Fundamentalists 'threaten scientific progress'

[Bernie Gunther]

I'm describing the facts as I see them. If it makes you wet your nappies bigfish, that's really not my problem.

I take you about as seriously as I do pbman.

 

[bigfish]

Eh? May and Crichton appear to disagree on the causes of global warming...

Crichton and May may well disagree on the causes of global warming, but both of them appear to accept that a sort of religious environmental fundamentalism is beginning to impact negatively on the sciences; and consequently on our understanding of the material world around us. Which is a position I am happy to subscribe to, based on my experiences with a number of environmentalists, both here and elsewhere.

Where's the pervasion of science by "environmental fundamentalism" anyway? I don't se any...

You don't think that the "Peak Oil" 'movement' fits the bill then? And what about all of those environmental doomsday sites on the web spouting the end of this, that and the other? Any good?

 

[pbman]

Link

You can't fool all of the people all of the time. Three cheers to Lord may for coming out and telling it like is with his parting shot. It looks like anthropologist and novelist Michael Crichton's observation that environmentalism constitutes a new form of religious fundamentalism particularly suited to urban atheists, is well founded. At any rate Crichton and Lord May appear to view things similarly on this particular score. "Enivronmentalism as Religion"

So how do Urbanites feel about this?

Great link.

I Just read his book state of fear, and as part of the story,he points out all the things people don't know about "global warming" and strongly warns of politising sience.

He also said that todays environmental movement is stuck using the science of the 1960's.


And i saw him on cspan, give his talk on the religiose aspects of the environmetalism. It was very compeling, he knows his shit, and he knows how to present it. And it was hillariouse to see the reporters that belived in global warming try to ask him questions, they didn't know the basics even, and he made them look like complet idiots.

 

[pbman]

Crichton *is* a fundamentalist - he believes in the core teachings of the American Right rather than considering actual scientific evidence that challenges holy writ. Political correctness? He's the poster boy.

lol

He's a liberal.

He just doesn't buy the sky is falling bullshit, that is being hyped by "scientiest" that want more and more money to study it..........

The evidence just isn't their.

And no one can dispute that without relying on dodgy computer modeling and dodgy tempature records......

In anyevent here is his officle testomony to congress on the subject.

http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/senate.html

And this is an extreamly important point about the research that people don't know.

In that vein, let me tell you a story. It's 1991, I am flying home from Germany, sitting next to a man who is almost in tears, he is so upset. He's a physician involved in an FDA study of a new drug. It's a double-blind study involving four separate teams---one plans the study, another administers the drug to patients, a third assesses the effect on patients, and a fourth analyzes results. The teams do not know each other, and are prohibited from personal contact of any sort, on peril of contaminating the results. This man had been sitting in the Frankfurt airport, innocently chatting with another man, when they discovered to their mutual horror they are on two different teams studying the same drug. They were required to report their encounter to the FDA. And my companion was now waiting to see if the FDA would declare their multi-year, multi-million dollar study invalid because of this chance contact.

For a person with a medical background, accustomed to this degree of rigor in research, the protocols of climate science appear considerably more relaxed. In climate science, it's permissible for raw data to be "touched," or modified, by many hands. Gaps in temperature and proxy records are filled in. Suspect values are deleted because a scientist deems them erroneous. A researcher may elect to use parts of existing records, ignoring other parts. But the fact that the data has been modified in so many ways inevitably raises the question of whether the results of a given study are wholly or partially caused by the modifications themselves.

He said in his book that all enviornmental science, needs the same blind protection that medical science has to eliminate intentional and un-intentional bias. One independent gorup should work only on the data, another independent group should work only on the computer modeling, and a third independent group should use the data in the model.

Currently one group does all three.

And thats Just f-ed up.

Surely the intier earth, is as important as people.

Why should we use, such a lesser lax standard, when it comes to spending hundreds of billions or trillions of dollers?

That money could be better spent on other social issues.

 

[pbman]

I see crichtion has his own disscution board for his books and science.......

http://www.crichton-official.com/messageboard.html

If you go over their bernie, maybe he will kick your ass in person.

 

[bigfish]

I'm describing the facts as I see them...

The thing about facts is that no one can successfully dispute them for very long, simply because they're a force in their own right. For example, you claim as a fact that world oil production is rapidly drawing to a "Peak," to be followed thereafter by ever accelerating scarcity, when in actual fact proven reserves of oil have doubled over the last ten years alone to an all time historical high of 1.28 trillion barrels. And so it becomes perfectly obvious to anyone who is prepared to analyze the data in a scientifically objective manner, that "the great oil shortage [as foretold by you] is like the horizon, always receding as one moves toward it."

 

[pbman]

The thing about facts is that no one can successfully dispute them for very long, simply because they're a force in their own right. For example, you claim as a fact that world oil production is rapidly drawing to a "Peak," to be followed thereafter by ever accelerating scarcity, when in actual fact proven reserves of oil have doubled over the last ten years alone to an all time historical high of 1.28 trillion barrels. And so it becomes perfectly obvious to anyone who is prepared to analyze the data in a scientifically objective manner, that "the great oil shortage [as foretold by you] is like the horizon, always receding as one moves toward it."

They need limited resorces it to pedal their fear.

The more fear people have the more power, prestige and money the "fear sellers" recieve.

That was in his book as well.

 

[MikeMcc]

How can anyone compare how a person writes fiction with their views on science!? If someone wrote a book based on 'real' science it would be exceptionally boring - most of it taken up with all of the presentations to get funding for the experiments and it would have a huge cast list! I must admit that, whilst I've read some of his books, I haven't seen or heard anything about his views on science or politics.

As far as fundamentalism goes, I think that applies to a whole range of issues including environmentalism. There are people out there who will say no to virtually anything, though few of those will really apply it to themselves (rationing, etc). In the US we are seeing moves to get a religious belief, Intelligent Design, to be accepted as scientific theory. The 'fundamentalism' that I believe is being discussed actually applies to both ends of the spectrum, both opponents and proponents of particular subjects are using scare stories to influence public opinion.

 

[slaar]

On the Crichton evidence to the senate committee, I quite enjoyed the response of one senator, "Why Do We Have a Science Fiction Writer As Our Key Witness?". Why indeed.

The planet is going to be under more pressure in the next 50 years than ever before. Not many people doubt that. We are producing more than ever, but outcomes are by no means certain, and I think both the deep greens and the far right "markets will solve everything better than any government intervention", both with their attached propaganda, one hysterial, one blase are utterly counter-productive to the practice of good science which is desperately needed now.

For what it's worth I don't think Bob May was acting as a shill for the nuclear industry. There is a genuine feeling among senior scientists that there are strong currents running against impartial science. I think that's true.

 

[likesfish]

there is a thread running through the media thats very anti science look at the MMR fiasco.
the continued exsistance of homopathy etc.
and the creationism farce taking place in the US (dinosaur were are friends )

 

[Bernie Gunther]

On the Crichton evidence to the senate committee, I quite enjoyed the response of one senator, "Why Do We Have a Science Fiction Writer As Our Key Witness?". Why indeed.

The planet is going to be under more pressure in the next 50 years than ever before. Not many people doubt that. We are producing more than ever, but outcomes are by no means certain, and I think both the deep greens and the far right "markets will solve everything better than any government intervention", both with their attached propaganda, one hysterial, one blase are utterly counter-productive to the practice of good science which is desperately needed now.

For what it's worth I don't think Bob May was acting as a shill for the nuclear industry. There is a genuine feeling among senior scientists that there are strong currents running against impartial science. I think that's true.

I broadly agree with this. One problem is that science does interact with political and business interests that have PR muscle backing them up. Another problem is that some environmental issues interact with existential committments of various kinds, from a capitalist or dialectical materialist belief in 'Progress' to a mystical belief in 'Gaia' or 'the Rapture'

Nuclear power and GM technologies, to pick a couple of obvious examples, often have legitimate scientific arguments behind them. They also attract legitimate scientific criticisms and unfortunately the debate around these issues gets polarised by commerical interests and existential committments that it interacts with. The business interests who stand to make money naturally don't want anyone to hear these counter-arguments and are very willing to spend a lot of PR money to obfuscate them and to do political lobbying to get them ignored (interestingly Aleister Campbell's replacement was formerly Monsanto's spin-meister)

The true-believers can't stand having their existential committments challenged and often feel compelled to attack environmental analysis that may challenge their world view. In some cases, the PR industry is able to mobilise true believers in its cause, as we see in the case of the large-scale mobilisation of far-right xtians against legitimate climate science in the US.

All of this creates a great deal of noise around the legitimate scientific debate.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

I think there is a second strand to this though. Existential committments on both sides get in the way of a scientific analysis, but they also get in the way of a political analysis. The example that comes to mind here is population.

If one talks about 'the population problem' without trying to come to grips with the political dynamics of population growth and resource use, then any critique one comes up with is inherently limited. In this case many apolitical scientists, even very competent scientists, can produce hopelessly simplistic analyses. This is a very emotive topic, as we've seen on previous threads and I think that much more needs to be done to support the scientific analysis of the limits to growth in resource use with a really effective political analysis.

I think this is where both the deep greens and many scientists fall down. The former substituting a mystical interpretation and the latter simply backing away from the idea of sullying the purity of science with the muck of politics.

 

[slaar]

Agreed, but I think if scientists want to work outside politics as much as possible then that's alright with me. The stoat blog is an example of this (http://mustelid.blogspot.com).

Of course science and politics inevitably mix on such a complex issue as global warming which by necessity must involve science, politics and the interaction between the two. The problem comes when people like Bob May say things like "Global Warming is a Bigger Threat Than Terrorism", which is a subjective value judgement and hence more politics than science, and leads people to think that it's fair game to mix politics and science at will, with no comprehension of where verified fact ends and value judgement begins.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

I've recently been finding some substantial food for thought about limits to growth in Marx. Specifically in the primitive accumulation bits of Capital. I'm still sort of thrashing around, but it does appear to me that at least some useful tools are in there. My guess is that most scientists today, especially the kind who end up advising capitalist governments, would be horrified at the idea that Karl Marx might have something useful to say about this stuff.

I'm sure there are exceptions, but I don't see a whole lot of what you might call 'class analysis' in the highly political statements of prominent scientists like May and King. I think if we're talking about the politics of resources and limits to growth that might be a potentially important gap in their thinking.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Just to expand on the point above, because I think it's probably not clear exactly what I mean.

If you get to grips with the science on climate, energy and food security and so on, its fairly obvious to many people who have looked into it, that there are some pretty serious problems looming.

There are a variety of responses to those problems, not all of them helpful.

Malthus is a key figure here, and for me the value of Marx is to suggest some ways of coming to terms with the malthusian arguments and perhaps providing some tools for a more sophisticated analysis, rather than either blindly accepting or rejecting them on the basis of one's personal existential committments.

What frequently seems to happen, is one of those two things. Either one falls into a naive malthusian position, like some of the deep greens and sort of ends up saying things like "Famine is Gaia's way of telling us to reduce population" or one ends up trying to wish away the problem by other faith-based approaches, whether it's by blindly cleaving to ones faith in Progress or for that matter, in the imminent arrival of the Rapture. Both approaches might have some more or less scientific stuff that they can point to for support, but both approaches seem to me to be ignoring the political dimension rather than trying to get to grips with it and all too often, potentially bending the science to protect peoples cherished existential committments, rather than coming to terms with the full implications of what the science is actually saying.

 

[Idris2002]

Being a social scientist and a doctor in no way makes you an actual hard scientist. As for Harvard, I've worked with people from Harvard that couldn't spell "received".

Back home in Ireland, I know a Harvard-trained anthropologist who's actually quite brilliant. But I think that as he's a post-modernist as well, he'd be the first to admit he ain't no scientist.

 

[Yuwipi Woman]

So why does the Oxford dictionary define anthropology as: the scientific study of mankind, especially of human origins, development, customs and beliefs, and not merely as a "discipline" then?

You really need to get a grasp on the concept of "hard" sciences and "soft" sciences. Soft sciences are things like psychology and anthropology. They are disciplines that haven't lent themselves well to scientific inquiry.

Meterology, on the other hand, is a hard science.

 

[slaar]

Economics is also a soft science, despite what many neoclassicals would have you believe.

 

[Barking_Mad]

They need limited resorces it to pedal their fear.

The more fear people have the more power, prestige and money the "fear sellers" recieve.

That was in his book as well.

Shame you dont expand that logic to other areas of governmental policy.............

 

[Bernie Gunther]

I found what I believe to be the address to the Royal Society that is referenced in the article at the start of this thread. I think it's rather good.

http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/publication.asp?id=3864

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Very interesting. It is the same text that's being talked about in the Guardian article. At least it contains this quoted paragraph. "All ideas should be open to questioning, and the merit of ideas should be assessed on the strength of evidence that supports them and not on the credentials or affiliations of the individuals proposing them. It is not a recipe for a comfortable life, but it is demonstrably a powerful engine for understanding how the world actually works and for applying this understanding"

I am however, struggling to find the other passage which bigfish emphasised in the Guardian article or anything resembling it. Can anyone help me find the bit where he talks about 'green lobby groups' being fundamentalists too?

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Here's a link to the pdf version of the address, to make it easier to search it.

http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/downloaddoc.asp?id=2414

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Link

You can't fool all of the people all of the time. Three cheers to Lord may for coming out and telling it like is with his parting shot. It looks like anthropologist and novelist Michael Crichton's observation that environmentalism constitutes a new form of religious fundamentalism particularly suited to urban atheists, is well founded. At any rate Crichton and Lord May appear to view things similarly on this particular score. "Enivronmentalism as Religion"

So how do Urbanites feel about this?

Here's bigfish's original post again, minus the C&P. I recommend following the Link to the Guardian article, which is clearly talking about the same address. If you read the Guardian article you might come away, as bigfish evidently did, with the impression that Sir Robert was at least partly agreeing with bigfish, pbman and Michael Creighton.

It's clear though, even from the Guardian thing, that they're not exactly in total agreement on say climate change. The Guardian piece does however appear to suggest that Lord May regards environmentalists as fundies too.

If you then read the actual address at either of the links above, you may come away with a rather different impression of the text of May's address.

I'd be very interested to hear the impressions of anyone who cares to make this comparison between the Guardian article and May's actual address.

 

[Monkeygrinder's Organ]

I've had a look and you're spot on. The address is very clear that climate change is a major problem and that the climate change denial lobby is a massive threat to that. The fundamental wing of the environmentalist lobby might be anti-scientific but there's no suggestion it's a problem in the same way.

The article is a major misrepresentation of what was said.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

I've had a look and you're spot on. The address is very clear that climate change is a major problem and that the climate change denial lobby is a massive threat to that. The fundamental wing of the environmentalist lobby might be anti-scientific but there's no suggestion it's a problem in the same way.

The article is a major misrepresentation of what was said.

Thanks for that. Did you detect *any* criticism directed against the environmental lobby in the actual text though?

I saw one sentence I'd quibble with about nuclear being 'renewable' but that's about it. The rest of it seems absolutely spot on to me, with nothing even resembling the attacks on the 'environmental lobby' the Guardian describes.

 

[Monkeygrinder's Organ]

Thanks for that. Did you detect *any* criticism directed against the environmental lobby in the actual text though?

I saw one sentence I'd quibble with about nuclear being 'renewable' but that's about it. The rest of it seems absolutely spot on to me, with nothing even resembling the attacks on the 'environmental lobby' the Guardian describes.

I couldn't see it. I admit I read it quickly so I didn't want to say 'there is none' in case I'd missed it.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

I couldn't see it. I admit I read it quickly so I didn't want to say 'there is none' in case I'd missed it.

Well, I've read it a couple of times now and run various text searches. So far, if any of that stuff is there, I've somehow managed to miss it. Certainly large chunks of the text the Guardian has in quotes are missing, even though one quote having nothing to do with environmentalists is defintely present and the address I've linked has the title that they quoted and is by Sir Robert May.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Here's a quote that's rather more representative of what Lord May's address actually says (being an actual quote rather than an apparent quote which does not in fact appear in the text)

The well intentioned actions that gave us better health, more food, more energy all have unintended adverse consequences, which we are only just beginning fully to appreciate.

It took essentially all of human history to reach the first 1 billion people, around 1830; a century to double that; 40 years to double again to 4 billion around 1970. Today we are 6.5 billion, headed, barring catastrophe, to around 9 billion by 2050. The total number of people our planet can sustainably support depends on the assumptions you make. But given that we currently sequester one quarter to one half of all net terrestrial primary productivity to our use – a circumstance without precedent by any single species in the history of life on Earth – we are likely already to be at or beyond Earth’s sustainable carrying capacity.

Turning to food, we could not feed today’s population with yesterday’s agriculture, and it is doubtful whether we can feed tomorrow’s with today’s agriculture. The Green Revolution’s doubling of food production involved, amongst other things, massive inputs of fossil-fuel energy subsidised fertilizers; around the globe, more than half of all the atoms of nitrogen and phosphorus in green plant material that grew last year came from artificial fertilizers, rather than the natural biogeochemical cycles that built the biosphere and which struggle to maintain it.

The consequent impacts of habitat loss and other disturbing factors upon the diversity of plants and other animals with which we share our planet is only just beginning to be fully appreciated. And 90% of the energy subsidies that make daily life easier put the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, to an extent that has begun to change the global climate in a deeply serious way.

Any of that stuff sound at all familiar?

 

[Bernie Gunther]

The Times story, same stuff about fundamentalist 'green lobby groups' different journalists. Wonder where they all got this stuff from? Certainly not from the text of Lord May's address that's on the Royal Society website.

http://avantgo.thetimes.co.uk/services/avantgo/article/0,,1897098,00.html

 

[Jo/Joe]

Well I'm pleased we've established Robert May's scientific credentials. But with all due respect, this thread isn't about the nuclear energy option (I'm completely opposed to it, by the way), it's about the pervasion of science by religious and environmental fundamentalism and the damage this is liable to do in terms of retarding our collective future to which science is essential.

You forgot to add the perversion of science by commercial interests, or doesn't that happen? It's pretty bland to say that fundamentalism limits free thinking.

And 90% of the energy subsidies that make daily life easier put the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, to an extent that has begun to change the global climate in a deeply serious way.

Do you with May here Bigfish?