better known now as "anti-elitism"). |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Bob Lloyd
Skeptic Friend
Spain
59 Posts |
Posted - 07/07/2010 : 08:28:56 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
That's good, old-fashioned American anti-intellectualism (perhaps better known now as "anti-elitism").
|
Once upon a time, anti-elitism was all about opposing privileged access to things like education, certain careers, jobs, etc. In the UK, the elites went to schools like Eton and Harrow, seamlessly moved into Oxford or Cambridge universities then seamlessly into the upper eschelons of business or the city.
Over the last fifty years huge numbers of working class kids got access to a university education and could compete on equal terms academically, but the business elitism and the old school tie still means there is an elite that get a protected passage to wealth.
It's amazing that being intellectually capable or simply being able to argue rationally is considered as belonging to an elite. Is there a corresponding popular "Ignorant and Proud" movement to go with it? More to the point, how do we get round this prejudice against thinking critically? |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Climate change 'doubters' lack expertise
