tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post4042276212035713332..comments2023-08-07T16:41:49.660+02:00Comments on Die Klimazwiebel: Climate scientists on a learning curveeduardohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17725131974182980651noreply@blogger.comBlogger22125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-85267961181507633512013-03-08T15:20:13.301+01:002013-03-08T15:20:13.301+01:00Werner,
the resources argument comes from Horowit...Werner,<br /><br />the resources argument comes from Horowitz's focus on 'traditional' social policy issues. But it could be applied to climate change as well - we disagree about resource allocation (if yo do not want this economists' term, use 'priorities' or some such).<br /><br />The more intriguing point is your point about ideology and rhetoric. Let us assume there is no unbiased knowledge. However, is it a good strategy to advertise one's own position as biased? Or lacking in objectivity? In this case your opponent will easily say that what you present is not science (because you have already stated as much).<br /><br />If you now were to attack someone who claims to deliver objective knowledge as being ideological, you would be seen as acting in bad faith.<br /><br />In both cases you see where our dominant Western rational culture puts the positive value. This is the important cultural parameter in the debate we are having. The rules of the scientific language game are quite clear: you participate under the premise that we all advance knowledge claims that fulfil certain criteria. If we started to search biases in each others' work we could end up in mutual destruction. Some climate blog exchanges (also here) exemplify this.<br /><br />Horowitz wrote his piece 20 years ago when he saw US Sociology in danger of becoming a special interest science (for disadvantaged groups in society, advancing 'just' or 'good' causes). A similar concern has been expressed about climate science where the good and bad causes have also been identified. Once a whole disciplinary field is perceived to be an advocacy group it loses its credibility as a scientific endeavour.<br />We had a debate about similar issues only a few weeks back: http://klimazwiebel.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/advocacy-and-social-science.html<br /><br />Seems to be a sticky item.@ReinerGrundmannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12759452975366986236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-27105712404067258772013-03-07T21:30:05.942+01:002013-03-07T21:30:05.942+01:00Reiner,
the Horowitz quote is interesting; it too...Reiner,<br /><br />the Horowitz quote is interesting; it took me a while to figure out what he actually means. He says advocacy should be a result of decent research, and not of ideology. Well, yes, if it's possible to separate the both: the Foucauldian part in me says, there is no such thing like a non-ideology. But anyway, I get the idea, and it is an important one.<br /><br />Where I disagree is here:<br />" it is not right versus wrong, but the pragmatic conflict of groups involved in struggles for scarce resources" - this is too much based on the Darwinisitc / economist ideology. Are skeptics or alarmists fighting over scarce resources? No, this is something else, more complex. <br /><br />It is easier to deal with someone who doesn't hide his agenda or ideology; he argues politically and this often makes a good debate. But if someone pretends to have no ideology, he argues in the name of Nature or Truth - and this makes things rhetorically tricky. And this is where we should focus on: rhetorics (and not battles for scarce resources).<br /><br />(both can be brilliant scientists, by the way - it is not about good or bad science).Werner Krausshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15094636819952421339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-50015955330016278672013-03-07T21:22:26.789+01:002013-03-07T21:22:26.789+01:00raffa
Sorry if this was too cryptic. Perhaps we n...raffa<br /><br />Sorry if this was too cryptic. Perhaps we need to go back to your comment #13 where you listed several links to material published about advocacy. Maybe you can tell us why you thought these were relevant to our debate? What point did you want to make? After this has become clear I will try to reformulate my reaction.<br />Thanks!<br />@ReinerGrundmannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12759452975366986236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-6931806114474534352013-03-07T19:06:50.989+01:002013-03-07T19:06:50.989+01:00hvw Sorry, I overgeneralised for polemical purpose...hvw Sorry, I overgeneralised for polemical purposes!<br />Reiner, sorry, you have lost me, I am not sure I understand what you are trying to say.<br />RaffaAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-69889099428220467392013-03-07T16:37:18.446+01:002013-03-07T16:37:18.446+01:00raffa
the examples you linked to were about advoca...raffa<br />the examples you linked to were about advocates trying to entice others to become advocates, too. <br /><br />hvw<br />We should avoid cheap polemics and get back on topic.<br /><br />With regard to the social sciences and advocacy, Irving Horowitz in his book The Decomposition of Sociology (1993)criticized a common confusion of 'social advocacy' with social analysis:<br /><br />'The identification of social science with social advocacy has reached such pandemic proportions … that it is time, indeed the time is long overdue, to step back from the principle of partisanship if the worth of serious analysis it itself to be preserved. Instead of being a possible consequence of decent social research, advocacy has become the very cause of social research. We have taken the chief weakness in the structure of knowledge about society (namely, the propensity to ideological thinking) and turned it into a first principle of the research process.'<br /><br />He then goes on point out that social scientists study dilemmas and paradoxes: 'The closer we examine the nature of paradox, the nearer we are to a sense of the social world as a place in which rival "rights" are involved. It is not biblical struggle of right versus wrong, but the pragmatic conflict of groups involved in struggles for scarce resources that impress.'@ReinerGrundmannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12759452975366986236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-4791790884787430492013-03-07T00:42:05.292+01:002013-03-07T00:42:05.292+01:00Raffa,
replace
That's the type of dogmatism ...Raffa,<br /><br />replace<br /><br /><i>That's the type of dogmatism and claim to certainty and authority they usual like to decry in natural scientists' discourses.</i><br /><br />with<br /><br /><i>That's the type of opinion dissemination, shrouded in the appearance of academic authority, that they often like to decry in natural scientists' discourses, particularly in trendy topics where audience is cheap, such as climate science related stuff.</i><br /><br />And then it is certainly not "social scientists" as such, rather just some lesser subgroups. Historians of science for example tend to come up with text that is at least as densely packed with knowledge as your average climate science paper. And they dress better and do talks without slides. Ne touche pas mon social scientist!<br /><br /><br /> <br />hvwnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-43559539026375380672013-03-06T21:06:54.691+01:002013-03-06T21:06:54.691+01:00Raffa,
who's dogmatic?Raffa,<br /><br />who's dogmatic? Werner Krausshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15094636819952421339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-68680885900412883722013-03-06T19:03:42.225+01:002013-03-06T19:03:42.225+01:00So this should be a great empirical project for so...So this should be a great empirical project for social scientists, to understand why things are indeed unclear (or not) when it comes to climate science advocacy as opposed to other types of science advocacy. They should avoid sounding as if they know already what's what. That's the type of dogmatism and claim to certainty and authority they usual like to decry in natural scientists' discourses.<br />RaffaAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-3546096683434884792013-03-06T16:57:08.555+01:002013-03-06T16:57:08.555+01:00Raffa,
no doubt, the problem and the question of ...Raffa,<br /><br />no doubt, the problem and the question of advocacy exist and are debated in many disciplines. I consider it very difficult to establish a model or a general rule. I like to think in case studies; science is always about something. And the responsibility of a researcher on HIV is different from the one who studies climate. Maybe it is a characteristic of the climate issue that the boundaries concerning advocacy are so unclear - maybe they ARE unclear.Werner Krausshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15094636819952421339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-84215479252566622912013-03-06T15:01:25.653+01:002013-03-06T15:01:25.653+01:00See
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC28...See<br />http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2802638/<br /><br />http://bigthink.com/age-of-engagement/do-scientists-have-a-special-responsibility-to-engage-in-political-advocacy<br /><br />http://www.ehjournal.net/content/11/1/61<br /><br />http://sss.sagepub.com/content/32/2/297.full.pdf<br /><br />http://www.amazon.co.uk/Impure-Science-Activism-Politics-Knowledge/dp/0520214455<br /><br /><br />....<br /><br />RaffaAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-3983494682129463952013-03-06T12:03:24.145+01:002013-03-06T12:03:24.145+01:00Raffa
scientists do not have the duty to speak ou...Raffa<br /><br />scientists do not have the duty to speak out. And many don't speak out. Those who do speak out know they are running a risk. @ReinerGrundmannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12759452975366986236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-52230192374313586862013-03-06T11:35:27.668+01:002013-03-06T11:35:27.668+01:00Raffa,
which case do you have in mind? My recomme...Raffa,<br /><br />which case do you have in mind? My recommendation or model, if you want,for any case: act like a grown-up citizen and as a responsible scientist. If someone tells you to go back into your box and you do so even if you don't want to: work on your authority problem. <br /><br />(Your example with the social scientist clearly shows me that it is made up. I have never seen a scientist doing what a social scientist wants!)Werner Krausshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15094636819952421339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-92166756637850704402013-03-06T11:26:48.719+01:002013-03-06T11:26:48.719+01:00Again the question remains: What's a scientist...Again the question remains: What's a scientist to do? Imagine you are a scientist who, according to all the available evidence, has come to the conclusion that x will make y bad, worse. or that x bad thing will happen (within certain parameters of uncertainty, probability etc etc.). The scientist presents these findings to policy makers (as is their duty). The policy makers make up their minds to ignore the findings. The scientist goes back to work and does nothing and something bad happens. The policy makers might say: why didn't you make things clearer? Why didn't you speak up? It's your civic duty! Next time round, same situation, now the scientist speaks up; but now social scientists come along and say no no you can't do that, you are a scientist, stay in your box! The scientist goes back in the box and leaves people to it. The bad thing happens. Who wins? <br />As for models, what alternative do you propose? Divining rods?<br />RaffaAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-309414912444538072013-03-06T09:44:14.675+01:002013-03-06T09:44:14.675+01:00Here is a nice example of the representation of th...Here is a nice example of the representation of the purest of pure sciences:<br /><br />http://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/mensch/mathematik-kongress-in-paris-die-krux-wolkenloser-klimamodelle-a-887041.html<br /><br />It takes an enormous metaphoric and symbolic effort to present mathematics as pure science and simultaneously as relevant in respect to the problem of coping with climate change. In doing so, every doubt or dispute or anything about the social life of climate models is suspended; the citizen is made believe that mathematics (in interdisciplinary union with other sciences) will solve the problem (Planet Earth!). Seen this way, isn't this representation of mathematics as pure science a political statement?Werner Krausshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15094636819952421339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-83161954646220611722013-03-05T16:21:44.663+01:002013-03-05T16:21:44.663+01:00"The science is settled" is in most case..."The science is settled" is in most cases not a meaningful statement - because in most cases the body of knowledge meant is not defined. Some issues are settled, almost always many more are not.<br />The term is often used to declare also contested issues - such as the rate of expected sea level rise - as "true", uncontested. "The science is settled" means that the scientist in the room is capable of deciding all open questions (which may be located somehow in the realm of "science") in the room. It is a claim of power, a method of projecting power.Hans von Storchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08778028673130006646noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-20702504109673626382013-03-05T16:19:21.909+01:002013-03-05T16:19:21.909+01:00I should have added: advocacy can be performed by ...I should have added: advocacy can be performed by non-scientists and scientists alike.@ReinerGrundmannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12759452975366986236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-71053357593108700922013-03-05T16:04:11.614+01:002013-03-05T16:04:11.614+01:00I think the confusion comes from two different iss...I think the confusion comes from two different issues which tend to get mixed up:<br /><br />- science as a hybrid activity (and therefore not 'pure') which includes cultural bias, funding opportunities, tradition, paradigms, to name a few.<br /><br />- advocacy as taking positions in a political debate. There are different forms of advocacy, open and hidden, performed by individuals, and performed by groups/organizations.<br /><br />One can have the first (('impure science') without the second (advocacy). <br /><br />Does this make sense?<br /><br />@ReinerGrundmannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12759452975366986236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-85342555305969876272013-03-05T12:52:15.241+01:002013-03-05T12:52:15.241+01:00anonymous #4
I have no simple answers to your que...anonymous #4<br /><br />I have no simple answers to your questions concerning advocacy, but I like them. One should ask oneself these questions from time to time.<br /><br />But yes, I think sometimes science is settled (for a moment). Some questions remain settled, others become "unsettled" again, for good or bad reasons. In general, science likes both, to settle and to unsettle. In the climate debate, the statement "the science is settled", is interesting to think with, to say the least. Werner Krausshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15094636819952421339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-22600587409569447192013-03-05T09:50:26.256+01:002013-03-05T09:50:26.256+01:00So if one sticks with pure science in Reiner's...So if one sticks with pure science in Reiner's sense and avoids advocacy (let's just imagine that is possible), then one becomes a stealth advocate? <br />And another question. Those critiquing the phrase settled science, what do they strive for in the end, unsettled science? Don't they too want to reach a stage at some point that can be called settled (for the moment) science? What's a scientist to do?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-91504364503391347162013-03-04T09:53:05.080+01:002013-03-04T09:53:05.080+01:00Reiner,
sure, I fully agree that there is a high ...Reiner,<br /><br />sure, I fully agree that there is a high pressure for scientists to go public. I had a different thing in mind: the juxtaposition of "pure science" and "advocacy" also implies that there is such a thing as "pure science". And this is a political stance itself in times when (climate) scientists insist on representing "pure science" while everybody else is said to have an "agenda". In this case, the term "pure science" represents a form of "misguided advocacy" or "stealth advocacy" - it intends to hide the fact that science is always political concerning its possibilities, its funding, its laboratories, the direction of research etc...In short, the very ideological foundation of a phrase like "the science is settled", for example.<br /> <br />It's only in this sense that the juxtaposition is misleading. I only accept the difference between well conducted science and flawed science, but not the one between pure and "impure" science. Hope you get my idea...<br />Werner Krausshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15094636819952421339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-91874351969498135252013-03-03T21:37:58.934+01:002013-03-03T21:37:58.934+01:00Werner,
I am not sure I agree with your "Ther...Werner,<br />I am not sure I agree with your "There is no such line between pure science and advocacy" <br /><br />Scientists have a choice if they want to go public, and if they want to advocate specific solutions to problems they see (which may or may not be related to their core expertise). There is more and more pressure on scientists to become advocates, to prove that their knowledge is relevant and useful. The Bremen example shows in a bizarre way where this can take us - if the next generation of students is inculcated with this ethos science as we know it will be a thing of the past. But this is not a foregone conclusion, although I have to admit this is closer to reality than I want to admit.<br /><br />A similar ethos of 'saving the world' prevailed in the 1970s at German universities, not in the sciences, but in the social sciences. The difference was that then university administrations did not advertise 'come to use to study radical social change', or 'learn how to make the world a better place'. Now this talk is on the verge to become mainstream in the sciences and I guess anyone who expresses their wish to stay away from such slogans and do proper studies could be seen as outsider.<br /><br />So the line is still there...<br />@ReinerGrundmannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12759452975366986236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-85164696248540227402013-03-03T17:27:36.905+01:002013-03-03T17:27:36.905+01:00Interesting post, Reiner!
In the beginning, you w...Interesting post, Reiner!<br /><br />In the beginning, you write: "As some scientists are crossing the line from pure science to advocacy, several problems emerge." There is no such line between pure science and advocacy, I guess.<br /><br />Later on you name the problem in a more adequate manner:<br />"The problem with advocacy science is not advocacy as such." Instead, the problem is "misguided advocacy". With this, I fully agree, and your arguments are simply convincing. Except that it is also not insights from social sciences in general, but specific insights from specific studies in social sciences - as social science in general is not immune to "misguided advocacy" as assigned here to the the natural sciences.<br /><br />Furthermore, a certain form of advocacy - this is, alarmism - is fully integrated into mainstream science. Just have a look how the university of Bremen seeks to attract students with advocacy light:<br /><br />http://www.weltretter.uni-bremen.de/<br /><br />It's amazing, isn't it?Werner Krausshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15094636819952421339noreply@blogger.com