tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post8742997843271701666..comments2023-08-07T16:41:49.660+02:00Comments on Die Klimazwiebel: Epilogue to Lysenko-debate by Nils Roll Hanseneduardohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17725131974182980651noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-83959530118553430782010-08-03T11:49:29.568+02:002010-08-03T11:49:29.568+02:00To Ghost (July 28, 2010 7:31 PM):
I agree that int...To Ghost (July 28, 2010 7:31 PM):<br />I agree that internet communiacation provides new avenues by which pressure from political and economic interest groups can foster group thinking and suppress the ability of science to produce reliable knowledge.<br /><br />To Steve Koch (July 28, 2010 8:05 PM):<br />For recent decades it may be true that the left has been more interested in justice and social goals and the right (at least the moderate right) in liberty and methodological rigor. But that has not always been the case. In the 1930s logical empiricists emphasized rigorous method and liberty against Nazism. In general left and right wing are both susceptible to the kind of derailing of science that characterized the Lysenkoism episode.<br /><br />To Dennis Debray (July 29, 2010 6:21 PM):<br />Differentiation can perhaps provide an answer to your worry about preserving the autonomy of science. OECD statsitics of science starting in the 1960s recognized three categories: basic research, applied research and experimental development. Together these constitute "research and development" (R&D), commonly called "research" in general political debate. In the two last categories the patron legitemately has extensive control over the research, which topics are investigated and how the results are used. It is in the first category, basic research, that autonomy has its traditional location. Robert Merton's "ethos of science" applies primarily to this category.<br /><br />The OECD categories represent an understanding of the organization and social role of science that has been much criticized in recent decades, e.g. in the book by Gibbons et al., "The Production of Scientific Knowledge" (1994). However, the OECD classification and understanding has turned out to be quite stable and germane to working scientists. It apparently corresponds to their intuitive understanding that basic as a (relatively) autonomous acitivity is essential to the continued healt and social usefulness of science as a whole. So an answer to your worry could be to uphold a differentiated system of funding and organizing science, basically in correspondence to the OECD classification. Or more precisely, to look critically into the traditional organization and ethos of science and preserve and develop the valuable traits, with respect to underpinning scientific autonomy.Nils roll-Hansennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-60684477490515588372010-08-03T11:48:52.969+02:002010-08-03T11:48:52.969+02:00To Ghost (July 28, 2010 7:31 PM):
I agree that int...To Ghost (July 28, 2010 7:31 PM):<br />I agree that internet communiacation provides new avenues by which pressure from political and economic interest groups can foster group thinking and suppress the ability of science to produce reliable knowledge.<br /><br />To Steve Koch (July 28, 2010 8:05 PM):<br />For recent decades it may be true that the left has been more interested in justice and social goals and the right (at least the moderate right) in liberty and methodological rigor. But that has not always been the case. In the 1930s logical empiricists emphasized rigorous method and liberty against Nazism. In general left and right wing are both susceptible to the kind of derailing of science that characterized the Lysenkoism episode.<br /><br />To Dennis Debray (July 29, 2010 6:21 PM):<br />Differentiation can perhaps provide an answer to your worry about preserving the autonomy of science. OECD statsitics of science starting in the 1960s recognized three categories: basic research, applied research and experimental development. Together these constitute "research and development" (R&D), commonly called "research" in general political debate. In the two last categories the patron legitemately has extensive control over the research, which topics are investigated and how the results are used. It is in the first category, basic research, that autonomy has its traditional location. Robert Merton's "ethos of science" applies primarily to this category.<br /><br />The OECD categories represent an understanding of the organization and social role of science that has been much criticized in recent decades, e.g. in the book by Gibbons et al., "The Production of Scientific Knowledge" (1994). However, the OECD classification and understanding has turned out to be quite stable and germane to working scientists. It apparently corresponds to their intuitive understanding that basic as a (relatively) autonomous acitivity is essential to the continued healt and social usefulness of science as a whole. So an answer to your worry could be to uphold a differentiated system of funding and organizing science, basically in correspondence to the OECD classification. Or more precisely, to look critically into the traditional organization and ethos of science and preserve and develop the valuable traits, with respect to underpinning scientific autonomy.Nils roll-Hansennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-89137125073938953672010-07-29T19:14:08.666+02:002010-07-29T19:14:08.666+02:00Dennis, the "my opinion" is Nils' op...Dennis, the "my opinion" is Nils' opinion, even if I admit sharing his views.<br />Post-normal: when using the term I do not refer to "science by popular vote", instead I refer to a "postnormal situation" not to a recipe of how to do science. Thus, the understanding of a postnormal situation helps to maintain autonomy while building a useful communication.<br /><br />I consider a dialogue with the public (stakeholders, media) possible on an autonomous scientific basis, and I believe that we do this at least to some extent. When buidling such a dialog between science and the public, the effort should be based on elements like these listed in Mooney (2010; Do Scientists Understand the Public? American Academy of Arts and Sciences, Cambridge, MA, 15 pp.):<br /><i>1) Heterogeneity. It is important to remember that both the “public” and the “scien-tists/technologists” are heterogeneous.<br />2) Trust. The scientific community must build and maintain the public’s trust.<br />3) Education. Just as the public must be educated on scientific topics, so must the scientific community be educated on public attitudes and opinions.<br />4) Communication. There is a need to improve the forums for public communication.</i><br /><br />-- HansHans von Storchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08778028673130006646noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-87362794305787673372010-07-29T18:21:22.248+02:002010-07-29T18:21:22.248+02:00Hans you write
'In my opinion science needs i...Hans you write<br /><br />'In my opinion science needs independence from particular economic and political interests, to be able to provide society with sound advice on contested issues. To give reliable factual judgements science needs autonomy.'<br /><br />How could this autonomy be maintained in the face of the call for public involvement as per the tenets post normal science? Post normal science (at least in its current flavour) seems to advocate science by popular vote.Dennis Brayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05002342529932352744noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-64562079342717867312010-07-28T20:05:34.740+02:002010-07-28T20:05:34.740+02:00There is a struggle between those whose primary go...There is a struggle between those whose primary goal is justice (the left) vs those whose primary goal is liberty (the right). The left is more goals oriented (to achieve justice) while the right is more process oriented (to preserve liberty and rigor).<br /><br />It is completely normal from the left perspective that following a rigorous academic process is less important than reaching the desired political result. This started in the social studies (eg: political science, sociology, etc), spread to more respectable academic disciplines (such as law and economics) and is now invading hard science.<br /><br />As long as a scientist is more interested in politics than his academic discipline, there is little hope to stop political bias from strongly influencing his academic work. When results are more important than process, process will suffer.<br /><br />This is not to say that being results oriented is insane. Scientists were alarmed that their work had unleashed atomic weapons and vowed that in the future they would pay much more attention to the societal impact of their work. From that realization/resolve, it was almost inevitable that societal goals would become more important than following scientific process.Steve Kochnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-37416595431058052192010-07-28T19:31:43.822+02:002010-07-28T19:31:43.822+02:00Lysenkoism... a nice example of Lysenkoism in clim...Lysenkoism... a nice example of Lysenkoism in climate science is the following:<br /><br />two German physicists wrote a paper saying the greenhouse effect violating the 2nd law of thermodynamics. The colder body (the atmosphere) cannot heat the warmer body (the surface). Well. Their statement is wrong. Anyway, certain parties hyped and spread this paper because it fits nicely into skeptic point of view and helped in the political debate. Many lay persons were bombarded with this via blogs, wingnut think tanks, forums, even right wing anti-science newspapers. Of course, the paper was debunked by many blogs, reasonable persons etc... but there were evile AGW religious, political biased scientist and lay person. <br /><br />Now, suddenly, two poster boys of the skeptics, Dr Spencer and Dr Pielke Sr try to educate lay persons and show the greenhouse effect does NOT violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics. And the success? In skeptics forums and blog many people do not believe them. Many simply do not. Why should they? Years of distortions and deliberate lies seem to work very well. Now, for many people it is the truth, the greenhouse effect violates the second law of thermodynamics. <br /><br />Am I right with my comparison to Lysenkoism? Is the modern form of Lysenkoism, not controlled by totalitarian governments but by clever political players multiplied through the Internet communication services?<br /><br />PS: I hope Dr Pielke Sr and Dr Spencer are successful with their education.ghostnoreply@blogger.com