Sign In
0 Items (
Search
Comments (16)
It is generally accepted that science is in a bad way, as Richard Horton wrote in his capacity as editor in chief of The Lancet. “Science has taken a turn towards darkness”, he lamented, citing small sample sizes, invalid analyses, conflicts of interest and obsession with fashionable trends. A revival of Karl Popper’s ideas would help. Chris Uhlman pointed out in The Weekend Australian June 1 that Popper changed the game of science to demand rigorous testing, rather than accumulating data and building models to support your position.
Popper’s ideas did not get far in the academic community. While rivals who fled Austria for the US to escape Hitler attained and occupied prestigious chairs, he found a roost in far off Christchurch , where he wrote the 700-page The Open Society and Its Enemies while sixteen of his relatives went up in smoke back home.
The philosophical diaspora in the US converted the philosophy of science into a wasteland of sterile probability theory instead of an introduction to the kind of imaginative and critical thinking that drives science at its best. I think of them as “Hitler’s revenge”. Leading scientists including the Nobel Laureates Einstein, Medawar, Eccle and Monod saluted Popper’s ideas but the academic philosophers did not.
His book on political philosophy did not fare any better because he antagonized conservatives with criticism of Plato and he was put on the banned list by the Left because, an equal opportunity offender, he also did a number on Marx.
The philosophy of science was invaded by weeds, starting with Thomas Kuhn’s paradigm theory and then more exotic species when post-modernism became fashionable. With Popper dismissed, “consensus science” became accepted as “normal” under the influence of Kuhn’s 1962 blockbuster The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.
(A historical note; in 1945 Professor Anderson invited Popper to move from Christchurch to Sydney but with help from Hayek he went to London instead. Later Anderson turned against Popper, as did his student, David Stove, who practically made a career out of sledging Popper. The otherwise admirable Clive James turned on Popper with a waspish and small-minded dismissal of The Open Society and Its Enemies, “boring and repetitive.”_
Many critics of Popper’s views on testing claim that he didn’t know enough about the history of science and he naively ignored the way that falsification is resisted by people who are determined to protect their preferred paradigms. In fact Popper was onto this from the beginning, in The Logic of Scientific Discovery, published in German in 1935. Observing the rearguard action by Newtonians resisting Einstein’s innovation he itemised four “conventionalist stratagems” to “immunize” their position against criticism. These are (1) ad hoc or “off the cuff” explanations of apparently adverse observations, (2) changing the definition of terms in the system, (3) questioning the results and (4) casting doubt on the acumen of the critic.
In due course, climate alarmists adopted these tactics. Did they read Popper and get the wrong message? First they shifted from “global warming” to “climate change” after a spike caused by a big El Nino in 1998. When all the dire events that were predicted did not materialize — snow will become “a thing of the past”, no more polar bears, no more beaches — the climate caravan moved on to embrace the term “extreme weather”, which turns out to be no better or worse than at any other time since records have been collected. As for casting doubt on the acumen of critics, nowadays they are simply cancelled by the people who control grants, appointments and publishing.
At a conference in 1965 Thomas Kuhn famously confronted Popper with a challenge to join him in addressing the sociological/psychological aspects of scientific progress. Popper briskly rejected the invitation and, regrettably, missed the opportunity to remind the audience of his own institutional approach to science, which he sketched in 1945 in a paper that was reprinted in The Poverty of Historicism (1957.)
In the 1950s Popper was horrified by the growing role of government in science, inspired by the example of the Manhattan Project to develop the atom bomb. He feared for the future of Great Science as a result of Big Science in the service of politicians. He saw the danger of too much money chasing too few ideas, the publication explosion (good buried under bad) and the distortion of incentives by the pressure to obtain grants for fashionable and politically “hot” topics.
All of that came about, especially in climate science, when the Clinton/Gore administration presided over a sixteen-fold increase of funding. The tsunami of funds washed all the way to the shores of the social sciences and the humanities to fund work that has nothing to do with science, carried out by people who knew nothing about science and cared less.
Gordon Tullock (1922-2014) met Popper at a conference in the early 1950s. He was captivated by Popper’s institutional approach, his own forte as a political economist, and he set aside the work that eventually became The Politics of Bureaucracy to write The Organization of Enquiry (1965.) He described what might happen through a particular combination of personal and situational circumstances, starting with the difference between scientists motivated by genuine and serious curiosity and others with “induced curiosity.”
Devoted researchers are motivated by intense, often obsessive curiosity, to seek the truth, unlike scientists who work nine-to-five as skilled technicians. The latters’ curiosity is not intrinsic; rather, it is induced by the terms of employment, to publish papers and maintain a flow of government grants. Publish or perish, as they say. He sketched a self-perpetuating process which could drive a field of research to produce “superficially impressive but actually easy research projects” which do not advance understanding. Here think of the model-building projects in climate science and other fields.
The peer-review process is intended to avert such a decline, but Tullock foresaw its corruption by reviewers associated with the authors, either personally or by membership of a school of thought. He speculated that this would almost certainly happen in a field dominated by “induced” researchers with political agendas. At the end of the slippery slope there is a widespread acceptance of the need to support the “right side” on the issues of the day because the principal criterion in judging material for publication will be the position that the work supports. Tullock wrote:
The concern with reality that unites the sciences may be absent in this area, and the whole thing may be reduced to a pseudo-science like genetics in Lysenko’s Russia.
Prescient words, published in 1965 when he thought that natural sciences were in good shape, unlike parts of economics which informed his pessimistic scenario.
Reviving Popper’s ideas in university courses and high schools could have a seismic impact, but the immediate prospect is dismal. Fortunately there is a weapon at hand to pursue the the same result, starting at the bottom with working scientists, rather than at the top in the philosophy of science. It is a book by J. Scott Armstrong and Kesten C Green, The Scientific Method,: A Guide to finding Useful Knowledge, which was reviewed in Quadrant‘s May 2023 edition
The authors begin with a survey of the problems currently afflicting science at present and they end with practical suggestions for improvement that can be taken up by the range of stakeholders in the scientific enterprise. There are chapters on assessing the quality of scientific practice, the problem of advocacy, concerns with the effectiveness of peer review and the complications that arise with government funding. The positive suggestions are offered to university managers, journal editors, governments, courts, the media, and interested individuals.
Nice editing, thanks Roger!
Be sure to follow the Gordon Tullock link.
https://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/bios/Tullock.html
That is a wonderful short introduction to one of the most powerful free enterprise supporters of recent times.
Great article, thank you! Scientists I know see one of the most destructive developments as the bureaucratisation of science, where professional managers are put at the top of scientific organisations. The recent appointment to CSIRO of the non-scientist who ran Victoria’s public health response to Covid, might be seen as an example. Is there a mismatch between the mentality required to operate in an institution, and that of the great, independent scientists like Newton, Pasteur or Florey?
Scott Atlas, one-time scientific adviser to President Trump, describes the disastrous practical effects of this mismatch in a recent interview on Prager U. The scientific establishment, once bureaucratised, operates by consensus: to avoid paralysis and move forwards, it needs everyone to be ‘on the same page’. Hence, we are now seeing a dominant argument that ‘the science’ is defined by ‘the consensus’ – which can be badly mistaken. Worse still is an artificial consensus created by censoring and publicly deriding divergent views, now a common practice in science, supported by the mass media.
Yes, all scientists agree – after those who don’t are censored.
“THE” science is an ABC-type genuflection to deity. Superstition, actually, but consensus is clearly more desirable for powerlust to succeed.
Fauci has demonstrated this with considerable success this week. He says he applied hard, scientific method to the Covid regulations, said “abra-cadabra” and out jumped the 6 foot rule. Or did he say abra-cadabra first ?
Historical narratives are no less requiring of rigorous analysis than scientific ones. When their critique is criminalised as it is across most of Europe a truthful society is impossible.
One element of science by consensus is the notion of “peer reviewed”. It doesn’t seem to mean anything other than “:group think approved” now.
Nearly all scientists have had no education in philosophy. To the extent that they’re aware of Popper’s thought, I’ve noticed they’re primarily aware of his profferred axiom that a scientific hypothesis should not be promoted to the status ‘scientific theory’ unless it is stated so as to be falisifiable, and is in principle falsifiable. The fact that many of them are incapable of repetition for attempted falsification does not seem to have detracted from the excessive respect accorded to this ‘Popper;s main idea’.
Which of his main ideas could exert the envisaged impact?
RM
https://www.kuratrading.com/HTMLArticles/writings.htm
In 2012 I wrote the following as part of a rather long article on the rise of pseudo-science:
‘As I understand it the basic scientific process as prescribed by Karl Popper is as follows:
1. Ask a question;
2. Conduct background research on previous work;
3. Construct a hypothesis;
4. Conduct experiments to test your hypothesis;
5. Analyse your data and results and draw appropriate conclusions (even {or especially} if they do not fit your hypothesis); &
6. Communicate your results in a peer reviewed paper.
It would appear that pseudo-science has taken a new religiously based approach of:
1. Make an alarmist and catastrophic statement. (“We are reaching a tipping point after which we are doomed” – James Hansen, NOAA, 1989);
2. Construct an unprovable hypothesis 20 – 100 years into the future. (“The seas will rise 20m in a century” – Gore, Flannery, Robyn Williams);
3. Obtain funding to conduct “targeted research” to support the pre-determined outcome of your hypothesis. (“I have used Mike’s Nature trick to hide the decline” – Phil Jones, CRU, East Anglia University & “We cannot account for the recent cooling and it is a travesty that we cannot. Our measurement systems are inadequate.” Kevin Trenberth {a ‘pseudo-scientist’ who refuses to believe the results because they do not fit the computer model’s predictions!}). Now that takes one’s breath away!;
4. Attempt to denigrate or remove all opposition or attempts to test your hypothesis. (“I cannot see these papers getting into the next report even if Kevin and I have to redefine the definition of the term Peer Review” – Phil Jones, to Kevin Trenberth, Ben Santer, Michael Mann, Ken Briffa, et al {The Climategate scandal as quoted in the CRUtape Letters});
5. Obtain consensus (a political process, not a scientific one) through fear and the withholding of data and information that could be used to validate or disprove the hypothesis. (This is the ultimate corruption of the scientific process: “Why should I make the data available to you when your aim is to try to find something wrong with it …” Phil Jones to Warwick Hughes, a researcher in Perth who questioned the Oz figures they quoted {because Phil, although it’s beyond your ken, that’s how the real scientific method works} & “Maybe I’ll cut a few points off the filtered curve. .. as that is trending down the results because of the recent coldish years…” Mick Kelly, CRU blatantly falsifying the results to fit the theory).
And people still worship at the altar of this false god? But then Eugenics was scientific was it not? How many people got their PhD’s by finding new meanings for the phrenology of bumps on a head? Try not to laugh as it is making a comeback …
About the only certainty is that there is no consensus about Global Warming, Climate Change, Climate Disruption, AGW, or whatever today’s name is. Every real scientist understands that consensus is anathema to real science. Remember the essays “100 scientists against the Theory of Relativity”? Probably not as it was never a best-seller, but as Einstein pithily replied “It does not take 100 scientists, but just one fact to prove my theory wrong”. I like his answer as that of a true scientist.
The pseudo-science of AGW (climate change, greenfoolery & saving the planet, or whatever) was only ever about using climate as a means to gain Political Power. And it worked! The challenge is to dig ourselves out of the deep grave the totalitarians have dug for us before it is too late to save Australia.’
Worth mentioning Jerome Ravetz’s damning critique of the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (CRU) posted at WUWT on February 9, 2010. Ravetz, an eminent American philosopher of science, challenged its claims of scientific objectivity in the context of his concept of “post-normal science” (PNS):
“We can understand the root cause of Climategate as a case of scientists constrained to attempt to do normal science in a post-normal situation. But climate change had never been a really ‘normal’ science, because the policy implications were always present and strong, even overwhelming. Indeed, if we look at the definition of ‘post-normal science’, we see how well it fits: facts uncertain, values in dispute, stakes high, and decisions urgent. In needing to treat Planet Earth like a textbook exercise, the climate scientists were forced to break the rules of scientific etiquette and ethics, and to play scientific power-politics in a way that inevitably became corrupt. The combination of non-critical ‘normal science’ with anti-critical ‘evangelical science’ was lethal.”
https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2019/11/climategate-and-post-normal-science/
“The pseudo-science of AGW” Bravo!
:’group think approved”
Jewish tradition distrusts unanimous opinion, which is seen as potentially the domination of “group think” by one strong mind. The tradition prefers a strong majority, which indicates intense discussion and argument, before a consensus is agreed upon. The tradition respects the minority as making a valuable contribution.
Dr Peter Arnold OAM ✡️
That Jewish tradition you have mentioned above sounds rather Utopian, and it certainly is not in great evidence in today’s world. Imagine respecting the minority as making a valuable contribution! “Consensus”?
I have to disagree cbattle1. The Jewish tradition is evident in the Jewish achievements in science where intense discussion and argument are necessary. It is when this tradition is veered from that consensus becomes the norm.
Excellent!
Back in the day when the CSIRO and much of the university system was in good shape you could respect a consensus opinion if indeed it emerged from sustained critical investigation.
That respect for consensus has survived long after it is safe to trust the consensus in the modern CSIRO and education system..
Worth mentioning Jerome Ravetz’s damning critique of the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (CRU) posted at WUWT on February 9, 2010: “We can understand the root cause of Climategate as a case of scientists constrained to attempt to do normal science in a post-normal situation. But climate change had never been a really ‘normal’ science, because the policy implications were always present and strong, even overwhelming. Indeed, if we look at the definition of ‘post-normal science’, we see how well it fits: facts uncertain, values in dispute, stakes high, and decisions urgent. In needing to treat Planet Earth like a textbook exercise, the climate scientists were forced to break the rules of scientific etiquette and ethics, and to play scientific power-politics in a way that inevitably became corrupt. The combination of non-critical ‘normal science’ with anti-critical ‘evangelical science’ was lethal.”
Good piece Rafe.
The scientists who started pushing the fantastic theory of Dangerous Anthropogenic Global Warming and all it’s accompanying “data” in forms like circulation models etc. reminds me a bit of “The Father Of History” Herodotus, and his noting in his great book “The Histories” how the ancient Persians went about deciding on an important decision ; it was done in two stages, first they discussed it when they were drunk, and the following day the master of the house where the discussion was held would submit their decision for reconsideration when they were sober. If they still approved it, it was adopted, if not it was abandoned.
In my mind the whole ridiculous DAGW theory, particularly the connection with carbon dioxide, must have got off and running based on a similar decision making method, except they either forgot the second stage or else should have given it at least two days.
Chattle1
I agree with andoshakey. What do you know about Jewish tradition Chattle? Peter C Arnold is spot on in his comment.