Science
December 15, 2009Finally someone who understands science - something politicians and those climate hoaxers certainly don’t. And dear lord, it has to come from a fiction writer.
I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.
Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.
There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.
And yeah, I’m getting the defr… Defib… Chest paddle electric things to try and reanimate my blog.
World | 
Crichton was absolutely wrong on that point, his reasoning only considers half of the picture. There certainly are examples of scientists who broke new ground by questioning the accepted ideas of their time. But those new theories grew and progressed precisely because the individual scientists were able to gain consensus (in turn, that was because their theories were sufficiently well-supported that other scientists had no choice but to accept them).
Crichton was just applying knee-jerk anti-populism to ALL scientific consensus, ignoring even the possibility that consensus formed around some scientific ideas because of their actual merit.
Comment by Stephen B. — December 15, 2009 @ 11:49 pm
Hi Thom,
Yet again, I find myself agreeing with you completely. I abandoned trying to find a career in science before departing to East Asia to teach English instead. I had become completely disillusioned not just with the fact that it had proven so difficult since graduating to find a job at all, but also because when a job did come along, it was a case of people wanting to use my “transferable skills” (because I had accumulated a lot of experience of chemical analysis) rather than wanting to put me where I wanted to be, which would have been in something biochemical, genetic or environmental.
Fundamentally, however, the disillusionment stemmed from the realisation that much of what I had been taught was impractical garbage which corresponded little - if at all - with the practicalities either of a real job or with the phenomenal world generally. Much of science today has nothing whatever to do with the clarification of reality - it is more concerned with forcing new data into some predetermined mould (read: scientific paradigm) than accepting the simple fact that any conceptual framework, if it really is scientific, should be falsifiable in order to approach a more accurate state of verisimilitude. In fields such as cosmology especially, the desperate (and inexplicable) need to cling to outdated and falsified theories means that those investigating cosmological and celestial phenomena are always caught saying: “We never expected this!” - a sure sign of operating under a theoretical framework which lacks the one key ingredient for success - predictive power.
To this I might add that we are the slaves of books. The famous American journalist, Jim Marrs, pointed out the problem posed by book publication in
discussing who was supposed to have “discovered” America. Ask most Americans and the would probably say: “Amerigo Vespucci”, but this is wrong because (he says) it originated with a German monk called Martin Walsenmueller, who heard Vespucci’s name and concluded (incorrectly) that this was where the name “America” came from; Marrs commented that Walsenmueller “probably never travelled more than twenty-five miles from his home town in his life.” Later, Walsenmueller realised his mistake and withdrew the statement, but the book still lived on, and so therefore, the fiction of Vespucci did, also. It rather begs the question of how much “reality” can be found in any book - including scientific textbooks - and the extent to which they are in fact deliberately bending interpretations of data sets to suit their own ends; just think of “Climategate”. But it’s not the only example I could quote.
Science seems to have moved from a sceptical (and therefore relatively detached psychologically) investigatory mode into “scientism”, which is pretty much the same as religion in that scientists are required to conform to a dogma, and woe betide those who disagree - just look at how the astronomical/cosmological community has shunned Halton Arp, for example.
This is not an enterprise in which I desire to participate, so I will stay out here, observing the lunacy from afar in East Asia, until the whole contemptible mess sorts itself out!
Andrew ^_^
Comment by Andrew Holmes — December 16, 2009 @ 12:30 am
Mr. Holwerda,
I am afraid that you picked a bad example for “somone who understands science”.
Mr. Crichton is a very “intelligent” man - “intelligent”, alas, in the sense, that Henry Kissinger is “intelligent”. I have aquired a not very good view of Mr. Crichton slowly over the years, so it is hard to explain in few sentences. I get the impression that he has so many hidden agendas, that I would be very careful with accepting any of his views without the most thorough examination. It would take a treatise to eyplain how I came to this conclusion, so I can only tell you that I did arrived athere, and thus alert you that maybe there might be something which isn’t obvious at first, and then you can form your own opinion.
Sadly the article you referred to only reinforces my view. While on the one hand it has a stance which looks admirable, there immediately follow conclusions which are contrary to this stance.
1.:
saying that the TTAPS equation is the same as the Drake equation.
That is a blatant untruth. Check for yourself: try to find out the parameters of the Drake equation, and then try to find out the same for the TTAPS-parameters.
The first may never be possible - e.g. the number of all planets in the galaxy capable of bearing life?!! well, maybe in some far future …
The second is difficult, it needs a lot of studies to be made which maybe have not been made, but it is not impossible to find out even now.
That’s the difference between science fiction and science - something which Mr. Crichton should be aware of, but which he chooses to ignore.
2. :
I quote: “The Drake equation cannot be tested and therefore SETI is not science. SETI is unquestionably a religion.”
First sentence is correct - but the second sentence does NOT follow from the first.
There are many other things in the world which SETI can reasonably be, e.g. starting with “not yet a science”.
That is a good example of Mr. Crichton’s technique - and it shows why a half-truth can be far more dangerous than a lie. One looks at the true part and almost automatically overlooks the following, as one is convinced that the rest therefore also must be true. Applied psychology, applied in an exploitative way.
There are further points, but this post is long enough already, and you can have a critical look yourself.
For such reasons - which I have noted previously and not only once, as I said - I do not regard Mr. Crichton as trustworthy.
That’s why I have put “intelligent” in quotation marks.
To me, someone who tries to exploit other people in whatever way, cannot be called “intelligent”. “Cunning”, “clever”, yes, but not “intelligent” - he does not understand life.
I am taking the trouble of pointing out something to you which I noticed, because I am reading OSNews for a long time now, and over the time I get the impression that you try to keep an independent point of view of things, which is something I can appreciate very much. Your decision what to do with my information lies of course with you, and that is how it should be. Please excuse my style - english is not my mother language, and writing does not come easy to me.
Comment by A. Holer — December 16, 2009 @ 3:18 pm
Mr. Holwerda,
just wanted to supply you with one more piece of information:
Mr. Crichton in his article talks about “the danish statistician Bjorn Lomborg”, who was handled by the “scientific community” “in a way that can only be described as disgraceful”, even followed up with “ad hominem attacks” by the Scientific American.
Everyone is free to look up this controversy for himself; do it, and see for yourself, how this really was/is conducted.
The problem - who takes the trouble to do so?
If I had not had previous experience with Mr. Crichton’s worldview, I certainly would not have done it, but would have accepted his presentation, closed the matter and gone on my way grateful for some new information, which I would have believed to be factual.
Thus basically his article is not about science, but a piece of politics with an agenda which, contrary to his statement, is not scientific.
I’d describe the article as populistic.
On looking things up, I came upon the following interesting link on the website of the Union of Concerned Scientists:
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/global_warming_contrarians/crichton-thriller-state-of.html
Comment by A. Holer — December 16, 2009 @ 4:45 pm
Science, like any other human group, is polluted by politics, influence and money.
Remember Einstein sorry about havnig to make a living while working for science?
The contradiction is obvious: how can you be at the SAME TIME non-partisan AND published?
You can’t because if you do not choose your camp, then everybody (in the field) will be against you (because you support nobody).
That’s the sorry state of Science today, and things get worse only because BigCos get richer (massively stealing tax-payers money with the very willing to help authorities) and therefore asking Science to “comply” even further with its (private-interests) agenda.
I am not against money, or groups. I am against this culture of corruption which has become the rule in the ‘civilized world’… because one has to pay the price for this - and this is you and me.
Comment by PierreG — November 29, 2010 @ 11:22 am
I agree a lot with Stephen B here. Because you’re against a consensus does not mean you’re right. You must prove yourself right, too. And yes, that’s harder when many people agreed with the previous theory. But without that, there would be no science, only a permanent state of instability.
Real-world example : I think one can do better than Unices and Windows for desktop use. I’ve written stuff on my blog explaining in some details why I think so. But until I’ve shown that the thing can be implemented and that the implemented result can indeed do better, my point is moot.
It’s the same thing with physics, climatology, or other empiric sciences : you can claim whatever you want about the actual nature of the universe, that will be religious thinking. No human being with limited sensing capabilities can know that. We can only propose a way the universe might work based on experimental knowledge. The sole things which are valid in the realm of empiric science are experimental proofs and theoretical simplicity.
Prove your model right in a number of real-world use cases, and spot a contradiction or correct your model when others try to prove it wrong. That’s how science works.
Comment by Neolander — December 13, 2010 @ 9:27 am
@PierreG : This is why I kind of like the way public research used to work in France since 1945, through an organism called the CNRS which is currently slowly closing. You were hired by proving you’re best in an anonymous competitive examination, and then you get a regular salary and a solid job in order to do the research you want for as long as you want.
But as right-wing guys will be quick to point out, this also opens the way for some hard-to-fire “parasites”, which do nothing serious on their work hours and just take the money home. So we’re currently moving into a more fragile contract-based system, where you’re free to silence a researcher when you were not happy with his previous contract’s conclusions, by simply not hiring him again.
This is one of the oldest dilemma of democracy : when we have to make a choice between both, should we rather save innocents or punish culprits ?
Comment by Neolander — December 13, 2010 @ 9:43 am