-
Opposition to GM Organisms Hard to Justify
January 31, 2011 | 12 comments
-
Environmentalists Block Scientific Progress
December 18, 2010 | 2 comments
-
Are Organic and Green Products a Scam?
December 10, 2010 | 34 comments
-
Bjorn Lomborg’s ‘Cool It’ is a Breath of Fresh Air
November 19, 2010 | 33 comments
-
Stephen Hawking Should Stick to Physics
November 6, 2010 | 87 comments
The Spectacle Blog
One thing that both sides of the political spectrum seem to agree on is the notion that political discourse in this country has become increasingly shrill, hyperbolic, and dominated by two extremes. However, although nearly everyone seems to agree on this point, it has yet to reap any tangible benefits. An examination of public scientific “debates” is illuminating.
The increasingly touchy topic of climate change is perhaps the best example. One extreme argues that climate change will cause billions of people to starve/drown/burn/die of horrible diseases. The other extreme says that climate change is a hoax perpetrated by people wanting to establish global socialism.
As bad as that is, the debate over embryonic stem cell research takes an even nastier tone. Those who support it falsely raise people’s hopes by claiming unjustifiably that almost every medical ailment known to man will be cured in the near future, while its opponents liken the research to abortion. Evolution? That’s devolved into a name-calling contest between supposed science-hating Luddites and God-hating atheists.
angrybaby.jpg
And as Todd Myers points out, it’s not even possible to have a civil discussion about fertilizers.
On the bright side, there appear to be at least two commonalities between the warring factions: (1) Neither argument remotely resembles reality; and (2) Both sides find it politically expedient to smear the credibility of scientists.
It is this latter point which is perhaps the most disappointing. Increasingly, scientists fail to receive from the public the basic respect that is earned through years of education and research. Scientists are experts, even if one disagrees with them. And as such, they deserve to be respected unless there is good reason not to. (See Andrew Wakefield.) Simply disagreeing with scientists is not sufficient cause to vilify or discredit them, yet that is exactly what is starting to occur on a fairly regular basis.
For the good of the country and the scientific community, this needs to stop immediately. It is time to put words to action and back away from the extremist rhetoric.
Alex B. Berezow is the editor of RealClearScience. He holds a Ph.D. in microbiology.
View all comments (28) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Alex B. Berezow
http://spectator.org/blog/2011/02/17/extremists-dominate-public-sci
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Downton’s Class System — and Ours
- Sarah Palin’s Rack
- Of Wizards and Weapons
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
DLB| 2.17.11 @ 6:43AM
There is a very good reason not to trust "scientists" when they try to use the mantle of "science" to push a political agenda. A politician in a lab coat is still a politician.
Alex B. Berezow | 2.17.11 @ 6:47AM
True. When a scientist advances a particular policy, he is no longer speaking as just a scientist, but as a lobbyist. However, scientists in general are being smeared, not just the few that actively lobby.
Wayne | 2.17.11 @ 12:35PM
Problem is that we loosely define "scientist". I would question of a climatologist is a scientists at all. At best it is a soft science. Science is empirical, letting the data and facts speak for themselves. Scientific ideas must pass the gauntlet of critical peer review. Astronomy and Chemistry for example have made tremendous progress in the last 100 years for this vary reason.
But Climatologist depend on old Fortran coded models that are dated and unmaintainable. They use data that can not be verified. They depend upon government grants that force them to follow the "party" line. They therefore start the research by assuming that man-made global warming is true.
Now as far as the scientist called deniers or skeptics, they just need to follow the money to see that climatology is a junk science in bed with politicians.
gokart-mozart| 2.17.11 @ 6:45AM
"Increasingly, scientists fail to receive from the public the basic respect that is earned through years of education and research. Scientists are experts, even if one disagrees with them. And as such, they deserve to be respected unless there is good reason not to"
Begging your pardon, Dr. Berezow, but this is a foolish and, truth be told, a rather vain argument. Years of education and research earn respect only to the degree that they draw one closer to beauty and truth. Years of education that cripple one's ability to think deserve contempt, not respect. "Research" without a testable hypothesis and with preformulated conclusions defensible only by intimidation and fraud are likewise contemptible.
Degree-granting institutions have long ago forfeited any credibility for certifying accomplishment that they had in simpler times. Fraud and misprision are rife when scientists spend most of their time whoring after other people's money. Your horse has left the barn.
DLB| 2.17.11 @ 6:47AM
P.S. "Extremism" in the pursuit of truth is no vice. "Moderation" of truth with lies is no virtue.
Alex B. Berezow | 2.17.11 @ 6:58AM
"Fraud and misprision are rife when scientists spend most of their time whoring after other people's money."
Thanks for proving my point.
Chris| 2.17.11 @ 11:25AM
Actually, I don't think he does. His point seems to be that when the University system is designed around the mentality of
1. Publish or die
2. To publish you need grant money
3. You get grant money by fulfilling the desires of the grantee. (For instance, how much money is a researcher going to get if he doesn't support global warming?)
4. You spend your time doing research and not doing much in the way of teaching.
5. Passing peer review becomes a process of meeting consensus. (See examples of people passing the peer-review process with bogus papers)
You end up with "science" that supports consensus and a University that doesn't teach and what it does teach is more of an indoctrination than teaching. As an added bonus, you get some extremely stupid studies like how much cow farting adds to global warming.
Thus, when the system itself is compromised, the people coming out of that system are going to be viewed suspiciously. Also, a scientist should only get respect for actual research and teaching contributions and not just getting a piece of paper.
WJ| 2.17.11 @ 11:26AM
Quoting from one of your links "...Finally, this does not mean that scientists are immune to bias. The scientist claims he is "trained in every way to function as an objective person." This is not a reasonable claim. Nobody is perfectly objective. He may be able to produce quality experiments that yield excellent data, but how he interprets that data is subject to his biases."
As you noted "When a scientist advances a particular policy, he is no longer speaking as just a scientist, but as a lobbyist."
How are the non-scientists supposed to find out about the biases of the scientists without questioning them?
You seem to be of the impression that until proven guilty, the scientists word should be given the benefit of the doubt. Right or wrong, that time is over. The climate scientists have screwed that up with their politicking for billions of taxpayer dollars.
Boston12GS| 2.17.11 @ 7:26AM
So, scientists should be treated with respect merely for being "scientists"?
Should MBAs be treated with respect simply because they are "MBAs"--even if they are embezzling their clients' funds?
Should religious leaders be treated with respect simply because they are "religious leaders"--even if they are molesting their parishioners' children?
Should doctors be treated with respect simply because they are "doctors"--even if they are illegally providing their patients with medically unnecessary narcotics?
In each case, the proportion of bad actors is very small, but very real, and those who act in bad faith and contrary to the obligations of their discipline lose the presumption of respectability.
So, too, with scientists who abandon the scientific merit in the pursuit of politically-driven agendas and the pursuit of massive governmental research funding based on manipulated and falsified "research".
If scientists wish to be treated with respect, they need to conduct themselves accordingly. Lying, falsifying data, manipulating research findings for political purposes--these are all perfectly legitimate reasons for losing the presumption of respect that would normally accompany a PhD.
Alex B. Berezow | 2.17.11 @ 7:33AM
I wrote this: "...they deserve to be respected unless there is good reason not to."
Occam's Tool| 2.17.11 @ 1:31PM
Actually, I believe one should respect good research and not people. I spend my professional life trying to convince judges and lawyers that people are dangerous; they override me, then blame me when these people hurt someone.
I have very little respect for the authority of titles, and a great deal of respect for the beauty of well done research.
Occam's Tool| 2.17.11 @ 1:37PM
An example: I support Norman Borlaug's position on genetically modified plants (he was for 'em) because he saved a Billion people and his research was superb, AND HIS REASONING ON GE WAS BASED ON HIS WELL DOCUMENTED RESEARCH EXPERTISE, not because he won the Nobel Peace Prize. There are many BAD Nobel Peace Prize winners (Carter, Obama, Gore, Arafat come IMMEDIATELY to mind), but only one Borlaug.
However, I'm more than willing to respect you, Alex.
David C| 2.19.11 @ 9:42AM
"I have very little respect for the authority of titles"
Occam's Tool has hit the proverbial nail on the head here.
The problem with Berezow's piece is that he makes an argument from authority. Scientists are to supposed be respected simply because they are scientists. That makes no more sense than saying priests are to be respected because they're priests, or that politicians are to be respected because they're politicians.
Boston12GS| 2.17.11 @ 7:27AM
Edit: "scientific merit" should read "scientific method"--need that second cup of coffee.
A Random Friar| 2.17.11 @ 7:27AM
Part of it may well be the media because of how it works nowadays. Is a report that says "Everything's more or less ok" going to make the 6 o'clock news? Alarmists and extremists make for good sound bites.
Another sad part is that the attacks do not stop at the edge of campus. Academia itself is an extremely politicized and often vitriolic environment with great pressures to conform.
RWinks| 2.17.11 @ 9:31AM
All scientists who do not speak up and condemn "experts" when Science is perverted to further political agendas have only themselves to blame. Of course, telling the truth may endanger their position and funding. The Left perverts and corrupts everything.
Wayne | 2.17.11 @ 12:45PM
And we have many examples of meteorologist being fired for not supporting man-made global warming theory.
Paul Turner| 2.17.11 @ 11:56AM
Most science practitioners will agree that the risk of experimental error is ever present, and hard to avoid. As a measure of scientific integrity, the fraction of retracted papers is one useful objective metric. Since this number is vanishingly low, there is no basis for trusting scientists more than say politicians
George LeS| 2.17.11 @ 12:03PM
Sorry, this argument just won't do. Scientists, like everyone else, are given the respect they have earned. I see no evidence that there is any problem today, more than in the past, where individual work is doubted because it is science.
In cases where one doesn't know enough about individual cases, the general record of the group, whether it be scientists or politicians, will always be decisive in most people's degree of trust. And the record of scientists, as a group, is not particularly good. They seem just as inclined to circle the wagons as anyone else.
Evidence of this is the fact that you simply do not see vast protests, from among the scientific community, over such matters as the climategate scandal. Futher, scientists have lately been much in the news blathering about things of which they know nothing, e.g., Dawkins on philopsophy. Yet, as a group, they still defend themselves as a clerisy of the wise. Until that ends, that is, until they speak up collectively against follies witing their own ranks, they will get the same respect as any other hucksters.
RWinks is correct:
"All scientists who do not speak up and condemn "experts" when Science is perverted to further political agendas have only themselves to blame."
Johnny V| 2.17.11 @ 12:14PM
Nice post, Dr. Berezow. I'm amazed at the comments that nit-pick the general thesis of the article. The comment that scientists should not be given respect but looked at with a jaded eye is downright anti-intellectual. What is the matter with you people? You must get up in the morning looking for something to be unhappy with.
Wayne | 2.17.11 @ 12:43PM
But isn't up to the scientists themselves to challenge the other scientists? We should not be in a position to have to choose which science is junk science, but we are.
Was the science that banned DDT junk science or was it based on sound scientific principals? Was it worth the millions of deaths to malaria? I care less about the ego of scientists than the lives of people who depend upon the scientists doing their job properly.
I say this not as a scientists myself, but as a chemistry teacher who loves science, and who has seen the number of students entering the field of science continually shrink.
Chris| 2.17.11 @ 12:44PM
It's anti-intellectual to not accept a statement by scientists without some measure of skepticism? That statement is the height of anti-intellectualism. It borders on the logical fallacy of arguing from authority where any scientist is an authority.
I work in IT and my wife is always giving me a hard time about computer screw-ups. Now, I could demand that as an IT professional, I deserve respect. Or, I can accept that the IT profession does screw up a lot and there is always room for improvement. Scientists may start gaining some respect again if they start showing humility instead of making grandiose pronouncements.
Wayne | 2.17.11 @ 12:50PM
Well said. I to have seen many frauds in the IT field. I remember that the Executive VP at US West used a fraudulent resume. He lacked the programming background he claimed. I saw IT frauds at Homeland Security, who would rather cause a project to fail than be exposed as incompetent.
Unfortunately this exists in all fields and is not new. Even Lucy and the Pitkin Man were frauds.
JimH| 2.17.11 @ 12:54PM
A couple of points, courtesy should be given. Respect is earned. An argument that is an appeal to authority is one of the logical fallacies. If you have to append science to the name of your field, i.e. climate science, it probably isn’t one.
axbucxdu| 2.17.11 @ 1:02PM
George LeS| 2.17.11 @ 12:03PM wrote:
"...And the record of scientists, as a group, is not particularly good".
I wouldn't be so diplomatic. See c.f.:
Should the History of Science Be Rated X?
Stephen G. Brush
Science, New Series, Vol. 183, No. 4130. (Mar. 22, 1974), pp. 1164-1172.
Given their history then, it would be anti-intellectual to grant them respect based solely on their stated dedication to discovering truth. Others may wish to trust, but it is verification that is both necessary AND sufficient.
George Kimball| 2.19.11 @ 12:32AM
The record of scientists is actually quite a bit better than that of other groups making public statements. Consider for example cold fusion - a couple of incompetent scientists fooled themselves and went public with grand claims. The scientific community quickly found the claims to be false and ridiculed the claimants (two of their own). The press and university administrators acted like carny barkers - nothing new for either. Other controversies, like global warming, are not as clear cut scientifically and bitterly controversial. But they are NOTHING when compared to politics and financial frauds (but I repeat myself) --
Peace is at hand -- Neville Chamberlain 1939
Split strike option trading - Bernard Madoff
S&L deregulation - an economic tonic
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - aboveboard government banks
I am not a crook - Richard Nixon
The NAE (biggest teacher's union) - helps educate children
Iraqi nuclear weapons are a reason to start a war -Dubya
The Crusades, Jihad - logic need not apply
and on
and on
and on
George Kimball| 2.19.11 @ 2:18AM
American science in the last 40 years or so has been corrupted, gradually, by several things. First on the list is the scientific ignorance and innumeracy of the public. Universities have been corrupted and value money, not scholarship or teaching. Added to 10 yrs of declining federal financial support for research, scientists are forced into a life of prostitution, pimping whatever trend is favored this week by the political class. A gothic hybrid, the scientist-hustler emerged. James Hansen a perfect example, a malignant oncogenesis of a conflict of interest. And that is why we have the situation we do.
George LeS| 2.19.11 @ 9:40PM
@George Kimball:
Your argument doesn't work, for 2 reasons.
1. In every single case you offer, except perhaps Madoff (I don't remember), there was prominent, well publicised opposition to the actions and statements offered, usually from the same fields as the perp. The issue at hand--that is the reason we are so skeptical & critical of the scientific community--is that this is very infrequent there. If there is such controversy roiling among scientists, if there really are lots of scientist blowing the whistle on one another, the rest of the world isn't seeing it.
The problem is that either (a) scientists don't offer such criticism of one another, at least not so outsiders can hear about it, or (b) the media we rely on is not reporting it. My own view is that both are involved: scientists do circle the wagons, and even when they don't, the media report only what they want.
2. If your argument is that "The record of scientists is actually quite a bit better than that of other groups making public statements", you really should do better than come up with a list dominated by politics. Yes, you can make a case on that basis, but that's about as low as any bar could be set.
Take the very example given in the article. It took 13 years, apparently for a denunciation. So far as I can tell from the article, actual penalties are simply something Berezow would like to see; it's not at all clear they will follow.
Look, for at least 150 years, scientists have been claiming a special status as being uniquely objective, as if endowed with powers far beyond those of mortal men. And the word "science" has been used as a juju term, to cow the natives. This has led to the dreadful and arrogant attitude that science could ignore any information which came from other disciplines. I knew, as an undergraduate, that the 13 century was warmer, and the 17th cooler, than the 20th. That came from being a history major. But that knowledge has been dismissed & denied by our scientific betters.
But the natives just aren't so easy to cow anymore. And scientists seem not to like being treated the same as everyone else. Berzow's 1st paragraph acknowledges that science is being now treated as part of the public debate; science, per se, is not mentioned until further on. Although it's common to deplore the current tone of debate, although I'd argue that it is about the same as it's always been. The change is that the exemption for scientists has been revoked.
Until it's clear that scientists as a group, are ashamed of the likes of Michael Mann, and until the essays of Dawkins & Hawking outside their fields are regarded as embarssments, AND SEEN TO BE SEE REGARDED, science will not get, nor deserve, the trust it once had.
Physicians, heal thyselves.