I recently finished Chris Mooney's great new book Storm World. There have been lots of reviews (see Chris's blog for a pretty complete list), so I won't write another one here. Instead, I thought I would highlight the part I particularly appreciated, and what I think needed more emphasis in the book.
First, the high point: The book does a great job of detailing the turbulent interface between knowledge and ignorance where science operates. Science is a contact sport, and it is not for the faint of heart. New ideas, especially bold ones, have to survive in the crucible of science -- where they are subject to bombardment by every imaginable criticism. Good ideas survive this test and help us push back the frontiers of knowledge. Bad ideas crumble.
On the other hand, one of the points that I thought could have been better explained was the unique role that Bill Gray played in the debate. All scientists, regardless of their true motivation, want to be seen dispassionately pursuing truth. And in order to do that, it is generally accepted practice that scientists never personally attack other scientists. At least, not in public. You might believe that a scientific competitor of yours is a dishonest scumbag and a hack, and you might even tell a close colleague in private, but you would never, ever stand up at a scientific meeting and say that. It is simply not done.
And there's a good reason it's not done. To see that reason, you can look at what happened when Bill Gray broke that rule. After Emanuel, Webster, Curry, Holland, et al. published papers in 2005 connecting hurricane activity with global warming, Bill Gray repeatedly said to basically anyone who would listen that these scientists were only producing these results in order to get more funding. This was a startling accusation, and one that I personally heard him make at a meeting last summer.
By and large, scientists are human. And when someone accuses them of fraud, they strike back. So they responded in kind, and from this blowback came the now-famous Judy Curry quote on the front page of the Wall Street Journal that Bill Gray suffered from "brain fossilization." And the debate went downhill from there. In my opinion, much of the really nasty aspects of the hurricane-global warming debate could be traced back to Gray's breaking the cardinal rule not to personally attack other scientists.
This is not to say that the aspects that Mooney emphasizes, in particular the battle between the observationists and the physicists, are not important. But these differences exist in virtually all scientific debates. Whether it's satellite people versus in situ people, oceanographers versus atmospheric scientists, GCMers versus simple modelers, almost every high-stakes scientific debate contains a range of people with different intellectual backgrounds. And while these differences might generate tension, the debates always stay civil, at least publicly. But, as Bill Gray showed, it does not take much for all hell to break loose.
Overall, I think this book helps pull back the curtain from science. Science is much messier and, frankly, less scientific than most people realize. Despite that, science is incredibly successful and, I believe, a force for good in this world, and I am proud to be a scientist. For those who are interested in seeing science in action, I recommend this book.
So what is carbon anyway?
Ask Umbra on paperback writers
Comments
View as Flat
Jones Posted 4:24 am
31 Aug 2007
thank you for this
What fascinates me about the cimate debate is how laypeople use and misuse science and scientists. The deniers are notoriously fickle: depending on what they're saying, 'scientists' are a bunch of greedy, fame-seeking idiots with a liberal agenda and a penchant for global governance. Meanwhile, the lesser-light defenders of AGW are constantly telling you that everything they say is backed by 'scientists' and can end any discussion with a simple "you know nothing about science." Sadly, the 'consensus' has become a crutch for the unthinking breed of environmentalist--one with which they will gleefully beat their opposition. Neither of these groups seem particularly interested in the scientific method.
So, what does it feel like to be fought over like this?
Personally, I think it's time people became more scientifically literate. By which I don't mean re-taking high school physics, but learning about the scientific method, and other systems of objective, critical thought. Chris Mooney seems really good on this topic. Can't wait til I can get a hold of this book.
Permalink
Andrew Dessler Posted 4:31 am
31 Aug 2007
Promoting literacy
Jones-
I agree completely. I think that we (university faculty) have done a poor job of explaining how science works, instead we just tell students the results (F=ma, E=mc^2, etc.). As a result, they have no way to sort through contentious scientific debates. Tobacco companies, for example, have used that effectively to their advantage. We need to do a better job!
Thanks!
Permalink
Jones Posted 5:17 am
31 Aug 2007
oops
I meant to include in my comment that the denialists will change their tune in a second, once some nuance comes along that they can distort into "seems the science isn't settled after all".
Andrew, you're right. I think that if my science profs in university had spent more time talking about science (and I don't mean "science in our world"), I'd have gotten much better marks. It's only later that I've come to appreciate the "greater" scientific method as this incredible disciplining and organizing force for individual or collective thought. If only writers in other fields cared about the difference between a well-tested and a poorly-tested hypothesis.
Permalink
IANVS Posted 6:47 am
31 Aug 2007
IGNORANTI SCIENTIAE
The real travesty is that many "science illiterates" ("ignoranti scientiae"?) have been led down this deceitful path of denialism and delay unwittingly and are being manipulated to their own detriment and that of their children.
IANVS
Permalink
MarkUK Posted 5:44 pm
31 Aug 2007
Yep
You can't win 'm all... Sometimes you just leave them in the mud. The denialists are still out there making noise, but they are losing the war. In the end science will come out on top because it is truthful. Not perfect and not all knowing, but sincere and ultimately that beats the paid PR companies.
It is difficult to argue with these people because it doesn't matter what the subject is, HIV, holocaust, GW, evolution, they use the same tactics, arguments and methods.
Permalink