Home > Regular Features > Sandpit

Sandpit

January 14th, 2013

A new sandpit for long side discussions, idees fixes and so on.

Categories: Regular Features Tags:
  1. Fran Barlow
    January 23rd, 2013 at 10:18 | #1

    @nottrampis

    However he does produce some first class stuff to read and is no fool.
    you are if you believe such tripe!

    OK … adding you to the scroll-because-possibly-troll list …

    I had my doubts when you first appeared.

  2. kevin1
    January 23rd, 2013 at 11:14 | #2

    @Katz
    On JR, I don’t dignify his stuff with responses anymore because he breaks the unwritten rule of debate: it’s two-way, you have to respond to opposing comments or don’t make the claims in the first place. He repeats anecdotes and throwaway comments from people who he agrees with, his conservative gurus, as self-evidently true, like this: “Tullock considers that South Korea became an open economy as a by-product of a political purge” but when I questioned this twice as against the general view of ROK state-driven industrial policy, just no answer.
    Or this one: “Go to Hong Kong if you want to see how capitalism works, Milton Friedman used to say”; to JR this pithy quote supposedly sums up capitalism. So is HK capitalism working in its treatment of externalities, an absolutely mainstream economic concept to Friedman as well (despite obvious debates about particular relevance.)
    I was talking to an expat who moved to Australia because of the HK pollution effect on his kids’ health; he said you couldn’t swim anywhere in the sea. Doesn’t sound too good, I guess I could have just thrown my anecdote back at JR, but it needs a bit more than one person’s opinion to be taken as true. I took the Wikipedia shortcut, and there was enough to convince me of a huge and unaddressed “externalities” problem there (see Air Pollution in Hong Kong, Ecology in HK). So HK capitalism doesn’t work in that important respect.
    The guy just doesn’t want to get out of the comfort zone and question his own assumptions. It’s not about his opinions to me: through volume of output he will occasionally say something interesting to me, but that’s not enough. Because JR has selective deafness, he doesn’t deserve a place at the table in my opinion. I’m uncomfortable talking about the behaviour of discussants so I will leave it there, but I suggest to others that you have to earn the right to be part of the discussion, and it is forfeited if the free speech of the listener – the right to question and be answered – is ignored.

  3. January 23rd, 2013 at 11:22 | #3

    Fran I have been around longer than you,

    If you are adding me to a troll list then you have just catallaxied yourself.

    Rick Castle would say that is ironic!

  4. January 23rd, 2013 at 11:23 | #4

    Is Jarrah on that list as well?

  5. Ikonoclast
    January 23rd, 2013 at 12:00 | #5

    @Fran Barlow

    Sorry Fran, you are wrong. Genuine hard science does not proceed by consensus. It proceeds by empirical investigation.

    Often, where you talk about “consensus” you should, in relation to the hard sciences, be using the word “conventions”. Sure scientific conventions (for procedures, methods and measurement) are arrived at by consensus but the conventions adopted (for example SI – international System of Units) are selected from a range of objectively supportable alternatives and are themselves rooted in a body of empirical knowledge, theory and effective praxis derived from previous investigation. This is not “consensus” unless you are using the word incorrectly. If you want to use the same word “consensus” for scientific agreement and for social-political agreement then you are guilty of conflation and terminological imprecision.

    Where consensus rules aspects of investigative hard science (and sometimes it does unfortunately) this is the result of the intrusion of religion, custom or ideology into science. Do not confuse applied science with pure or investigative science. Of course, social-political consensus or consensuses are developed with respect to the application of scientific knowledge and techniques. But this is a different area. Again, you are conflating different matters if you fail to see this.

    Empirical facts and laws discovered by the hard sciences are not true (dependable) just because a bunch of people agree they are so. They are dependable intrinsically as this is a fundamental characteristic of discoverable objective material reality outside human consciousness, agency and distortions of perception.

    I suspect what you know of science (if anything) is “soft science”, the social sciences, which by their nature lack standards of objectivity and are thus riddled with the imperative to find a social and/or pedagogical “consensus”. Soft science is not science at all (by and large). In the soft sciences “consensus” merely equals “dominant theory or dominant ideology” in the majority of cases.

    The soft sciences (social sciences) are properly part of Social and Moral Philosophy. Claims that the social sciences are well emerged and properly differentiated from Social and Moral Philosophy are not yet tenable and may never be.

    Do I expect you to be convinced by any of this? Well, no. Once again, we must agree to differ. In my considered opinion your position on this matter is confused, fallacious and entirely refutable. You confuse social agreement with scientific agreement and consider them to both be arrived at by social consensus. (You also appear to be implicitly confusing or conflating the hard and soft sciences.) I doubt you would find any professors of hard science or philosophy to agree with you on your “consensus” theory re hard science. The odd, post-modernist might agree with you.

    It’s funny, but post-modernism is soooo yesterday. Or maybe you are a post-modernist. That would explain quite a lot.

  6. Ernestine Gross
    January 23rd, 2013 at 12:56 | #6

    Ikonoclast @5, p2.

    Without wishing to dwell into the post which gave rise to yours, I agree with your argument regarding natural science (your investigative science), applied sciences, and so-called social sciences.

    There are related examples of confusions in the area of negotiation, mediation and conflict resolution (by so-called human resource experts). In my mind, one cannot negotiate or mediate about the facts (investigation is required), but one can negotiate (reach an agreement) about the resolution (eg compesation in monetary or other terms), given a conclusion about the facts. These said experts have other ideas. They want ‘outcomes’ – of what?

  7. Fran Barlow
    January 23rd, 2013 at 13:04 | #7

    @Ikonoclast

    Sure scientific conventions (for procedures, methods and measurement) are arrived at by consensus …

    I see. So the the things that make science science and not merely a set of random non-corroborable observations about interesting stuff someone noticed are arrived at by consensus. Science proceeded from acts of consensus. You’re off to a good start.

    the conventions adopted … are themselves rooted in a body of empirical knowledge, theory and effective praxis derived from previous investigation.

    Well yes, they would be. That “body” (i.e what is salient and worth preserving) is the result of consensus. Praxis is “effective” because people have adopted and at times innovated with methods that have proven robust on the basis of existing knowledge.

    You are making my case.

    Where consensus rules aspects of investigative hard science (and sometimes it does unfortunately) this is the result of the intrusion of religion, custom or ideology into science.

    You are getting far too metonymic here. There is in climate science, a consensus about what is currently knowable in principle and a body of work that represents attempts to specify that knowledge by adducing and analysing data gathered in ways accepted as methodologically robust and relating to data that is germane. There is a set of processes for reviewing such research and for commenting on them. There is even a consensus about what remains uncertain and therefore what would be worth examining further, if only a robust set of tools for conducting such research could be contrived. Religion has nothing to do with it.

    And me, POMO? Hardly. It is you who are guilty of hair-splitting obfuscation here. Consensus is not a straightjacket — it’s a scaffold. It makes progress possible — both of the continuous improvement kind, and the discontinuous improvement kind. It’s the set of shoulders on which all good work stands.

    The deniers have tried to make it a term of abuse, but really, it’s simply a feature of human collaboration. The consensus of the deniers is a rotten one, but it’s still a consensus. They object both to the consensus, and the fact that most think their consensus is bollocks. Every now and again they put together a list of “scientists” and assert that they have a consensus.

    It’s amusing and sad at the same time.

  8. Fran Barlow
    January 23rd, 2013 at 13:53 | #8

    World’s largest wind farm at … Fukushima?

    Interesting …

    The loss of nuclear capacity has created an opening for more renewable sources in Japan. Indeed, the New Scientist reported last week that Japan is preparing to build the world’s largest offshore wind farm, starting this July. The plan, as the magazine reported, would see 143 wind turbines built on platforms 16km off the coast of – out of all places – Fukushima by 2020. The farm would generate 1GW of power once completed.

    {…}

    If built, the Fukushima farm would overpower the first phase of the London Array in the Thames Estuary, where 175 turbines will generate 630MW of electricity when fully operational later this year. The London Array is due, eventually, to have a second phase – of 370MW – taking its overall capacity also to 1GW.

    Over in the US, where there are currently no offshore wind farms, news emerged on a planned undersea power line to connect offshore wind farms to the US east coast.

    The partners behind the Atlantic Wind Connection project, including Google, Bregal Energy, Marubeni Corporation and Elia, announced the first construction phase will begin off the New Jersey coast in 2016. The first segment will span the length of New Jersey and carry 3GW of electricity, according to a statement from the Princeton, New Jersey-based project. The offshore cable is expected to be operational in 2019.

  9. Ootz
    January 23rd, 2013 at 13:54 | #9

    Just to backup kevin1, generally JR’s comments are best not used as a basis for discussion. They can be responded to, to make ones own point clearer in a broader discussion or to illustrate the shallowness of arguments, such as JR usually throws into the fray. However, similarly to kevin I am not comfortable in giving him/her more limelight than his trolling and derailing deserves.

    Just consider this if we need to have a discussion about wether or not science proceeds on the basis of consensus, then please coukld we refrain from colloquial labeling of soft and hard sciences and conflate the discussion with human domination on the planet et al. Perhaps a quick brush up on philosophy of science and a basic understanding of what Popper and Kuhn, and if you must a dash of Feyerabend, were about would be so much more helpful. Besides, to side step JR’s derail, how important is the degree of scientific consensus in relation to the magnitude of the risk AGW and associated pollution, resource depletion and utter dependency on economic growth represent? In otherwords, to go back to JR’s medical analogy, does it matter how and to what degree the medical profession agrees on a patients condition, if by their state of the art diagnosis, they are sure by a 95% confidence level that the symptoms can be attributed to a bad diet and if such is continued or indeed increased, the consequences will be irreversibly fatal. Hell, I’d be going on a diet and then assess whether JR’s economic dowsing recons everything is hunky dory to go back onto the greasy food again.

  10. Mel
    January 23rd, 2013 at 14:07 | #10

    LOl. Fran realises she has lost the argument so now seeks to divert attention to windfarms.

    Max Planck – “science advances one funeral at a time.”

    Science is a sausage.

  11. Ikonoclast
    January 23rd, 2013 at 15:39 | #11

    @Fran Barlow

    Hard science is not about “consensus”, it’s about verifiable and repeatable empirical results from experimentation. You are confusing and conflating scientific corroboration with social agreement and using the same word “consensus” to refer to both. You are getting mixed up at the boundary where hard science meets social judgement and response. You also don’t appear to understand the issue of degrees of uncertainty in complex scientific matters.

    The fact the IPCC has issued a “consensus” report clearly has confused you. Unfortunately the IPCC were ideologically and politically bullied into a “consensus” report. A fully scientific report would simply have noted degrees of uncertainty about predictions. The basic science utilised to arrive at these predictions is extant, corroborated, objective, empirical knowledge not “consensus”. The degrees of uncertainty derive from modelling highly complex feedback systems and using very large but still limited data sets from the potentially almost limitless real data sets.

    You have obviously have little science and less philosophy. You don’t understand the pre-requisites of logical argument, namely precise terms and accurate categories. You are particularly prone to semantic conflation and category mistakes. Try taking an introductory course in logic.

  12. Jim Rose
    January 23rd, 2013 at 16:03 | #12

    kevin1 and Katz, I am limited by John Q. to one post per thread per day, so I can’t keep up with everyone because of this.

    I did not read much past your reference to Clive Hamilton trying to explain how a planning tool that failed everywhere else magically worked in ROK. why?

    Fran is correct to the extent she is discussing the sociology of science rather than the philosophy of scientific methodology. Others are correct here on how it should be done as compared to Fran being correct on how it is usually done.

    I have consistently posted that ‘let climate science be settled’. How much global warming costs will is the correct question for policy debate. Going on about the science delays that far more important debate that environmentalists have already lost.

    Nurse has excellent things to say on GMOs with which I agree. that is his area of expertise.

    If there is a scientific consensus on GMOs, or when one emerges, the deniers of that consensus will be on the Left. They will not miss a beat between denying the scientific consensus on GMOs to denounce others as deniers of the consensus on global warming,

  13. Jarrah
    January 23rd, 2013 at 16:26 | #13

    @Fran Barlow
    “2. Jim Rose is a prattling culture war rambling fool — much like hundreds of other ostensibly misanthropic trolls I’ve come across over the years.”

    I’ve not been a frequent visitor to this blog in the last year or so, so it’s possible that I’ve missed some prattling and rambling comments from Jim Rose, but looking at his comments on this thread, I see zero evidence for your harsh assessment. His comments on Catallaxy have never struck me as anything other than reasonable and rational, never foolish or dogmatic. Given that cesspool, I wish he commented there more frequently!

  14. Ootz
    January 23rd, 2013 at 17:02 | #14

    Iko, your insistance of using the colloquial term ‘hard’ science is not particularly helpful in this discussion and exposes your over-reliance on empiricism with its associated analytic-synthetic distinction of truth and reductionist traps. You could do worse than reading sociologists of science Bruno Latour and Steve Woolgar’s ‘Laboratory Life: The Social Construction of Scientific Facts’, to discover the softness in Mel’s (above) ‘science as a sausage factory’ analogy. Besides, there is not many ‘hard’ sciences which have done more in developing and enhancing research methodology and statistical analysis than the soft science of psychology. However, I do agree with you, in context of the complexity of Climate Science, consensus is a qualifier of limited use. As even JR above points out, too much time has been wasted on ‘the science’, and I agree with him the focus should be on the magnitude of risk or cost thereof and merits of prevention strategies.

  15. January 23rd, 2013 at 18:19 | #15

    Oh dear Jarrah has indeed joined the Fran Barlow Trolling club.

    your shout sunshine!

  16. January 23rd, 2013 at 18:22 | #16

    I should add Jim Rose is not the only person here who attempts to change the subject when he cannot admit to being wrong.

    I have seen John do it when talking/writing to Terje.( He doesn’t do it very much in fact quite rarely but he has done it).

  17. kevin1
    January 23rd, 2013 at 18:45 | #17

    @Jarrah
    I need to reply to JR’s comment today scoffing at “Clive Hamilton trying to explain how a planning tool that failed everywhere else magically worked in ROK.” Two things revealed here: because it doesn’t fit his narrative, the explanation is not checked, just dismissed as magical. Second point: reflects on JR’s knowledge that everyone else but him has heard of the “East Asian Tigers” with their strong government intervention. If he’s interested (Danger! Threat to ideology approaching comfort zone!), it only took me a couple of minutes on Google to find this comprehensive academic paper at REPEC – Industrial Policies in Developing Countries: History and Perspectives by Michele Di Maio.

    And was there any filtering process between brain and mouth on this gem at Monday Message Board this week: “Flood control is a problem in developing countries because they are poor especially if it rains a lot – monsoons. Rich countries build flood levees and dikes and so on. Voters treat loss of life in floods as a failure of governments to tame nature.” JR, if you have nothing to say, better not to talk.

    The paucity of intelligent conservatives around must mean something.

  18. Jim Rose
    January 23rd, 2013 at 19:35 | #18

    @kevin1 So they picked winners did they? Those at MITI must have excellent investment appraisal skills? How would you test that?

    Look at their investment portfolios after they retired. Far less inside information but those picking winner skills can at last be lawfully used to trade on their private accounts.

    My professors at graduate school in Tokyo were retired from MITI, ministry of finance, the lot. They worked at those ministries in the high growth years picking those winners.

    The retired MITI and other professors kept their wealth well hidden. A long train ride to work. Clothes the same as others. Their children went to normal schools and Japanese public universities. They all looked forward to their annual bonus (5.15 months salary in all).

    I thought all would be revealed when we were invited to their houses for lunch. Alas no: no mansion – an ordinary Japanese suburban house. Many still lived in their ministry apartments.

    Bureaucrats who could pick winners – beat the market – should be excellent investors in their private portfolios after they retire. They still have the core skills.

    If special investing skills somehow appeared from the air inside MITI and other ministries, people would pay to work there, and there would be books written on these special investment skills that were passed on by double secret word of mouth. Someone would spill the beans.

    My retire from MITI professor who taught the industry policy course was a communist at university. When discussing those days, he could not remember the English word for Molotov cocktail so he drew one on the blackboard.

    My Korean government classmates gave no hint of expecting to retire to be wealthy investors. Korean men drink whisky and cognac until they run-out or pass-out.

    my class mates from 20 other developing and transitional economies were equally circumspect about their opulant retirement prospects. their facebook pages still give nothing away.

    p.s. there were really big flood levees up the road from my university in Tokyo. all politics was retail in Japan.

  19. Jordan
    January 23rd, 2013 at 20:06 | #19

    Here is a transcript of speech of representative Jim McDermont to hearing on a debt ceiling by GOP.

    ““The whole world is watching this hearing. It is the first hearing on this issue. The whole point of a society is to create and run a government to make order for people. People don’t like chaos and this hearing is about how to create chaos to get what you can’t get politically with votes.”
    Raw Story (http://s.tt/1yO8P)

    http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/01/22/rep-mcdermott-slams-gop-for-using-debt-ceiling-to-push-social-darwinism/

  20. alfred venison
    January 24th, 2013 at 07:31 | #20

    the modern synthesis in biology is often called a consensus. a consensus reached consequent to field work & research, obviously.

    here is the [usa] national academies:-
    “The scientific consensus around evolution is overwhelming.” http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=6024&page=28

    here is kenneth r miller, champion of the dover “panda” case:-
    “In this election year [2012], the strength of anti-evolution sentiment has been on full display in the presidential race, as one candidate after another declared their distrust of the scientific consensus around evolution.” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kenneth-r-miller/darwin-day-evolution_b_1269191.html

    the much maligned wikipedia:-
    “The [modern evolutionary] synthesis, produced between 1936 and 1947, reflects the consensus about how evolution proceeds”. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_modern_synthesis

    fran barlow is far from a post modernist; i don’t see eye to eye with her all the time, but that’s an idle slur.
    alfred venison

  21. John Quiggin
    January 24th, 2013 at 10:46 | #21

    Like FB, I’ve found Jim Rose consistently evasive and slippery. However, he’s generally civil and makes some interesting points, so I’m happy to allow him to post, subject to a limit of one comment per thread per day.

  22. John Quiggin
    January 24th, 2013 at 10:49 | #22

    As regards scientific consensus, Damon Runyon got it right “The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, but that’s the way to bet.”

    It’s true that a scientific consensus can be overturned, but it doesn’t often happen, and very rarely in cases where the motivation for dissent is discomfort with the political implications of scientific evidence.

  23. January 24th, 2013 at 12:28 | #23

    I set the comments policy here – if you don’t like it, feel free not to comment, but don’t pick fights with me about it – JQ

  24. Sam
    January 24th, 2013 at 12:32 | #24

    I’m surprised and disappointed. I expected more from Alan Kohler in today’s The Drum. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-01-24/kohler-privatisation-is-good-for-qld/4482140

    He makes the silly and naive case for privatisation you rightly decry, JQ. He believes paying down gross government debt is an inherently responsible thing to do, never mind the effect on net fiscal position. All this must apparently be done to appease credit rating agencies who make the same basic error, who embarrassed themselves so thoroughly during the GFC, and who were completely ignored by investors after they downgraded the US. I now put Kohler in Paul Krugman’s category of “Very Serious Person.”

  25. Katz
    January 24th, 2013 at 12:58 | #25

    But the biggest scientific breakthroughs entail the collapse of the most consensual consensuses.

  26. John Quiggin
    January 24th, 2013 at 13:48 | #26

    @Katz “But the biggest scientific breakthroughs entail the collapse of the most consensual consensuses”

    Kinda sorta. It’s true that “normal science” typically proceeds incrementally, and therefore that big breakthroughs are more likely to break with consensus in some way. But look at the process from the discovery of DNA to the sequencing of the human genome – some huge breakthroughs but not a lot of consensus-busting, except maybe for Venter’s success with the quick and dirty shotgun approach as opposed to the more methodical big-science approach of the official project.

  27. Ikonoclast
    January 24th, 2013 at 13:54 | #27

    @John Quiggin

    I simply think we have to be very careful not to use the word “consensus” when referring to established hard scientific knowledge. In essence, the truth or “objective-ness” of a fact or law of empirical material reality is independent of human consensus. Human consensus or otherwise is irrelevant to objective truth. Not all matters humans consider relate to objective truth but some do and those matters are the business of the hard sciences. A consensus about a “hard truth” merely indicates that most people or most scientists have finally perceived and accepted the reality of the “hard truth”.

    The word “consensus” means general agreement or accord. It says nothing about how that consensus is arrived at. Consensus may be arrived at by a number of processes. At one end od the spectrum there is “scientific consensus” about a matter of hard science (arrived at by verifiable, repeatable experiments) at the other end there is a “social consensus” about say an ethical or moral requirement and very often arrived at by emotive, dogmatic or ideological means. These two kinds of “consensuses” are in no way comparable or of equal veracity or dependability.

    Using the word “consensus” for hard scientific matters gives lay people the false impression that all matters are matters of opinion until a large majority agree and then solely by virtue of that agreement the correct answer has been arrived at.

    The case for anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is not a “consensus”. It is a rolled-gold, empirical, 100% certainty based on an irrefutable chain of hard science reasoning and calculation. In addition, the empirical data already supports the case at close to 100% broad correlation. As soon as the weasel word “consensus” is brought in you give the denialists wriggle room. Scientifically, philosphically and rhetorically it’s an own-goal.

    Certainly there are (highly improbable) events outside modelling which could affect the outcome. The sun (by a yet unknown mechanism) may begin to lose luminosity even though it is currently on a slow brightening trend of billions of years duration. A supreme deity might intervene directly via a miracle – suspension or alteration of the dependable physical laws of the cosmos – to save us. But outside an event of “force majeure”, the general outcome is certain. The precise degree of warming and the region by region response of climate systems are clearly enormously complicated issues and can only be indicated probabilistically due to the inter-related complexities and extensiveness of the systems involved.

    I will try to keep quiet about this issue now but “consensus” is such a POMO weasel word IMO when dealing with matters of hard science.

  28. Katz
    January 24th, 2013 at 14:22 | #28

    I’d argue that Watson and Crick and later Venter, who achieved remarkable technical feats, weren’t progenitors of scientific revolutions. They all knew what they were looking for.

    The scientific revolution occurred in the 1920s. Wiki:

    “In 1927 Nikolai Koltsov proposed that inherited traits would be inherited via a “giant hereditary molecule” made up of “two mirror strands that would replicate in a semi-conservative fashion using each strand as a template”.”

    Watson and Crick discovered the structure of the molecule. That feat is subsidiary to the insight that such a molecule exists. The null hypothesis that such a molecule does not exist had already been disposed of.

  29. January 24th, 2013 at 14:38 | #29

    John,

    There is a difference between picking fights and disagreeing.
    For one thing if I was picking a fight I would be using words that if not wound at least hurt a bit.

    I simply gave a point of view that was different to yours in reasonably moderate language.

    Yes it is your blog however everyone needs to be told when they are wrong even if they do not like it.

  30. Mel
    January 24th, 2013 at 15:22 | #30

    Even the discovery of the double helix didn’t conform to the orderly, incremental knowledge building work of collaborative and consensus building scientists that our resident naive positivist has described. See the story of Rosalind Franklin, for example. http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2010/11/03/rosalind-franklin-and-dna-how-wronged-was-she/

  31. Fran Barlow
    January 24th, 2013 at 16:15 | #31

    @Katz

    But the biggest scientific breakthroughs entail the collapse of the most consensual consensuses.

    That’s true. Wegener comes straight to mind. Tellingly, the consensus his work shattered was replaced by the one he founded.

  32. Jim Rose
    January 24th, 2013 at 16:25 | #32

    @kevin1 South Korea was among the poorer of the world’s nations in 1962. South Korea quickly became by the standards of most developing countries it changed to an outward looking and relatively open country.

    External threats, the dynamics of internal politics, including dramatic break-ups of established interest groups, low taxes and competition in export markets were enablers of market-led rapid development in Japan, Singapore, South Korea, Hong Kong and Taiwan.

    Institutional reforms and imported new technologies increased employment and incomes through an explosion in exporting. This allowed the losers from the changes to be compensated either directly or with new opportunities in the export industries.

    Many other under-developed nations did not grow because institutional sclerosis locked them in. The accumulation of distributional coalitions slowed down the capacity of these under-developed countries to adopt new technologies and reallocate resources across firms and industries in response to changing conditions and new opportunities.

    Latin America is a good example of stagnation after extended prosperity because of the accumulation of barriers to efficient production. Latin America has many more barriers to competition than the successful East Asian countries. Why no Latin Tigers?

  33. Fran Barlow
    January 24th, 2013 at 16:30 | #33

    @Ikonoclast

    As soon as the weasel word “consensus” is brought in you give the denialists wriggle room. Scientifically, philosphically and rhetorically it’s an own-goal.

    And yet, it’s hard to see your argumentation other than as music to the ears of the denialists. This is one of their memes — science is not about consensus.

    They are equivocating of course — trying to blur the line between scientific consensus and social consensus (much as they do with “theory” and “hypothesis” — but your stance gives aid and comfort to them. Your remarks about the consensus report also do so.

    There is no value in trying to find a new word for what well-attested hard science theory or professional practice declares at any moment in time. Consensus will do just fine. It is, as I said not a straightjacket but a scaffold that supports innovation and challenge.

    The reality is that the pool of human and material resources available for high quality hard science research is limited, even though it is probably better now than it ever was. Scientists, quite reasonably, start from what is well-attested and seek to build upon it, or if it seems not to provide an adequate answer in a place where one would think it should — to explore that question. It therefore starts from the consensus and if the consensus is overturned, then all else depending on it is re-examined (since those too would have been part of the consensus). And eventually, a new consensus position (i.e a new useful starting point or part of the scaffold of knowledge) emerges.

    That’s progress.

  34. Fran Barlow
    January 24th, 2013 at 16:31 | #34

    NB: Objects to the rolled gold metaphor ..

  35. Ootz
    January 24th, 2013 at 16:33 | #35

    Relax nontrampis, it is too easy to forget that we are all guests here, as much as in this world.

    “So my antagonist said, “Is it impossible that there are flying saucers? Can you prove that it’s impossible?” “No”, I said, “I can’t prove it’s impossible. It’s just very unlikely”. At that he said, “You are very unscientific. If you can’t prove it impossible then how can you say that it’s unlikely?” But that is the way that is scientific. It is scientific only to say what is more likely and what less likely, and not to be proving all the time the possible and impossible.”
    ― Richard P. Feynman

  36. Mel
    January 24th, 2013 at 17:47 | #36

    Ikonoclast:

    “The case for anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is not a “consensus”. It is a rolled-gold, empirical, 100% certainty based on an irrefutable chain of hard science reasoning and calculation. ”

    This is a woeful comment. Infallibility or certainty, requires omniscience and- delusions of gandeur notwithstanding- you do not possess it. Not even the IPCC claims infallibility.

    The reason why AGW needs to be factored into public policy is nothing more fancy than the insurance principle, as I’ve already outlined on another thread. One doesn’t need certainty to take out insurance; I am not certain that my house will burn down yet I, like most people, have an insurance policy because such an eventuality is a reasonably foreseeable possibility.

    Insurance, a thing of common sense, prudence and caution, is about as stuffy and old fashioned as you can get and hence it should appeal to those who call themselves conservative. Moreover, a true conservative should respect opinions of established and proven institutions, like science. However in this case, like so many others, most self-described conservatives are behaving like devil-may-care radicals.

  37. kevin1
    January 24th, 2013 at 18:14 | #37

    @Jim Rose
    JR’s version of S Korean econ history ignores the elephant in the room: “government” which was hardly sitting by watching while al this was happening. And some elephant it was in the ROK: I will just reproduce 2 quotes from the IPD paper I referred him to, and so he can’t claim ignorance of this. (Industrial Policies in Developing Countries: History and Perspectives by Michele Di Maio 2008)

    “In the 1960s, the South Korean military regime nationalised all banks, giving the State control of all financial flows and thus of all investment de-cisions in the economy. In addition, the regime started to tightly control foreign exchange, foreign loans and foreign direct investments” (p 17) and this: “In South Korea, the government tightly controlled the economic activity through price ceilings, control on capital flight, strict financial control etc. The government also used a large set of tax exemptions and government subsidies to direct investment activity in selected `strategic’ sector (Amsed, 1991).” (p 19) While there is argument about causation and the counterfactual (by Anne Krueger for instance), there’s no controversy about the broad facts; “Industrial Policy in an Export Propelled Economy: Lessons From South Korea’s Experience”, Larry E. Westphal, The Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 4, No. 3 (Summer, 1990), pp. 41-59 gives a similar account. But you’d never know it from JR’s story.

    You discredit yourself mate because cognitive dissonance or pride or something takes over and you blatantly deceive and distort. You’re not fair dinkum and I won’t take any notice of you in future.

  38. alfred venison
    January 24th, 2013 at 19:03 | #38

    @Katz
    there was a consensus around miasma theory before pasteur – after pasteur a consensus formed around germ theory. -a.v.

  39. Ikonoclast
    January 24th, 2013 at 19:19 | #39

    @Fran Barlow

    Not once IIRC has Fran mentioned scientific method in any of her posts. Not once has she mentioned experimentation, objective reality or empiricism. None of the things that actually count in hard science get a mention in Fran’s world. Plenty of waffle about “consensus” though.

  40. Fran Barlow
    January 24th, 2013 at 19:26 | #40

    @alfred venison

    True, and indeed, and as IIRC, Pasteur turned out to be right despite proving his case with what turned out to be flawed science, while his main rival refuted Pasteur’s experiment with one that also turned out to be flawed (but apparently robust at the time it was done), it’s a fascinating example of science history, and a pointer to why science is not ever really the work of one person, or even two or three, but ultimately the work of a large collaborative community — including even those who object to each other’s conclusions but understand and apply professional standards of scientific work and ethics.

    One can argue that science, in the sense we now understand it, was still embronic — or at any rate, to pursue the metaphor, still juvenile in the 19th century. It’s little wonder that that century was the high point of bogus science and “snake oil”. Education was still the privilege of wealthy folk. Literacy and numeracy was low. People had begun to question the church but were still strongly influenced by superstition. We joke about Young Earthers now, but then, it was perfectly respectable. Natural selection? An abomination. It really wasn’t until the end of WW1 that science began to get a firm place in parts of public policy in most of the ‘western” world and the rigour we now see started to become normative.

  41. Fran Barlow
    January 24th, 2013 at 19:32 | #41

    @Ikonoclast

    I’m giving you a pass because for the most part, you talk sense here, or something closely resembling it. You are however embarrassing yourself now. I can’t tell you what to do, but I’m not going to respond further to you on this matter as you are just talking nonsense.

    FTR … my post @45 on page 1 addresses method, and you responded as if it did, though you wanted to name it something else.

  42. Ikonoclast
    January 24th, 2013 at 19:36 | #42

    @Mel

    Nothing woeful about it. I did add the rider that only (highly unlikely) events outside the system being subject to calculation and modelling could intervene.

    Given that;

    (a) the basic science indicates the earth biosphere system will heat up absent outside external “force majuer” events; and

    (b) given that the set of data series readings taken to date indicate that it has heated up; and

    (c) given that other causes (e.g. increased insolation) have been excluded;

    then the case is indeed a 100% slam dunk.

    To pretend otherwise or to quibble about ultimate certainty is simply to be disputationally perverse.

  43. Ikonoclast
    January 24th, 2013 at 19:41 | #43

    @Fran Barlow

    Fair enough. We have reached a consensus that the other person’s position is nonsense.

  44. Mel
    January 24th, 2013 at 20:37 | #44

    Okonoclast: “.. then the case is indeed a 100% slam dunk.”

    Oh grow up. No scientist argues that the toolkit available to scientists yields certainty.

    As the Sydney Uni physicist Michael Biercuk puts it “in science … everything’s a theory … proof doesn’t exist …. nothing is certain.” http://theconversation.edu.au/forget-what-youve-read-science-cant-prove-a-thing-578

    Arguments about certainty are the province of scoundrels, bar room drunks, the delusional and the religious. They are also a red herring as far as action is concerned.

  45. Katz
    January 25th, 2013 at 07:52 | #45

    As late as the early 17th century all who thought seriously about the matter agreed that the speed of light was probably infinite. This was the overwhelming consensus view.

    In 1676 Rømer proved that light had a finite speed. His experiments spurred more and more accurate methods of measurement, all based on the new consensus that Rømer had compelled by accurate observation and sound arithmetic.

    Consider how fundamental to all of our science is the fact that light has a finite speed. Only the termination of our civilisation will allow a return to the thesis that the speed of light is infinite. If the Fundos take over, that could happen.

  46. Ikonoclast
    January 25th, 2013 at 09:34 | #46

    @Mel

    “Arguments about certainty are the province of scoundrels, bar room drunks, the delusional and the religious.”

    So, if I say that I am certain that you cannot live for ten years without food and water intake then am I one of the above? Or if I say I am certain you cannot walk through the armour of an M1A1 Abrhams tank then I one of the above?

    In epistemology and in science, I understand the general arguments for uncertainty in aspects of human knowledge. However, to move from that position to a statement that everything is uncertain (the natural corollary of your statement) is untenable.

    To quibble about absolute certainty versus functional and operative certainty (of the 99.9999 recurring % kind) is also untenable.

    Mel, which of these statements do you dispute?

    (a) The basic science indicates the earth’s biosphere system will heat up due to inceased CO2e concentrations and this will occur absent events external to the thermodynamic system under consideration.

    (b) The empirical data series to date indicates the earth’s biosphere has in fact heated up in accordance with theory; and

    (c) All other thermodynamically possible causes (e.g. increased insolation) have been excluded.

    You would have to effectively dispute and refute at least one of these statements to plausibly advance a claim of functional and operative uncertainty about the AGW case.

    The fact that the empirical data already supports the case really leaves you in an untenable position. You are in the position of denying that process which has empirically happened and is continuing to happen and calling it uncertain. It’s much like rolling a dice, getting a six and then saying the result of that very dice roll is uncertain. That is how absurd it is to argue specific uncertainty once the event has occured.

    I am simply pointing out the empirical facts re AGW. I am also pointing out that in hard science empirical evidence precedes and determines scientific “consensus”. Thus it is the empirical evidence that has primacy not the consensus. Where empirical evidence is insufficient, ambiguous or unobtainable to date, there is no consensus. Witness string theory in physics as a case in point. In hard science, consensus is a second order, derivative and dependent phenomenon if I can put it like that. In the soft sciences, politics and ideology, consensus is first order phenomenon. It leads, it determines and it is not properly subject to objective determination.

    The basic principle of hard science is empirical investigation. The basic method discovered to be effective in praxis was and is also empirically determined. Sure, we agree about what works but the reason we agree IS that it works. The institutional and broader procedures to facilitate and expedite the progress of hard science (including what Fran likes to call “consensus”) are elaborations after and upon the primary foundational functional fact of empiricism.

    Scientific “consensus” if you want to call it that is fundamentally different to political “consensus”. That is why I object to the conflation of the two. It is a category error.

  47. Fran Barlow
    January 25th, 2013 at 09:35 | #47

    Psst …

    Are you in New York?
    Nothing much to do?
    Unemployed?
    Need $20 in a hurry?

    Why not turn up and pretend you hate Wind Power in Scotland and England? You don’t have to say anything. You don’t even have to like Donald Trump. You know the saying: they also serve who only stand and wait.

    http://www.jobhustler.com/jobs/new-york/TV-Film-VideoRadio-Jobs/Earn-Quick-and-Easy-$20-for-an-hour-or-less-of-work.1:7.php

    It would be tempting to RSVP, take the $20 and trun up with pro-windpower signs, heckling the speakers. If they tried to remove you, you could say — hey — they asked me to come.

    Isn’t it amusing? During the 1970s, the right claimed that people who turned up to left-leaning rallies were “rent-a-crowd” — and as it turns out, they see this as a good idea, and really are renting their own.

    Astroturf indeed.

  48. Ikonoclast
    January 25th, 2013 at 10:18 | #48

    @Mel

    And getting your philosophy of science from a piece of journalese is… well amusing.

    Taking the position of classical Newtonian science – mechanistic, deterministic and perhaps absolutist in its claims to knowledge – is certainly not tenable following the development of the theory of relativity, cosmology and quantum mechanics. However, rushing to the other extreme and confusing degrees of uncertainty (often very low degrees of uncertainty in the hard sciences) with fundamental uncertainty is also an absolutist error.

    The journalese article sums up;

    “In science …

    Everything’s a theory.

    Proof doesn’t exist.

    Nothing is certain.”

    These are simplistic, absolutist statements in their own right. They tell us nothing important and are functionally useless. Let me illustrate. You walk into the lab of a mad scientist. Dark, unlabelled bottles with stoppers line the shelves. Being an hospitable mad scientist he says, “Have a drink,” and waves at the rows of bottles. Cautiously, you say, “Can I drink these?” He replies, “Everything’s a liquid. You can drink any of them.”

    Here , “everything is a liquid” in the same sense that “everything is a theory” in science. Saying that everything is a liquid or everything is a theory, whilst true as a generality tells you nothing important about individual members of the category or set.

    The same logic applies to the other two points which are really just corollaries so they are in essence one point or premise. Saying scientific proof does not exist (which is true in a purist, absolutist sense) glosses over the very real practical and operative differences implied by the enormous differences in the range of certainty-uncertainty in various scientific predictions.

    So the attempt to arraign me as a philsophical absolutist founders on those precise grounds. Mel, in fact is the one appealing to absolutist logic.

  49. Ikonoclast
    January 25th, 2013 at 10:29 | #49

    @Fran Barlow

    They (the corporate capitalists) are thoroughly unprincipled. “Why doesn’t that surprise me?” as Legolas would say.

    At some point this system (corporate growth capitalism) must break down. There are too many unsustainable trends for it to continue. I have said it all before (ad nauseum) in previous posts so I won’t repeat a summary of unsustainable trends here.

    Taking the unsustainability as given, we must then ask these questions;

    “When and where will it begin to observably and indisputably break down?”

    “What response will this provoke from the suffering portion of the affected population(s)?”

    “What reaction will popular response in turn elicit from the governing powers?”

    Anyone want to hazard some opinions?

  50. Ikonoclast
    January 25th, 2013 at 11:00 | #50

    This is related to the post above. Howard Kunstler (who I suspect might be a libetarian so overall I would not agree with all of his political stances) perceptively writes;

    “Genial figure that he is, I don’t think President Obama has a clue where all this is heading. I suppose he’ll argue for stricter gun laws today, but that horse is already so far out of the barn it’s in the next county. We don’t seem to realize that America is now fully armed. Additional firearms are just superfluous at this point. And to some degree the people armed themselves in direct consequence as their government tinkered with due process, and sent drone aircraft into the American skies, and commenced computer hacking operations over every business transaction in the system, and voided the rule-of-law against criminal uber-bankers who creamed off the nation’s wealth while holding the economy hostage. Since the armed public is not ready to mount an insurrection against this impudence, the dangerous tension is expressed in morbid and tragic episodes of mass shootings by maniacs against the innocent. What I want to know: where is the lone swindled rancher who waits to bushwhack “X of Corporation Y” in the parking lot Z , since the law won’t touch him (X).”

    I’ve removed real names and places from the end of Kunstler’s piece above. Kunstler certainly has his theories about when and where. He writes;

    “It seems obvious to me that in the, say, four years ahead (one presidential term), we will not come to grips with any of the forces of reality bearing down on us. We will lose control of the money system; we’ll go broke trying to keep up our oil supplies; the American public will get more economically desperate and angry; and pretty soon the practical matters of daily life will become rather harsh. And at that point faith in the system finally evaporates and people fight over the table scraps of a failed polity.”

    We have already seen one superpower erupt in a (limited) civil war which turned into a kind of relatively bloodless “coup”; the USSR in 1991. I was in Finland at the time and only nine days out of Moscow. On our last night in Moscow we stayed in a US-Russian joint venture hotel so new it had no curtains in any rooms. Service was “odd” rather than bad. Outside was Kiyevsky railway station not far from the bridge to Arbat St IIRC. That day the area had been infested with gypsies accosting and pick-pocketing anyone they could, mostly tourists

    That night at about 11:00 pm I heard semi-automatic small arms fire down in the street near Kiyevsky station and around the gypsy haunts under the bridge butresses. The next day the literally scores (perhaps hundreds) of gypsies had disappeared. I don’t think they were shot at all but a few dozen rounds in the air no doubt induced them to board open trucks for dumping at destinations well outside Moscow.

    To return from the anecdote, civil war is clearly not impossible in a nuclear superpower. But anew dominant faction of the PTB will likely channel it and limit it. Nonetheless an unconstitutional power change could happen.

Comment pages
Comments are closed.