No, you're not entitled to your opinion

[TimG]

Okay. I'll take that point. For the example of Climate Science, you are willing to take internet blogs and cable almost-news as a check and balance but I say that they fail the test of authority more often that not.

I don't care that 99% of the material is junk. I care that the 1% that is not junk is getting out there and is pointing out the failures of the establishment.

The point we're looking at, to my point of view is what is the best way to design our systems of public discourse so that fringe opinions are given due consideration.

We have to do something about the "cult of the expert". i.e. the conceit that someone cannot have a valid opinion on a topic unless they have been blessed by the establishment. I don't mean to say that expert opinions are useless rather I am saying it is possible to become an expert on a topic if you are motivated even if you do not have official credentials. What we need is a more reasonable process that can vet these non-official experts and incorporate their views into the public debate because they can see things that the establishment misses. Edited October 6, 2012 by TimG

[WWWTT]

Like climate sciences you mean?

Does forensic pathologist Dr.Charles Smith ring a bell?

Google his name and check out the possible dozens upon of dozens of re victimized people there are.

All because our justice system put too much faith into "science" experts!

Not too long ago,courts in Canada also used hypnotically extrapolated testimony until further research found it to be unreliable.

In fact anyone here who has given a scientist/doctor the benefit of the doubt without seeking more opinions has acted,in my opinion,foolishly!

Beware giving unquestioned merit and seek more than one opinion and do some research yourself!

WWWTT

[Michael Hardner]

I don't care that 99% of the material is junk. I care that the 1% that is not junk is getting out there and is pointing out the failures of the establishment.

The problem, then, is not with the public but with getting challenges to the status quo heard.

We have to do something about the "cult of the expert". i.e. the conceit that someone cannot have a valid opinion on a topic unless they have been blessed by the establishment.

There has been at least a 30-year run of challenging the cult of the expert by my guess. I guess you haven't seen enough of that, but isn't there a limit ?

Let's leave the area of Climate Science for a second and talk about another area in which the public doesn't believe the experts - the official story of 9/11. Do you think that those who fan the flames of Conspiracy Theory for profit will be found out by the public ? Eventually ? Or... when ?

incorporate their views into the public debate because they can see things that the establishment misses.

It's not a 'public' debate. MLW is arguably public because people's opinions mean something. Mass Media doesn't require involvement on anything but the most superficial level.

[TimG]

Let's leave the area of Climate Science for a second and talk about another area in which the public doesn't believe the experts - the official story of 9/11. Do you think that those who fan the flames of Conspiracy Theory for profit will be found out by the public?

The truthers made their case and disappeared off the radar because it eventually became clear that the had none. Same with the anti-vaxxers.

Climate change skepticism, OTOH, has grown. It has nothing to do with lobby groups or other nefarious conspiracies. It has to do the fact that the establishment has failed to correct serious errors when they were found on and their refusal to fix these errors means many people have lost trust in them. The unfortunate result is that even well founded claims are now viewed with skepticism.

Yet that does not stop people like the writer of the op from pressuring media to exclude skeptics from the public discussion. PBS recently aired an interview with a prominent skeptic who has written peer reviewed papers. The alarmists threw a fit and castigated PBS for giving skeptics any air time. The rational is the the same rational in this op. This is why I take the opposite view.

Edited October 7, 2012 by TimG

[Bonam]

You've said the same thing about social science many times. Science is about systematically acquiring knowledge and truth through empirical evidence. Social science studies human behaviour. No some social science studies using polling and surveys are not going to be 100% accurate (hence margin for error and whatnot), but much of it is still science. Ie:

- Social science research question: Do males get into more car accidents than women?

- Hypothesis: Women get into less car accidents than men

- Test: count licensed drivers per gender, then count reported accidents by each gender

- Conclusion: men get into more car accidents than women

There are countless statistics in social science similar to this that can be proven with empirical evidence through real-world observation, not just polling. Therefore, the fields are by definition sciences.

I missed this post earlier and failed to reply. Sorry about that. You raise a point here that is certainly worth addressing in order to understand my stance regarding social science. What one must realize is that there is a difference between doing science, and merely gathering statistics. The key point you missed in your description of applying the scientific method above is the hypothesis stage. How did you formulate this hypothesis?

In fact, what you have there is not a hypothesis at all. What a hypothesis is is a result of some theory, a prediction. It is not merely a random statement. When one uses an experiment to test a hypothesis, one determines if the hypothesis is true or not. But more importantly, one either lends supporting evidence to, or refutes, the theory/model upon which the hypothesis was based. If there was no theory upon which the hypothesis was based, if it was merely a statement pulled out of thin air, then the exercise is meaningless.

And this is where social science fails the test of being a science: many of it's "hypotheses" are just like the one you presented, they are not based on a theory or model, but are simply statements. One can then prove or disprove these statements by gathering experimental data, but doing so does not provide us any knowledge of how society and humanity (the subjects of social science) work.

For your example to have been scientific, the hypothesis "women get into less car accidents than men" must have been the prediction generated by some theory. What kind of theory could that be? Such a theory could have arisen, for example, from a set of neurobiological findings that suggest that women's brains are, for example, more apt to make them behave more carefully rather than aggressively in dangerous or high pressure situations. One might then theorize that being less aggressive or more careful might result in less accidents when the task that one is performing is driving a car. (Obviously the above is a very rough example and missing many important details). That would be a hypothesis. But the theory would have thousands of other predictions as well. And if a single one of these predictions was refuted by experimental evidence, well, then that would mean that theory is flawed, and must be re-examined.

Without that underlying theory-prediction-refutation paradigm, there is no science, merely statistics. And statistics by itself is not science.

But all is not lost. The very first stage of science is called "classification". And what it involves is merely observing phenomena, cataloging them, and giving them names. So gathering statistics that shed light on certain phenomena is helpful. Some day, when social science has advanced sufficiently, statistical facts such as "women get into less car accidents than men" will be a piece of experimental evidence, that a theory of social science will have to accurately predict. Just like we had thousands of years of astronomical observations, hard facts. But it is only when we were able to understand and predict these facts in the context of a viable theory that we moved from the early stage of classification, to the core theory/prediction/refutation paradigm of science.

And that is where social sciences stand today, the earliest beginnings of their fields, the classification stage. One cannot base policy decisions on a mere cataloged list of phenomenon without explanations as to their causes. One must be able to predict the result of one's policies on the future society. And to do that, one needs a theory, one that has accurately predicted phenomena in the past and is confidently expected to continue to do so. And social scientists do not have such theories, they only have observations. Hence when people want to base policies on social science, they are completely missing the most vital point, that social scientists simply do NOT have the knowledge necessary to predict what will happen. Without predictive theories, all they have is their best guess, no better than the best guess of any other intelligent person.

In the absence of science with well-established theories, that have produced verifiable predictions, that have indeed been thoroughly verified experimentally, the "theory" that comes from some random person's "gut", like "giving zeros to students is a bad idea" is just as likely to be true as a "theory" that comes from some other person's gut, like "not giving students zeros for unsubmitted work is stupid", even if one of the two wrote a book and the other did not. On a subject such as that, everyone is indeed entitled to their opinion. And that will continue to be so until social science advances considerably.

Edited October 7, 2012 by Bonam

[cybercoma]

Hypotheses in the social sciences come from (or are supposed to anyway) extensive literature reviews and theoretical foundations. There are theories about the social life, a great many of them, in fact. Social scientists use these to derive their hypotheses, which are then tested either statistically. Other times, social scientists will gather data by a variety of methods (not just surveys) and derive theories from the concepts that emerge. Theories in the social sciences are not just gut feelings that are pursued. That wouldn't get you published and it certainly wouldn't earn you a pass on your dissertations.

Edited October 7, 2012 by cybercoma

[Bonam]

Hypotheses in the social sciences come from (or are supposed to anyway) extensive literature reviews and theoretical foundations. There are theories about the social life, a great many of them, in fact. Social scientists use these to derive their hypotheses, which are then tested either statistically. Other times, social scientists will gather data by a variety of methods (not just surveys) and derive theories from the concepts that emerge.

Could you provide me with an example of a theory in the social sciences that has been explored in detail, has had scientists work out all of its myriad predictions, and has had each of these thoroughly experimentally verified, and has predicted new phenomena that were not previously known, which were then also found experimentally by scientists? A theory that takes various disparate phenomena, and with beauty and elegance explains them all. That is, a successful, established, and predictive theory, a cornerstone of human knowledge, like relativity, or electromagnetism, or evolution. Find me such a theory in the social sciences, and I will take its predictions seriously.

[Michael Hardner]

How many mainstream news stories use good studies as a basis for their stories?

Even if TimG is right, the media still regularly quotes quacks.

The time has come to shoot the messenger.

[cybercoma]

I partly agree, but I also blame academics for not being more vocal. They basically ignore the news and the public because... well, it's like arguing with ignorant people on the internet. There's really no point because you're not going to convince them and you just end up looking stupid in the process. At least that seems to me how academics feel about it.

Edited October 7, 2012 by cybercoma

[TimG]

Even if TimG is right, the media still regularly quotes quacks.

That is the price we must pay since our institutions are fallible. Someone who is seen as a quack today may be a seen as a seer tomorrow. The media has no business blocking views because they annoy the establishment. That is the anti-thesis of a free press. Edited October 7, 2012 by TimG

[TimG]

I partly agree, but I also blame academics for not being more vocal.

The problem academics have is they automatically defend their own even if they have no rational basis to believe that their fellow academics are right when faced with criticism from non-academics. If more academics had done what Judith Curry has done and taken the time to sort out the nonsense from the legitimate issues then the size of the adamantly skeptical population would likely be a lot smaller today. Edited October 7, 2012 by TimG

[dre]

Okay. I'll take that point. For the example of Climate Science, you are willing to take internet blogs and cable almost-news as a check and balance but I say that they fail the test of authority more often that not.

Suggest something better that that, maybe.

I dont think Tim necessarily places a lot of weight on blogs... Iv seen him grasp at pretty much every straw available in the climate debate. THe source isnt important, the important part is that hes told what he wants to hear.

[dre]

That is the price we must pay since our institutions are fallible. Someone who is seen as a quack today may be a seen as a seer tomorrow. The media has no business blocking views because they annoy the establishment. That is the anti-thesis of a free press.

The problem isnt views that annoy the establishment, its views of people who have done no real work of interest to arrive at them. It comes down to elbow grease.

[TimG]

The problem isnt views that annoy the establishment, its views of people who have done no real work of interest to arrive at them. It comes down to elbow grease.

There are many people who have spent a lot of researching the fields that they express an opinion on. The trouble is the establishment does not like certain views no matter how well researched they are. In some cases the establishment is right. In other cases, they are only covering up their own failures. The media should not be censoring views simply because they don't come from the establishment. Edited October 7, 2012 by TimG

[dre]

There are many people who have spent a lot of researching the fields that they express an opinion on. The trouble is the establishment does not like certain views no matter how well researched they are. In some cases the establishment is right. In other cases, they are only covering up their own failures. The media should not be censoring views simply because they don't come from the establishment.

There are many people who have spent a lot of researching the fields that they express an opinion on

Yes and those people are listened to. They are presenting their views to governments around the world, and helping to shape policy.

The trouble is the establishment does not like certain views no matter how well researched they are.

No the trouble is that YOU are doing exactly what you accuse the "establishment" of doing. You just the validity of peoples work based on whether or not they confirm your personal biases. In fact in another threat recently you proclaimed that would would oppose and dismiss ALL the work and ideas that didnt conform to your view, for the simple reason they dont tell you what you want to hear.

In reality though people who oppose action on climate change on either scientific or economic grounds have as much or MORE influence on the "establishment" as folks on the other side.

[TimG]

Yes and those people are listened to. They are presenting their views to governments around the world, and helping to shape policy.

Really? Last time I checked the alarmists have a death grip on any official policy discussions.

You just the validity of peoples work based on whether or not they confirm your personal biases.

No. That is what YOU are doing. I look at the arguments and decide which ones have merit or not. You seek to project your own failings on me.

In fact in another threat recently you proclaimed that would would oppose and dismiss ALL the work and ideas that didnt conform to your view

What I said is I would reject all anti-CO2 POLICIES until the establishment cleaned up its act and demonstrated that it is willing and able to counter bad science even when it is politically inconvient. It is a perfectly reasonable boycott as far as I am concerned. The scientific discussion is separate from the policy and that does not mean I would take positions that make no sense scientifically. Edited October 8, 2012 by TimG

[cybercoma]

The problem academics have is they automatically defend their own

If you actually believe that, then you have no idea whatsoever how academia works. In fact, it's pretty much exactly the opposite of that.

Edited October 8, 2012 by cybercoma

[Guest Manny]

Allow me to add, and maybe you've already discussed it but the problem is funding, and where the money is coming from determines the kind of research that will be done. Also determines which facts will be presented, and which will be quietly filed away.

Researchers are under pressure to comply with the interests of their finding sources. I recall the CPC government has closed down a lot of research centres such as those in the arctic, and pulled funding for climate research. That's agenda driving the science. People are told to be quiet, vilified, or simply ignored by the media. And the driving engine is money.

[Guest Manny]

A lot of "social issues" that get debated are so complicated, and have problems no matter which choice is selected. It now comes down to weighing the benefits, pluses and minuses for each option, decide which is the lesser of the "evils", for example.

When decisions like that need to get made, there isn't a single right answer. In fact the preferred answer might even change depending on regional differences, or differences in space and time.

Regional differences... that's preferences. That sounds like opinion, to me...

[dre]

Really? Last time I checked the alarmists have a death grip on any official policy discussions.

No. That is what YOU are doing. I look at the arguments and decide which ones have merit or not. You seek to project your own failings on me.

What I said is I would reject all anti-CO2 POLICIES until the establishment cleaned up its act and demonstrated that it is willing and able to counter bad science even when it is politically inconvient. It is a perfectly reasonable boycott as far as I am concerned. The scientific discussion is separate from the policy and that does not mean I would take positions that make no sense scientifically.

No. That is what YOU are doing. I look at the arguments and decide which ones have merit or not. You seek to project your own failings on me.

No you dont. You have categorically stated that will oppose ANY AND ALL attempts to mitigate CO2 emissions based on your quackery. Iv done no such thing... Im the guy who thinks we should build as many modern energy plants as possible (coal, natgas, nuclear, hydro, etc), while incentivizing the development of alternatives as well.

It is a perfectly reasonable boycott as far as I am concerned.

No its EXACTLY what you accuse your opponents of doing.... ignoring everything their philophical opponents propose based on nothing more than who is proposing them.

Really? Last time I checked the alarmists have a death grip on any official policy discussions.

Only in magical whimsical timmy land. In the real world official policy is informed by everyone from scientists, to engineers, to economists, to private companies. In the real world hard-core environmentalists are every bit as frustated as you are at how little people listen to them, and the effect they really have on public policy. Environmentalists have no "death grip" at all in the real world, and countries around the world are building gas plants, coal plants, nuclear plants, wind farms, geothermal, expanding oil and gas exploration and pretty much everything else.

[TimG]

If you actually believe that, then you have no idea whatsoever how academia works. In fact, it's pretty much exactly the opposite of that.

What you are repeating what academics like to believe about themselves. That does not mean it is true. I am basing my opinion on what I have actually seen academics do in the climate debate and I have seen many clueless academics defend junk science for no reason other than the people making the criticisms were not part of the establishment. Edited October 8, 2012 by TimG

[TimG]

You have categorically stated that will oppose ANY AND ALL attempts to mitigate CO2 emissions based on your quackery. Iv done no such thing...

ROTFL. You are doing exactly that by calling my views quackery. That tells me that you are either completely ignorant of my views or you know what they are but you think the are quackery for no reason other than they conflict with what you want to believe.

You are projecting your own flaws again.

ignoring everything their philophical opponents propose based on nothing more than who is proposing them.

I am engaging in a boycott until I see changes to way the academic establishment reacts to critics. It is possible that the academic could reform in a way I find satisfactory and still come to the same conclusions. I would re-look at those conclusions at that time.

[dre]

What you are repeating is the lie that academics like to tell themselves. I am basing my opinion on what I have actually seen academics do in the climate debate and I have seen many clueless academics defend junk science for no reason other than the people making the criticisms were not part of the establishment.

Sure there are clueless people on both ends. People who either support or oppose something simply because of which side of the struggle they wound up on. You are a perfect example. You have boldly proclaimed that you will oppose every single thing that the other side might come up with, and you complain that they do the exact same thing.

So youre perfect for each other. While people like you and radical environmentalists spend all day every day opposing each other and outright dismissing everything the other side has to say, other people can work on actually solving problems.

At best people like you, and the greens are an amusing sideshow.

[TimG]

You have boldly proclaimed that you will oppose every single thing that the other side might come up with, and you complain that they do the exact same thing.

I have explained why I am doing what I am doing. But you choose it ignore the explanations and create strawmen. I assume you are creating strawmen because it creates less cognitive dissonance than actually trying to understand my POV. Edited October 8, 2012 by TimG

[dre]

ROTFL. You are doing exactly that by calling my views quackery. That tells me that you are either completely ignorant of my views or you know what they are but you think the are quackery for no reason other than they conflict with what you want to believe.

Im not calling your "views" quackery. Im calling your blanket condemnation of every single conclusion and idea thats contrary to what you want to hear quackery. And thats exactly what it is. You are no different than an extreme environmentalist that "boycotts" everything and everyone that doesnt conform to their own CO2/Doomsday world view.

You are boycotting them and their ideas, and they are boycotting you and yours. Oh well! Such is life I guess.

Edited October 8, 2012 by dre