« More on "hard science and difficult science" | Main | Hiding behind locked doors »
March 30, 2006
Difficult science - in a parallel universe
by Sylvia S Tognetti
For the sake of expedience, I put up Jerry's comments in the last post without much pause for reflection as I was absorbed by other things at the moment, one of which was the seminar on the Crooked Timber blog regarding Chris Mooney's book, the Republican War on Science, which is becoming more interesting than the book itself, and is not unrelated to the topic of "hard and difficult science" - which I'll come back to. First, let me back up. RWOS is great journalism. It didn't get me very excited at first because, conceptually, it doesn't offer much that is new for someone who has worked in the science and policy field for over 20 years. Still, it merits a place on the shelf closest to my desk because it provides documentation, not just of assaults on environmental science, but on science across many fields related to controversial policy issues, or of what John Quiggin calls the construction of a whole parallel universe based on "sound science" that is fabricated by networks of right wing think tanks, industry funded scientists and unqualified opinion writers, through which "approved views are amplified by the echo chamber of repeated mutual quotation until they appear as established facts." And even using post-modernist and social constructivist arguments! Lets call it the twilight zone, where the true believers also isolate themselves by going to separate universities like Liberty College.
The fabrication and distortion of evidence is qualitatively different and yes, worse, than pretending that science of any kind dictates a particular policy decision. This is a persistent problem but is old news. The so-called climate sceptics usually don't even try to defend their contentions in any substantive way - usually it is enough to make headlines. Benny Peiser, who clings to his conclusion even after finally admitting to errors in how he made his case, being just one example.
Given that context, other issues with RWOS seemed like minor quibbles not worth getting into - for now. For example, Mooney's tendency to romanticize science doesn't seem any different or worse than what many scientists themselves do and that he himself acknowledges. So, while romanticization of science and privileging scientific justifications for decision-making above all else are important topics, I regarded it as one that could be treated separately from the book - and will surely come back to this in future posts. However, by documenting this parallel universe, RWOS does what the best science does, which is lay a foundation from which a whole area of discussion and inquiry can emerge, that goes well beyond what is actually in the book, as to why it is happening. This is what is going on in the Crooked Timber seminar. It is also much more interesting than getting into food fights with so-called climate sceptics who use fraudulent technical arguments for which my patience is thin - so I am grateful that there are other blogs like RealClimate sorting all of that out and setting the record straight. But lest we forget, this is a diversion from issues of how to actually respond to changes in climate whether it be through various forms of mitigation, adaptation or better yet, multitasking.
The seminar commentary that most got my attention was that of Daniel Davies regarding the cause of all this, and whether it is associated with a peculiarly American brand of anti-intellectualism. What he suggests is that it represents a kind of "authoritarian irrationalism" that is "rooted in status insecurity and a consequent distrust of ambiguity" - which gives the PR industry the raw material with which to fabricate "sound science." As he also points out, this is what makes it impossible for any journalism to adequately deal with nuance and ambiguity. I am not familiar with his sources but it sounds very much like what John Barry describes as being at the root of much racism and the rise of the KKK in his book, The Rising Tide, about the Mississippi flood of 1927 and how it changed the country. A creepy book because it sounds so much like what is going on today, even more so after Katrina. I have also had my own share of conflict with well-meaning editors and PR people regarding the use of inappropriate soundbites and metaphors.
I'm not sure that this syndrome is particularly American or whether the Europeans just have a better way of keeping it in check, rooted in lessons learned the hard way. Roberto Benigni has made a career out of making fun of irrational authority, which gives it more transparency. But his is also a sense of humor that has deep cultural roots in what I'll just call a "Low Tolerance for Irrational Authority".
I have also made reference to "Low Ambiguity Tolerance" in the media in an earlier post about the post-normal hurricane season and global warming:
Global warming? Or flip flop, from inactive to active hurricane period? Or both? Or is this debate merely an artifact of the media's obsession with finding a smoking gun - which makes a better story line, given Low Ambiguity Tolerance among consumers of news? And of presenting complex and multifaceted science and policy issues as a two sided debate.... or maybe it is the policy process itself that has a Low Ambiguity Tolerance.
It has certainly been a great source of material for Roger Pielke Jr., who seems to have made a career out of arguing nuances that get glossed over in policy discourse. As it has been for me - much of my work on payments for watershed services dives in to all those messy issues that get glossed over in project planning phases but that are inevitably faced when anybody tries to actually implement such a concept. Anyway, thanks to Daniel Davies for explaining the source of LAT.
John Quiggin also discusses how Post-Modernism has served to further the war on science by providing arguments with which to challenge the privilege that science is given over other criteria for decision-making, so that it can be replaced with "politically reliable alternatives such as 'sound science'. Post-Modernism is a school of thought which probably had some excesses - I've only read a sampling of it myself but, Davies also makes the observation "that it is in the American university system that quite sensible French theories of literary criticism have been given a specifically irrationalist interpretation that was never really there in the originals." So I suspect that the culprit really isn't Post-Modernism but the abuse and misinterpretation of it, the same way that uncertainty is abused, as a license for arbitrary and capricious policy decisions.
Going back to the subject of hard science and difficult science - Jerry Ravetz and another commenter, Eli Rabett, both had reservations about David's broad definition of science to include "any systematic open inquiry into the nature of reality" in which he includes novels and poetry. According to Eli, this definition is more akin to the German concept of Wissenschaft, that roughly translates to "the pursuit of knowledge." But he also provides a link to a translation of an article about the collapse of the dream of a Grand Unified Theory as physics comes to terms with string theory and the possibility of an unknowable multiverse, which to some, would mean the end of science as we otherwise know it, and relegate physics to the status of esoteric religious theory. Jerry provides a reminder that defining what is and isn't included in science is not quite so simple and ponders whether it is realistic to always assume there is a ‘we’ available for taking a unified authoritative stand with respect to the problem of quality control.
While David's definition of science is indeed general to the point that it may not be very helpful, it does highlight important issues about the process of science, the purpose of which is not to construct a parallel universe, but through openness to mutual challenge and correction, to find areas of agreement or overlapping consensus. This is important because science is always conditional, and therefore, only presents a partial even if valid source of insight. As a process therefore, it may not be so different from that of story telling, as it is described by Leslie Marmon Silko, a contemporary native American author, who describes the process of storytelling in indigenous Pueblo communities of the Southwestern US in a book about Pueblo migration stories
Communal storytelling was a self-correcting process in which listeners were encouraged to speak up if they noted an important fact or detail omitted. The people were happy to listen to two or three different versions of the same event of the same hummah-hah story. Even conflicting versions of an incident were welcomed for the entertainment they provided. Defenders of each version might joke and tease one another but seldom were there any direct confrontations. Implicit in the Pueblo oral tradition was the awareness that loyalties, grudges, and kinship must always influence the narrator’s choices as she emphasizes to listeners that this is the way she has always heard the story told. The ancient Pueblo people sought a communal truth, not an absolute truth. The them this truth lived somewhere within the web of differing versions, disputes over minor points, and outright contradictions tangling with old feuds and village rivalries.
It is also not so different from how I once heard an Arctic indigenous person describe traditional knowledge (at a workshop I had the opportunity to attend several years ago in Yellow Knife, regarding regional impacts of climate change in the Mackenzie Basin) - as a process of community dialog that enables them to reconcile different perspectives. By reconciling the historical knowledge of the elders with the regional changes witnessed by the young people, they had been able to confirm many of the changes that scientists reported and attributed to climate change. This person also pointed out that traditional knowledge systems are dynamic and exist because survival depends on it and have enabled them to take immediate action as a group. Inherent is a method of transmission across generations as well as communication in the present. What is new is the context of rapid global change and the need to reconcile local, regional and global knowledge - for which that workshop provided a forum.
What is important here, is the objective of even doing science, to find enough agreement about what is going on in a situation of high stakes in which facts are uncertain, values are in conflict, and decisions and actions are urgent - which will sound familiar to anyone familiar with the concept of "Post-Normal Science." The value of multiple perspectives is to provide a system of checks and balances against inevitable blinders and biases. But this approach also presumes some measure of civility, intellectual integrity, and a shared goal of finding mutual accommodation and ultimately, to survive in changing conditions. Given the existence of the parallel universe documented in RWOS, this presumption may also be naive. I shudder to think of the alternative. If we put science on too much of a pedestal, we risk falling into the same trap as the fundamentalists, which can only fuel more polarization - note Tom Delay's new talking point in his continuing attack on the rule of law, and the last check on power outside of blogostan, that there is a "War on Christianity" - ugh. That doesn't have to mean being so open-minded as to let ones brains fall out. But to wrap this up for now, as the hard sciences come to grips with the collapse of the dream of a Grand Unified Theory, and confront the complexity of the multiverse there may be something that can be learned from the difficult sciences - and I look forward to more participation of blogs like Crooked Timber in discussions about science. They have been on the PNT blogroll for awhile.
[revised 4-3-06 - I removed the Doonesbury link because I had misread it. But the point is, when you have parallel universes without even any attempt at finding common ground well, Iraq may not be the only place that civil war breaks out. I don't really think that will happen here, but I could be wrong. If things got any closer to going over the edge, it is possible that those more interested in Jennifer Aniston's hair might actually start paying attention to what else is going on. (I threw in that last reference as an experiment - to see what impact it has on google traffic...]
Posted by Sylvia S Tognetti at March 30, 2006 12:09 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.postnormaltimes.net/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/98
Hi Sylvia, had to visit after seeing your comment on Stoat. Parallel Universes indeed - Parallel Worlds, as each individual walks by "Ships that cross in the night" and all that.
Not up on Pueblo 'people' but is your humah-ha a pun, or is it coincidental with the English term for human?
[I don't think it is either - I was just quoting the text of the essay where it appears to be a name that the Pueblo Indians use for stories, or a particular kind of story, which was[is?] the way knowledge about the environment and oral history is transmitted. Thanks for stopping by. sst]
Posted by: Jon at April 3, 2006 5:40 PM
On Multiple Perspectives & Multiple realities.
As we know there is more than one way to travel from A to B (and often more than one road - I refer to Sat Nav errors sending people up country lanes etc).
You can travel by plane, by train, by ship, by boat, by car, by horse, by cycle, by foot, ...
Now with energy needs (even allowing for growth on demand) you can generate electricity from various sources - it is political will and economic interests define (1) business wishes, and (2) individual's wishes. The Nuclear Lobby lobbies for funding. The liquid coal lobby lobbies for funding. Hydro-electric plants are usually favourites among civil engineers, though not often among greens or environmentalists, for other reasons, and so on.
Then you have transport - cheap air travel or internal flights which the US take for granted and 'almost' necessary to cover vast distances; and which 'may' be necessary in South America because of geographical (terrain) difficulties, have now been exported to Europe - where a promising rail network is now being sabotaged by cheap air travel.
Haulage (by road) is one few governments are keen to tackle - it is still easy for hauliers to blockade roads, and cause governments pain - and I don't just mean the 'ritual' annual flexing of muscles by French farmers & hauliers, at the road transport 'hub' in Europe.
But car travel, is one European governments have tackled, almost pricing motorists off the road in a 'feudal' manner, those who cannot pay, are taxed off the roads, those who can pay - enrich the treasury, which then should be able to use the taxes to improve public transport, except much gets 'eaten up' by shortfalls or black holes in NHS (National Health Service) spending, left or created by previous governments.
However all those issues aside, the new alternatives, ie: alternative energy sources (wind, tidal power et al) and alternative transport (LPG, Hydrogen, Electric) should perhaps not be used as political footballs -
after all that is like a red rag to a bull, for (US) Male American football players, or right wing (conservative) Republicans and Oil interests who just view the 'challenge' as another game/battle or war to be won.
Perhaps 'alternative energy' & 'alternative fuels' should stand on their own two legs (1) the future, not just in science & job creation, but in social & ethical conscious, and (2) the future, not just in research & innovation, but in necessary improvements to address the shortfalls (in every sense of the word) of present forms of energy & transport fuels.
The case for Global warming, CO2 emissions, Greenhouse Gases & Climate Change or melting ice-caps can be made without political backlash, and indeed any political backlash then isolated and exposed for what it is either 'vested interests' or 'ignorance of the facts'
That aside, I shall be quite happy to continue to tear down any smoke screens those who are stuck in the old ways raise. After all "you may not be able to teach an old dog new tricks", but one can get a new dog or even elect new governments.
Posted by: Jon at April 5, 2006 3:02 PM
If Water is your thing, then I guess you really ought to keep in touch with William & the BAS Team.
I hear some like fine wines 'matured' in underground caverns or wine cellars.
The BAS team like thousands of years old crystal clear water. They don't buottle it, they just cut it out of Antartica. Do you get Artic water up in Maryland? - I mean from the Artic.
I know Maddona was into 'kabbala' bottled water when she was last that way, and before moving to England
Posted by: Jon at April 6, 2006 5:16 AM
Looking at your trackbacks, maybe its time for me to visit (travel) elsewhere
I know anatomy is little more than geography of the body, but I'm into mother earth Gaia, not no internet mommas in latino or asian porn - unless of course they are into pro-Creation. Now that really does send me places, places few can reach
Unreachable places are found by some, and then others follow - and what happens, can't remember the name of that film where they discover this 'idyllic Island' but alas it cannot last, otherwise they would have had no film to make, or they would not have made the film (map)
Are we really just responsive to dots of light?
[Not sure how those spam trackbacks got through the gate but they are gone now, deleted and banished from the site. sst (rising...;-)]
Posted by: Jon at April 6, 2006 3:02 PM
Don't worry I don't get scared off or put off (maybe a little distracted) by the above trackback pings relating to Difficult Science - Parallel Universe. After all they go a long way to making my next point.
"collapse of the dream of a Grand Unified Theory as physics comes to terms with string theory and the possibility of an unknowable multiverse, which to some, would mean the end of science as we otherwise know it, and relegate physics to the status of esoteric religious theory."
As you say, we are all aware there are many ways to transmit, receive & record images, not least the now outdated Betamax & VHS systems, the onset of plasma tv and mobile pic/phone mania >>> which people generally download to their laptop or PC and send free via e-mail round the world, why pay for mobile pic messaging until prices come down at least to text messaging levels.
So I shall not go into economics or rather multiverse economics and the collapse of Capitalist Economic Theory as the only way to promote inventiveness, initiative & therefore wealth. Art for Art sake, Money for God sake.
But yes - there is more than one way to generate power or 'create' electricity - any success trying to harness lightning yet in the US?
We harness the power of the Sun. Ha, harness almost as if you could 'saddle' the Sun.
We harness the power of Wind. Hmmm, maybe that is exactly what we do.
We harness the power of waves, and tidal power. Yep here it is almost 'physical' harnessing we do
And then we have nuclear fission, chain reactions & nuclear reactors: nuclear fusion reactors, Torus, Tokamak & JT60; and finally the 'holy grail' of nuclear physics or cold fusion, perhaps sang real has achieved cold fusion, or perhaps u need to b of sang real to find it.
But I digress and I would much rather engage in 'pillow talk'
So returning to the point, I was/am about to make:
"collapse of the dream of a Grand Unified Theory as physics comes to terms with string theory and the possibility of an unknowable multiverse, which to some, would mean the end of science as we otherwise know it..."
That collapsed long ago, the Universe is not knowable simply because Mathematicians & Physicists understand the 'language' of Mathematics & Physics, regardless of their 'mother tongue' or 'language' - no more than 'english' is the language of heaven. Mind you that 'hungarian' is the language of Angels does appeal to me, having met some.
But where I'm going, or leading to, is your statement which follows:
"... and relegate physics to the status of esoteric religious theory."
Physics is indeed (and always was) little more than esoteric religious theory - after all the reality inside One's Mind is no less, or no more esoteric than another's outter physical reality.
Especially if one is not in close proximity. Nagasaki & Hiroshima are no more to us, than any story or event you may care to mention. Though innevitably it was a physical reality to those who lived (or rather died) thru it.
But I'm still not there. Your sentence almost implies that Religion is only esoteric not physical - of course discounting religiously brushing your teeth, or religiously eating three times a day, or religiously shaving (whether head/face, legs/underarms), religiously using 'protection', religiously taking 'oral' contraceptives, religiously getting drunk, religiously getting laid, religiously catching a bus/plane/train - or whatever other physical activity people do religiously do - getting dressed, getting undressed, washing, turning on the light, turning off the light, changing the sheets, turning the ignition key on a car (we don't tell the car via spoken word to start yet do we, I mean 'commonly').
But still I don't reach the point, I know, I know, too much foreplay - and the partner gets distracted (alas short attention span or deficiency is not an 'illness' but a lot more common than we care to admit) and it is not easy to keep a person interested not even in the most intimate of moments, if one dithers too long - and I dare say one lost the students attention/interest half-way down the page.
But multiverse & multiphysics may deny The Grand Unified Theory, but do not deny the pursuit or aim "to create a continuos amount of heat energy from controlled radioactivity" and to create it in vast & cheap supplies (though half the cost, nay much more than half the cost of nuclear energy is not the producing it, but the making it safe + keeping it hidden (mistery) from those terrorists aiming to make a cheap dirty bomb for the prize of a fertilizer type explosive).
And where I was/am leading - I hope I am not as disappointing 'in the flesh' as I may appear on print, is that The Great Unified Theory is not denied because of the many forms that one achieves energy - it is that Physics or the methods of achieving energy are not in themselves what is The Great Unified Theory. The Great unified theory is that all these different methods are ways to achieve energy - such as in the energy of The Sun (or should I say Suns).
And here is my point - the diversity of Religions (no matter how esoteric) are not in themselves a denial of God, or The Almighty, or that of Which There is No Greater - but religions are in this case as physical as reactors, or reactors as esoteric as religion in reaching the 'holy grail' (the fountain of unlimited energy) or God head.
Perhaps the Egyptians did really believe they became Suns or Stars or gods, at least the Pharaohs (and their priests) - and some priests did believe that everyone could achieve these heights (egalitarianism) as in, they were not a limited right reserved exclusively for Pharaohs or Kings, but a 'reality' to all who believed as promised by prophets and The Messiah.
I hope we are on still on track Sylvia, on the same 'wavelength' - or I shall have lost you long ago, in your parallel universe.
And all this triggered by "and relegate physics to the status of esoteric religious theory."
[not sure I completely followed all that but we always knew physics was an esoteric religious theory - the difference is, now they know because their own theories are telling them that.... ;-)]
Posted by: Jon at April 6, 2006 4:33 PM
Yeah, I was busy filling in my last comment, so I hadn't gone far, but nice to see when I finished the trackback pings were gone
Posted by: Jon at April 6, 2006 4:38 PM
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, is a sentence often used, which could falsely imply that if is not in the 'eye of the beholder' it is absent. What I quantify as beauty - remains beauty (regardless of the views of others), what I do not perceive as beauty, is not denied its 'own' beauty (regardless of my view/opinion).
Idem with Meaning - Meaning in the eye of the beholder (reader/listener) is strictly speaking untrue, since it may be something totally other than the meaning intended by the speaker/writer.
I'm not sure what you meant by "I'm not sure I followed all that" unless perhaps that you do not subscribe to some of the physical activities that people religiously practice. In my case I do not shave head/face (or underarms/legs) among others, though 'grooming' requires me to more or less frequently (religiously) trim my beard, and occasionally clip my hair (or remaining hairs). If you meant there are certain other 'specific' fisical practices you do not subscribe to, then it could be that you are from a higher religion. For most all birds fly, but some do fly higher ...
If you mean "I'm not sure I followed all that" regarding Egyptian Pharaohs becoming Suns, Stars or gods - then it is I misunderstood your interest in 'migrations' and hieroglyphs from 5000 years ago.
I would need to get really 'esoteric' and always difficult to do on print (easier with numbers - less people can query or misinterpret formulae).
But the 'essence' is in particle physics and parallel universes/worlds ie: those we see with the physical eye (and the eye can play tricks on us) and those we see with The Mind's Eye (which requires no fisical eye). Incidentally most particle physicists did see what they saw in The Mind's eye before they chalked it on blackboard (or whatever relevant analogy you care to use today) as equations & formulae, then turned into or made (ephemeral) fact or (ephemeral) factual reality by fisical objects/machines.
PS - William Connolley makes an interesting reference to dust blown from the Gobi desert and the effect far far away on cloud particles in China, in his EGU Thursday entry
Posted by: Jon at April 7, 2006 5:08 AM
Serendipitous Epiphenomena:
Diversity Cinema screening today
The Diversity Office's Diversity Cinema series continues today with a screening of "Part 1 - Surviving Columbus: The Story of the Pueblo People."
from:
http://lanl.gov/news/index.php?fuseaction=home.popular
Just click on "Q" for URL link
Posted by: Q at April 7, 2006 5:21 AM