tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post9104951986163348120..comments2023-08-07T16:41:49.660+02:00Comments on Die Klimazwiebel: Post Normal Science or Post Normal Scientists?eduardohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17725131974182980651noreply@blogger.comBlogger42125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-50738502468046910232010-08-31T11:34:02.471+02:002010-08-31T11:34:02.471+02:00@ghost #6 and cartoon within:
I'm always even...@ghost #6 and cartoon within:<br /><br />I'm always even more skeptical when I hear this argument as it may clear the way for worse (global) political actions by spoiling fundamental democratic principles;<br />see: if there are so many good and reasonable points on the side of changing our energy policies (and they really are there!), then why do politicians and politicized scientists need the alarmist scenario to persuade the world?<br /><br />i think this should make any intelligent person at least a bit wary.<br /><br />cheers,<br />greggregnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-61957723221481279012010-08-27T20:02:54.222+02:002010-08-27T20:02:54.222+02:00Dennis Bray #27,
” now if you can just explain to ...Dennis Bray #27,<br />” now if you can just explain to those who dispute your statement what is meant by a post-modernist view ... .”<br /><br />Well, I am not sure that a blog is the right forum for such entangled discussion. But let me try to give my view in short: The classical “modernists” are realists (there is an objective world out there), but had some trouble in making this realism compatible with their positivist view of science (only what is observable is scientifically meaningful – the verificationist criteria of meaning). But essentially they where realists concerning macroscopical objects (there are facts and truths about them) and absolutists concerning epistemology (we can know things for certain, or at least with a high probability).<br /><br />Encountering the philosophical criticism of the 20th century of the possibility to prove natural laws inductively, complemented with the view that observations are always interpreted (and hence uncertain), they reacted in various ways. Some of them became instrumentalists (science does not describe, it is just a technological instrument for doing things), others became relativists (there are no truths, just language games, culture, discourses, socially defined paradigms, social constructions and so forth). Post-modernism have rejected the realist approach to science and accepted a relativistic view. They have also accepted the extreme positivist (sometimes called idealist) view that WE make the world by our observations, beliefs, language, concept formation etc. In their view, science is therefore just another power game, and the interesting thing is not what scientific theories try to say about the world but how it works socially and politically, and indeed, how we make the world. - From a philosophical point of view this morass of relativism is a dead end. It is self-defeating.<br /><br />I remember reading the post-modernist work of Latour & Woolgaar, “Laboratory Life”, in the early 80th. I have seldom been so frustrated and disappointed. The explanatory value of the book of what the researchers were doing was null, zero, nada. And it all came down to one thing; nothing was said about what the scientist were struggling with intellectually, their problems, their theories, or their arguments. It was programmatically void of any content, and just a naïve positivist (or should I say behaviouristic) collection of recordings of the physical behaviour of the scientists.<br /><br />I am a realist myself, and therefore “old-fashioned” or “modernist” in a sense. And I think that science is aiming to describe what is out there. But I also accept that there is no method (inductive or otherwise) that will give us certainty about the outer world. Science is always in flux. However, science can give us their best theories so far. But without any guaranties. And science can tell us what is not rational to believe in, and what not to act upon. Politicians (and technologists) will have to settle with that.<br /><br />Ingemar Nordiningnohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16626329862717475394noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-61270701181887569122010-08-26T23:25:41.970+02:002010-08-26T23:25:41.970+02:00Dennis-
Have a look at Figure 4.1 in The Honest...Dennis- <br /><br />Have a look at Figure 4.1 in The Honest Broker, hopefully that conveys the relationship of normal science (left side) with post-normal science (right side) in the context of decision making, it can alsoi be used to distinguish cats from apples. ;-)Roger Pielke, Jr.https://www.blogger.com/profile/04711007512915460627noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-26927891720571135872010-08-26T20:16:57.041+02:002010-08-26T20:16:57.041+02:00Dennis Bray #27,
” now if you can just explain to ...Dennis Bray #27,<br />” now if you can just explain to those who dispute your statement what is meant by a post-modernist view ... .”<br /><br />Well, I am not sure that a blog is the right forum for such entangled discussion. But let me try to give my view in short: The classical “modernists” are realists (there is an objective world out there), had some trouble in making this methaphysical view compatible with their positivist view of science (only what is observable is scientifically meaningful – the verificationist criteria of meaning). But essentially they where realists concerning macroscopical objects (there are facts and truths about them) and absolutists concerning epistemology (we can know things for certain, or at least with a high probability).<br /><br />Encountering the philosophical criticism of the 20th century of the possibility to prove natural laws inductively, complemented with the view that observations are always interpreted (and hence uncertain), they reacted in various ways. Some of them became instrumentalists (science does not describe, it is just a technological instrument for DOING things), others became relativists (there are no truths, just language games, discources, pardigms, social constructions and so forth). Post-modernism have rejected the realist approach to science and accepted a relativistic view. In their view, science is therefore just another power game, and the interesting thing is not what scientific theories try to say about the world but how it works socially and politically. From a philosophical point of view the morass of relativism is a dead end. It is self-defeating.<br /><br />I remember reading the post-modernist work of Latour & Woolgard, “Laboratory Life”, in the beginning of the 80th. I have seldom been so frustrated and disappointed. The explanatory value of what the researchers were doing was null, zero, nada. And it all came down to one thing; nothing was said about what the scientist were struggling with intellectually, their problems, their theories, or their arguments.<br /><br />I am a realist myself, and therefore "old-fasioned". But I accept the view that science cannot prove anything definetly. Science is in a flux, filled with uncertainties. But it may present us with their best theories so far, without any guaratees. Politicians will have to settle with that.<br /><br />Ingemar Nordiningnohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16626329862717475394noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-75282354357578987512010-08-26T16:02:55.328+02:002010-08-26T16:02:55.328+02:00Werner
You always manage to deconstruct things to...Werner<br /><br />You always manage to deconstruct things to address the finer points of the discussion. :-)Dennis Brayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05002342529932352744noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-2624038211630603212010-08-26T15:47:32.363+02:002010-08-26T15:47:32.363+02:00On german TV we see many global catastrophy shows,...On german TV we see many global catastrophy shows, some of them are really refreshing (with Mr Von Storch), some of them very alarmist.<br /><br />Some german scientists try to find out what happens to ocean life if there is more Co2 in the near future. In the arctic sea Co2 is pumped into tanks to simulate the future with more and more Co2 (10, 20, 30 ... 100% more for the different tanks).<br /><br />One scientist explained that there will be winners and loosers, but the speaker of the broadcast explained that its dramatic and that we probably won't see these animals (whales) in the future (if we don't ...).<br /><br />Later we see the boat that carried the scientists. It belongs to Greenpeace. The speaker explains that there was no other boat available and that its very expensive. <br /><br />I was VERY curious about the exact results of this work and asked myself if most ocean life would not get used over time to the more acid waters. But we were told nothing at all.<br /><br />This scientific work is extremely expensive and one wonders why this can't be done in germany?<br /><br />Changing the acidity is nothing very magic and happens all the time in the real world.<br /><br />I was very disappointed about this TV show. Not only were we not told what they found out exactly, but we must doubt that the scientific result is not biased by the sponsor (Greenpeace).<br /><br />Later in another TV show there was another scientific team in the arctic (I think about glaciers) and they were also travelling with Greenpeace.<br /><br />I don't know if one can call this post normal science, but I can't help to have the feeling that nearly every science today is influenced by activists. Some of them are leading scientists themselves.<br /><br />And that's the exact opposite of what I was expecting from science 40 years ago.<br /><br />YephAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-34068914102483322532010-08-26T14:57:57.536+02:002010-08-26T14:57:57.536+02:00"Never lets a crisis go to waste"
Fear ..."Never lets a crisis go to waste"<br /><br />Fear against the common enemy is the perfect catalyst for unpopular sanctions. However, there has been poured so many doom scenarios over the poor hoi polloi that they became immune beacuse many did not materialized or just were wrong. The consequence is that even more catastrophic prophecies have to be communicated in order to get the attention. It's like a drug addict needing bigger doses over the time. This I believe has been described already by Dr.Von Storch years ago.<br /><br />The only thing we have to fear is Fear itself.itisi69https://www.blogger.com/profile/00601918913188476920noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-23638582374585293402010-08-26T14:51:47.837+02:002010-08-26T14:51:47.837+02:00@Dennis
Every Thursday is simultaneously post- and...@Dennis<br />Every Thursday is simultaneously post- and pre-Wednesday -- and pre- and post-Thursday too!richardtolhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14239680555557587153noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-82298551396426324902010-08-26T14:50:34.475+02:002010-08-26T14:50:34.475+02:00Dennis,
finally I have to admit that you are right...Dennis,<br />finally I have to admit that you are right and I am wrong. 'Post' indeed is a prefix and not a suffix!Werner Krausshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15094636819952421339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-24596603035705055502010-08-26T14:46:22.802+02:002010-08-26T14:46:22.802+02:00@Werner
There is a distinction between intelligent...@Werner<br />There is a distinction between intelligent and well-informed people disagreeing about what it all means; and people trying to muddle the debate for political ends.richardtolhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14239680555557587153noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-48491451619681844432010-08-26T14:43:32.352+02:002010-08-26T14:43:32.352+02:00I'm missing here the name of Richard Feynman i...I'm missing here the name of Richard Feynman in this discussion, especially with regard to his cargo cult science because some argue that there's little difference between the two (cargo cult and post normal science. I wonder what the alumni on this forum think about that?itisi69https://www.blogger.com/profile/00601918913188476920noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-29684948403531133412010-08-26T14:42:49.394+02:002010-08-26T14:42:49.394+02:00Dennis,
I agree. To put it in blunt laymen's...Dennis,<br /><br />I agree. To put it in blunt laymen's terms, beware the politician who "Never lets a crisis go to waste". There's always someone who wants to justify shortcuts in quality standards because "it's a crisis."<br /><br />The scientist who falls for this siren song inevitably harms himself and science.Stanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01575178552426939685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-58673542258645432342010-08-26T14:34:55.546+02:002010-08-26T14:34:55.546+02:00Hi Hans von StORch (there is a reason)
You point ...Hi Hans von StORch (there is a reason) <br />You point out a lot of things social scientists might not be interested in. These are precisely the things (i.e. construction of digital filters) that STS used as study material. For example, Merz and Knorr Cetina (1994) provide an interpretive ethnography of theoretical physicists at CERN in which their mathematical practices are assimilated by virtue of analogies to Derrida’s notion of ‘deconstruction’ in literary theory i.e. physics is not so dissimilar from literary theory. Lyotard (1989) , discussing ‘elementary memory’ and ‘temporal filters’ (whatever they are, he gives no reference) tells us of a new notion of time in the theory of relativity. In all likelihood, the digital filter, if one were to look, would be a means of male dominance, but I am only guessing. But I would agree, these things caused no public echo. In the case of the physical sciences, there was no controversy beyond the boundaries of science, in the case of the STS analyses, there were no consequences beyond confusing undergraduate students and the marked increase in the sale of black turtle neck sweaters for the cafe-intellect culture. <br />I do agree though that sometimes scientific answers breed political interest - but - I do not think this is new. Therefore, this is nothing unique or post anything. Or, how about post-Holocene science? Couldn’t it just be that big P and small p politics now just grasp something to use as their own - something fathered or mothered from science - and run with it, and some scientists run with them? Finally, why do we need a ‘fuzzy’ definition where none is needed. The question is: How to impose objectivity and accountability on scienTISTS (science - a method - is itself neutral) and to do so without the risk of killing scientific curiosity? Perhaps it is not a matter of scientific practice but a matter of science communication - maybe post-normal journalism or politicized scientists.Dennis Brayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05002342529932352744noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-16087729193983549752010-08-26T14:34:20.370+02:002010-08-26T14:34:20.370+02:00to Sil-beck
Would it be simpler to say, no matter ...to Sil-beck<br />Would it be simpler to say, no matter what the science, scientists might lie if is serves their own self interests. As much as some might find it hard to admit, they are, after all, just humans with all of the human follies.Dennis Brayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05002342529932352744noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-59117433041645046812010-08-26T14:33:20.451+02:002010-08-26T14:33:20.451+02:00to Werner again
‘I understand post-normal in the c...to Werner again<br />‘I understand post-normal in the context of other contexts characterized by the suffix [sic] post. No malice intended - is today Thursday, or post-Wednesday? But you go one to state that ‘post’ is used to define a situation that is ‘new’. I have no problem agreeing with this, what I want to know is what is new with post normal science, or post normal situation? Look at your ‘For example’ ... ‘Post modern approaches try to open up this concept [post modernity] in order to show the complexity of modern situations. So we use a post modern approach (whatever that is) to demonstrate the complexity of modern situations (whatever that is). It seems to me that much of the ‘post modern’ discourse is simply the promotion of subjectivist and relativist philosophies that are inconsistent with producing a realist analysis of society, often at the expense of truth, reason or objectivity, often relying on no more than epistemological charity, where there is often confusion between ‘belief’ and knowledge’. Skip ahead. Werner says ‘ The Gulf of Mexico oil spill is a typical post-normal situation, because the boundaries between science, politics and society are indeed blurred ... [and under such conditions] science turns into post-normal science.’ From up here on Sattler’s and Waldorf’s balcony, I imagine that science will still be undertaken in the normal manner. And when did oil spills transform from normal to post normal situations, with the advent of post normal oil spills? When did the distinction between normal oil spills and post normal oil spills occur, or have all oil spills resulted in post-normal situations, and if that is the case, does the size of the oil spill matter? Was Love Canal (not an oil spill) a post normal situation? It seems to me that in pre-post-normal situations, it was old fashioned objective science that told us what would harm us and what would not, not some post modern discussion. Finally, if objectivity goes out of the window under post-modern-conditioned-science, should we assume, leaving off the prefix, that climate analysis is conducted less than objectively or that there are two approaches to studying climate, objective and non-objective (science and post-normal science)? <br />Ingemar Nordin - finally, a discussion I can live with, now if you can just explain to those who dispute your statement what is meant by a post-modernist view ... . To me, it seems to represent confusion in the understanding of term relativism: science deals with cognitive relativism (relativism about truth and knowledge) whereas the post modernist view is concerned ethical or moral relativism (what is perceived to be good / or bad)<br />Werner again<br />I think I have discussed at least some of your points above but I would like to spend a little time on one in particular: ‘How to act in a case [where] there is not only one, but many truths with different consequences’. Here, again, I would like to point out the distinction between truth and belief. There are many beliefs granted, but only one truth. Ideally, or ideal-, science would seek to discover this truth. Again the accommodation of many ‘beliefs’, true false or otherwise, unsubstantiated in many cases, is simply a case of epistemological charity. You also say ‘My attitude is to embrace the concept and find out where it will lead us’ - welcome to the 15 year old quagmire. Also, the comment about the ‘familiar argument from the natural sciences (not to take the post modernist view serious)’. Werner, I would think the majority of the social sciences would also agree not to take pomo too seriously.Dennis Brayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05002342529932352744noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-9005672766149335242010-08-26T14:32:35.325+02:002010-08-26T14:32:35.325+02:00To Roger
Here I would like to point out a little b...To Roger<br />Here I would like to point out a little bit about specificity. Mathematics (and offshoots) tend to adhere to claims of specificity 1 + 1 always = 2. The discursive versions of social science have always be accused of the opposite, to the point that at the height of ‘deconstruction’ often the author seems to lose track of what he or she was speaking about. Science tends towards measurement.<br />Definition and measurement of course share some functional similarities: they both lead to a relationship which place entities in order with respect to one another. Science tends to choose measurement, discursive discourse, definition. As we are talking about discourse, I will focus on definition. Here we are discussing ‘post-normal’ as a definition, and if we accept it as a definition - for the use in discursive science, then it should set an entity (science) in unambiguous relation with one or more entities of the same group (science). In this case I can only envision ‘normal science’ and ‘post-normal science’. All I ask is the establishment of an unambiguous relation between the two. By unambiguous I mean that no other entity shall enter into the same relation - i.e. be mutually exclusive.<br />Anyway, enough of the definition of definition, and back to Rogers comments I fail to understand how Tornado Politics (class = politics) or Abortion Politics (class = politics) is situated in any relation to ‘normal science (class = science). Therefore, as Roger states Tornado Politics and Abortion Politics cannot return to normal science. On this I would most definitely agree. My cat went out this morning and came back a apple? I realize Roger states his intention was to discuss politics even though the argument here is sometimes convoluted, but this posting is about post normal (in the context of science - or maybe Rodger is talking about politics in a post normal situation???)Dennis Brayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05002342529932352744noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-50221226634407927292010-08-26T14:31:56.965+02:002010-08-26T14:31:56.965+02:00To Werner
Sorry to take the attention away from sp...To Werner<br />Sorry to take the attention away from spilled oil!Dennis Brayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05002342529932352744noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-88846625292836956102010-08-26T14:17:26.360+02:002010-08-26T14:17:26.360+02:00@Richard
Yes, you are right, in climate research i...@Richard<br />Yes, you are right, in climate research it might be not a problem. There is the fact that (anthropogenic) climate change is (not) real, and all the rest is about values -:)Werner Krausshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15094636819952421339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-64384398543645457222010-08-26T12:36:03.843+02:002010-08-26T12:36:03.843+02:00@Werner
I know (and I hope my fellow economists do...@Werner<br />I know (and I hope my fellow economists do too) that it is sometimes hard to distinguish fact from value. Microbiologists tell me it is difficult to demarcate life. For most applications, however, it is pretty obvious what is fact and what is value. In 20 years of climate research and policy advice, I have never encountered a situation where the distinction was both relevant and difficult.richardtolhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14239680555557587153noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-68870285609534542622010-08-26T12:23:17.542+02:002010-08-26T12:23:17.542+02:00The problem with 'post' is that it has a t...The problem with 'post' is that it has a temporal connotation, as 'that which comes after' something. This poses the problem of chronological demarcation: when did we enter the 'post'-situation? It turns out that this is difficult to establish and in some sense were were always 'post' and the attributes (uncertainty, values in conflict etc) are nothing new. Here I agree with Richard, the social sciences always knew this. But they drew a different lesson: many saw this as a sign of weakness. They wanted to become 'non-post', normal, serious science. Remember the eternal charge of naive (perhaps better: old fashioned) scientists against the social sciences and humanities: 'What you do is not science!'<br /><br />As a result social scientists tried to exorcise the PN elements in order to arrive at respectable science. I have used the terms 'hybridization' and 'purifcation' (after Latour) to describe this double process. <br /><br />Others have happily accepted the charge and celebrate the intermixing of facts and values.<br /><br />All this shows that it is less a matter of historical reconstruction (when did we enter the post-situation?) but a matter of professional identity and the striving for credibility.@ReinerGrundmannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12759452975366986236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-62925178681728860732010-08-26T12:17:29.042+02:002010-08-26T12:17:29.042+02:00@Richard 13
oh you happy economists! Maybe the las...@Richard 13<br />oh you happy economists! Maybe the last of the social sciences in which facts are still facts and values are still values! Or are economists natural scientists? Then of course you have the license to be in denial of the social construction of facts...-:)Werner Krausshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15094636819952421339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-35146235885377507402010-08-26T12:16:09.602+02:002010-08-26T12:16:09.602+02:00@Hans
Exactly my point (cooption of discussant). C...@Hans<br />Exactly my point (cooption of discussant). Courses in the philosophy of science and the role of science in society are increasingly offered to geoscientists, but these courses are optional (opinion expressed as empirical fact). They should be mandatory (value judgement plus recommendation).richardtolhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14239680555557587153noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-69637345485191681992010-08-26T12:11:38.412+02:002010-08-26T12:11:38.412+02:00No problem, Hans! And I will rename climate determ...No problem, Hans! And I will rename climate determinism as X, so I still can use the concept! You can add your critique of X later on with Nico -:)Werner Krausshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15094636819952421339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-50991623639496060312010-08-26T12:03:41.492+02:002010-08-26T12:03:41.492+02:00Ok, Werner, I will use H instead - better? You may...Ok, Werner, I will use H instead - better? You may add later post-H :-)Hans von Storchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08778028673130006646noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-39139604721604738192010-08-26T11:51:59.355+02:002010-08-26T11:51:59.355+02:00@Hans
You write:
"Being trained as a mathemat...@Hans<br />You write:<br />"Being trained as a mathematician, I accept a definition as given, for example by Roger, for PN without paying attention what 'post' may implicitly convey to some."<br /><br />Really? Do you really believe that a defintion of 'post normal science' or 'honest broker' is the same as a definition in mathematics? That might become dangerous, don't you think so? I remember having learnt from your articles woth Nico Stehr about the implicit dangers of for example Huntington's definitions of climate determinism etc. You definitively do NOT accept definitions from social scientists at face value, without having a close look at them. <br />And why do you hide behind the anonymous 'us' or 'we natural scientists' instead of arguing as someone who has read Fleck, for example? What about the social construction of knowledge, for example in climate science - just read Silkes comment. Doesn't that relate to post-normal science, too?<br /><br />My advise to natural scientists: engage in discussions about '-post' or the social construction of knowledge etc. in case you are really interested in the role of science in society. This might be a lesson from Lysenko or Waldsterben, too.Werner Krausshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15094636819952421339noreply@blogger.com