…exists primarily in mythology:
There is deeply ingrained in American culture — particularly nowadays on the Left — the stereotype of the scientist as pure in intent and action, caring only for the Truth, let the chips fall where they may. The scientist works readily with other scientists (except when s/he is working alone, late into the night, thinking deep thoughts), accepts — nay, encourages — challenges to her/his theories and findings, welcomes new information and hypotheses, and is always willing to change his/her mind based on better data, models, and/or reasoning.
It is, to quote the late Douglas Adams, a load of dingos’ kidneys. A very large, steaming, rotting load of dingos’ kidneys.
Particularly when it comes to a politicized field like climate “science.”
It’s fine to have a public policy about science, i.e. what to fund and where to fund it. But science has no place informing public policy. Engineering, on the other hand, should be used to inform public policy wherever possible.
That would require quite a bit of elaboration for me to agree or disagree. I don’t really understand what you’re saying.
Pretty simple: If your science isn’t good enough to be able to make something with it, or used it to do something to the world with predictable consequences, then it has no business being used to formulate laws or regulations. The poster child for this is climate science, which, irrespective of whether it’s right or wrong (or somewhere in the middle), can’t be used to effect any sort of predictable change on the environment. It’s fine to run around screaming that the sky is falling, but until you can describe how to prevent it from falling with a high degree of certainty, you shouldn’t be invited to any congressional hearings.
Oh, that I understand. What I don’t understand is your reference to engineering, and why it should inform public policy.
I’m missing something here. Before you do a highway appropriation, shouldn’t you know how big a road you need to handle the projected traffic, and how much it will cost? When you want to protect a city from floodwaters, don’t you want to know how to construct the levees for the least cost and most effectiveness? If you want to prepare for a flu pandemic, don’t you need to know how much a certain vaccine schedule will reduce contagion? If you want to develop a manned deep space capability, don’t you need to know the most economical set of launchers and on-orbit facilities? Isn’t all of that engineering informing public policy?
Before you do a highway appropriation, shouldn’t you know how big a road you need to handle the projected traffic, and how much it will cost?
In a rational world where politicians were interested in the best interests of the people and are seeking guidance based on best practices, sure. Unfortunately, I live in no such world.
A grant, a grant, my integrity for a grant.
Well, back when What’s My Line was on we didn’t have prominent climate scientists.
Steve Allen: Do you work at a university or other institution?
CS: Yes.
Arlene Francis: Do you write something?
CS: Yes.
Dorothy Kilgallen: Is the work you write largely fiction?
CS: Yes.
Bennett Surf: Are you a novelist?
CS: No.
Arlene Francis: Does you collect data?
CS: Umm….. I would say yes, sort of.
Dorothy Kilgallen: Do you make predictions?
CS: Oh, definitely yes.
Bennett Surf: Are they testable?
CS: Umm… No, not really. At least I hope they’re not tested.
Steve Allen: Are these predictions apocalyptic in nature?
CS: Yes, definitely.
Dorothy Kilgallen: Do you try to convince people to renounce their sins?
CS: Yes, definitely.
Bennett Surf: Are you a theologian?
CS: No, not officially.
Steve Allen: Are you a climate scientist?
John Daly: That’s it! You got it.
Steve Allen:
Assuming that all scientists (or just ones in a certain field) are all corrupt and evil hacks seeking World Domination (or whatever you think they are looking for) is equally invalid.
The reality is that scientists are people, and come in all mindsets. I personally know a scientist who identifies as a Goldwater Republican (probably because he went door-to-door for the man) and worked 30+ years at a government research lab.
Assuming that all scientists (or just ones in a certain field) are all corrupt and evil hacks seeking World Domination (or whatever you think they are looking for) is equally invalid.
Well, that’s a pretty pathetic straw man.
Your strawman, not mine, since that seems to be your only explanation for why climate scientists believe in global warming.
It only seems that way to people who have trouble with basic reading comprehension.
A scientist who puts forward an untestable idea as a “scientific theory” in order to grab a grant or acquire more power within the Cathedral power structure is nothing more than a politician. Even worse, he is an unaccountable and unelected politician with power over us. In other words, a member of the Cathedral’s managerial class.
“The reality is that scientists are people, and come in all mindsets.”
That was the point of the linked story. Glad you agree?
It’s not good when scientists lose sight of the fact that they are people, too. We all view the world through our biases. This is natural. But to pretend we do not have biases, is a very bad thing for the scientist. It leads one to ignore contradictory evidence, simply because it does not fit one’s worldview; or to perceive as reliable otherwise sketchy evidence, simply because it’s what we wanted to find. In academia, which is essentially nothing more than a liberal echo chamber at most every level now, the temptation to politicize work must be extraordinary. When that happens, science itself fails.
Faith in the mythical scientist (who also seems to be a mythical policy wonk and mythical risk manager) seems to be of two mutually inconsistent archetypes: a Cassandra who demands a stop to all forcing factors that cause species to die out and calls on Zeus to punish any would-be Prometheus who would improve a species and a didactic priest of Proteus who proselytizes survival of the fittest.
In terms of the value of scientists in forming policy all you need to do is look at space policy which has been driven by advice from scientists since the 1950’s…
@Thomas Matula
TheRadicalModerate has stated this in detail. The presence of engineered products based on a science is the ultimate validation of that science. AGW isn’t one of them.
Reminds me of one of my favorite Dilbert strips (apologies if I have posted it here before). I concerns the character known as Dan the Illogical Scientist.
Dan (to Dilbert): That design won’t work. I should know, because I’m a scientist, and scientists have done many wonderful things.
Dilbert: But, those were other scientists, not you.
Dan: Apparently, you do not understand science.
The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded.
Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.
The left love to quote Eisenhower’s warning about the rise of the military-industrial complex, but never seem to read a few paragraphs further for his warning about the rise of the government-science complex.
The DoD budget is 526 Billion. The DoE is half weapons, the budget for the NSF, NOAA, NIH, etc probably are about 60 Billion.
People don’t talk about Government-Science-Complex because it’s not very big or very complex.
People don’t talk about Government-Science-Complex because it’s not very big or very complex.
It’s only a tenth as big as the US military budget. Of course, it’s not very big or complex.
Lets assume that during my lifetime I average 110K$ pre-tax income per year in 2013 dollars, i.e. my average annual production is 110K$ of goods/services. Lets also assume I work uninterrupted from 24-70 years of age. In my life, I will have produced just over 5M$.
So lets see… a 60B$ annual budget takes ~12K of my lives per year to fund. Twelve-Thousand lives – and that is if you take 100% of my production, i.e. made me a slave (and assume I continue to produce at that level without means to feed/clothe/shelter myself). 12K slaves a year, not a big deal right?
I think it would be a nice rhetorical device to include in any government budget or appropriations bill an Estimated American Taxpayers Nom-nom-nom’d (EATEN).
bah, supposed to be Equivalent American Taxpayers Estimated Nom-nom-nom’d
Just because many official government scientists are doing useful things (such as weapons research), doesn’t mean all of them are doing useful things. Read Mencius Moldbug’s post on “Soviet Science”.
Ridiculed Discoverers, Vindicated Mavericks:
http://amasci.com/weird/vindac.html
Scroll down to read the details
There is deeply ingrained in American culture — particularly nowadays on the Left — the stereotype of the scientist as pure in intent and action, caring only for the Truth, let the chips fall where they may
If only it were true.
They believe that when the results are the ones they want.
Otherwise it’s “corporate money” or some wicked agenda, depending on the exact way in which the result differs from the desired.
(To be fair, there are people on the Right, and Libertarians, and people of any other description who act in exactly the same way; this behavior is by no means unique to the Left.)
Yup
The typical Progressive doesn’t know what science is, but will brandish the word “science” to support Prog dogma in much the same manner as a Muslim brandishes a Koran to support Islamic dogma.