How much poorer off we’d all be w/o Willis to speak for the people.
Comment on On the social contract between science and society by Joshua
↧
↧
Comment on On the social contract between science and society by Willard
> I guess one should never question authority…
That’s not a valid way to counter the basic observation that there are norms to regulate civilized behavior, DavidE.
Look up for “caricature” in the critical thinking book you suggest to your students. Don’t forget to get its authors right, or else your students might start to question not your authority, but your competence as a teacher.
↧
Comment on On the social contract between science and society by AK
I always had these kids in my class who wore T-shirts that said “Question Authority”
Kids don’t need to be told that (post adolescence, anyway), their hormones make them do it automatically.
1. How do respond to stop signs and red lights when you drive?
“Question” doesn’t automatically mean “reject”. What if the light’s broken?
↧
Comment on On the social contract between science and society by bedeverethewise
Who are you voting for? Who is denying reality the most? Hansen? Gore? Mann? Other suggestions?
↧
Comment on On the social contract between science and society by aaron
That’s happened to me a couple of times too.
↧
↧
Comment on On the social contract between science and society by David L. Hagen
<b>House votes guidelines for EPA Science Advisory Board</b>
Congratulations are due Judith Curry. Her public testimony before Congress on "uncertainty" is bearing formal legislative fruit. The House just acted to improve the objectivity of science, requiring public nominations to the EPA's Board, and explicitly requiring that the Board "(2)<b>communicate uncertainties</b>". Skeptics being hassled over alleged <a href="http://judithcurry.com/2015/02/25/conflicts-of-interest-in-climate-science/" / rel="nofollow">Conflicts of Interest </a>financing has resulted in ALL Board nominees being required to declare funding - including EPA grants!
See: <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/1029?q={%22search%22%3A[%22H.R.+1029%22]}" rel="nofollow">EPA
Science Advisory Board Reform Act of 2015</a>
<blockquote>This bill amends the Environmental Research, Development,
and Demonstration Authorization Act of 1978 to revise the process of
selecting members of the Science Advisory Board, guidelines for
participation in Board advisory activities, and terms of office. The
Board provides scientific advice to the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA). This bill <b>requires the Board to independently provide that
advice. </b>Federally registered lobbyists may not be appointed to the
Board.
The EPA <b>must provide draft risk or hazard assessments </b>in its
regulatory proposals and documents to the Board. The Board's advice and
comments must be included in the record regarding any such proposal and
published in the Federal Register.
The Board's member committees and investigative panels must operate in
accordance with the membership, participation, and policy requirements
contained in this Act, including <b>new requirements for public
participation </b>in advisory activities of the Board. The member
committees and investigative panels do not have the authority to make
decisions on behalf of the Board and may not report directly to the EPA.
The Board <b>must:</b> (1) strive to <b>avoid making policy
</b>determinations or recommendations, (2) <b>communicate
uncertainties</b>, (3) <b>encourage dissenting</b> members to make their
<b>views </b>known, (4) conduct <b>periodic reviews</b> to ensure that
its activities address the <b>most important scientific issues
</b>affecting the EPA, and (5) <b>respond to Congress</b> fully and in a
timely manner.
This Act may not be construed as supplanting the requirements of the
Federal Advisory Committee Act or the Ethics in Government Act of
1978.</blockquote>
<a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/1029/text?q={%22search%22%3A[%22H.R.+1029%22]}" rel="nofollow">Full
Text HR1029</a>
Extracts:
<blockquote> The Administrator shall--
``(A) solicit public nominations for the Board by
publishing a notification in the Federal Register; . . .
``(C) make public the list of nominees, including the
identity of the entities that nominated each, and shall accept
public comment on the nominees;
``(D) require that, upon their provisional nomination,
nominees shall file a written report disclosing <b>financial
relationships and interests, including Environmental Protection
Agency grants, </b>contracts, cooperative agreements, or other
financial assistance, that are relevant to the Board's advisory
activities for the three-year period prior to the date of their
nomination, and relevant professional activities and<b> public
statements </b>for the five-year period prior to the date of their
nomination; and
``(E) make such reports public, with the exception of
specific dollar amounts, for each member of the Board upon such
member's selection. . . .
``(2) The Board <b>shall clearly communicate uncertainties associated
with the scientific advice </b>provided to the Administrator or Congress.
``(3) The Board shall ensure that advice and comments reflect the
views of the members and <b>shall encourage dissenting members to make
their views known </b>to the public, the Administrator, and Congress.
</blockquote>
<b>ACT: US readers please <a href="https://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm" rel="nofollow">CALL and WRITE your Senators </a>to Co-Sponsor or endorse a Senate bill corresponding to HR1029</b> for an objective EPA Science Advisory Board.
↧
Comment on On the social contract between science and society by RiHo08
“….many scientists have responded by resorting to advocacy. Worse, we’ve too often dumbed down our lobbying until it’s little more than simplistic, orchestrated, self-serving pleas for increased research funding, accompanied at times by the merest smidgen of supporting argument.”
I am sorry Dr. Curry: the cat is out of the bag; the milk is spilt; etc etc etc. Science, as you have remarked, is a process and a striking number of the people doing this process, at least for the climate area, have been behaving badly. The politicization of science and in this case climate science has already been identified back when Ike was leaving office. Obama continues the righteous drumbeat.
What has happened further, is that isolated incidents of bad behavior in other sciences, medicine, and the so called soft sciences have been merged in the public’s collective mindset with the advocacy and visibly bad behavior of climate scientists. Truth telling, i.e., the rewriting of nutritional standards, at least as regards to cholesterol consumption, has further distant applicable science with the public. The public has become “tuned out” to the “messages of science” and are relying upon their own observations and experiences. I have learned all this while getting my hair cut.
What all this has to do with funding it seems to me, is there will be less. The pot of gold at the end of Finnian’s rainbow will be a bit lighter, held to be more dear by academic institutions that depend upon such government research funding to keep the light’s on and the students churning through, and there will be fewer research scientists who will do with less so that they have to do more of the research themselves, and, have less time for talk-show hosts’ questions.
What is a bit interesting as well, will be the role of China and their developing research establishment as they allocate funding to projects for basic as well as applied science needs. Russia, at one time an aspiring research power fell silent with the top down Communist meddling. Obama, unfortunately has taken a page from the Russian playbook and not Chinese and has set the declining course of American science with his progressive agenda. Too bad.
The only socially redeeming factor that I can see for the resurrection of science, is the mandatory retirement age. Retirement will move more science capable people scurrying around for something to do, and these retirees will have the time and inclination to critique not only their career work, but of science in general. With age comes frailty true, yet there are still some who retain the quickness to go along with experience to yet make a meaningful contribution and altering the course of American science history.
We can hope.
↧
Comment on On the social contract between science and society by Steven Mosher
nice.
I was going to go back and discuss hegel on the master/slave
and perhaps lacan on four types of discourse and then I found the Brandom youtube.
Looks like I missed something after Rorty. I’ll read more and comment less.
↧
Comment on On the social contract between science and society by Steven Mosher
ha.. I missed that comment of yours willard.
↧
↧
Comment on On the social contract between science and society by Joshua
An interesting notion:
To begin with…
…although well-meaning and with much to offer, too often gives the impression that we care primarily about more funding for our research.
But what is left unsaid is how [they] “give[s] the impression.”
How does one judge “their” motives, or what “they” primarily care about? By fact- and evidence-based reasoning? By viewing what they do through an ideological filter?
How does one avoid giving such an impression to those who are inclined and predisposed to being given such an impression?
What’s always interesting to me is how smart and knowledgeable scientists can take possibilities that are trivially true (in this case that what “they” care primarily about can be deemed by others to be more funding for research) and fail to subject those trivially true realities to scientific analysis.
In fact, what we know is that in general, scientists are trusted by the public.
We also know that trust in scientists is filtered through ideological lenses – particularly true within politically polarized contexts.
We know that the ideology of some people predisposes them to state distrust of any type of government funding (even if that distrust does not necessarily disincline the from enjoying the fruits of government funding).
The basic points of Bill’s thesis are meaningful, and I believe, interesting and important. What is a shame is that he takes such an unscientific approach to examining those points (and that instead of furthering a scientific discussion of those points, climate change combatants will polemicize the meaningful issues underlying this essay).
↧
Comment on On the social contract between science and society by davideisenstadt
willard:
what paulsen didn’t coauthor the book?
and since when is it proper to infer from the Statement “question authority” anymore than that?
Didn’t they have a whole bunch of trials at nuremberg to establish that concept?
like reasonable people drive on the wrong side of the road, because they “question authority”?
yours is the post of an asshat.
Note: Im referring to you post, not you.
↧
Comment on On the social contract between science and society by Steven Mosher
AK
there were two questions
2. What would you do if there was no authority to define your behavior?
again it seems odd to tell people that the only way they can think for themselves is to say ‘no’ to the other or question the other.
question all orders except the order to question all orders.
↧
Comment on On the social contract between science and society by davideisenstadt
its fun tor read you and mosh enjoy a mutual reach around.
↧
↧
Comment on On the social contract between science and society by Joshua
So – to be a bit more specific:
Stresses over the past decade or so have frayed the fabric of the social contract between scientists and society.
Hmmm.
I would expect a careful scientist to back such a statement with empirical evidence. This statement describes a change over time. By what metric has Bill quantified this change? How has he subjected his measures to careful scrutiny, to identify the important variables, to control for causality, for mediating or moderating variables? Where are the pre- and post-tests?
In fact, there is some substantive research that shows the fabric of the social contract between scientists and society has not frayed over time. Perhaps that evidence is wrong. But why would Bill be making this argument, and founding further conjecture on this argument, without presenting his data?
↧
Comment on On the social contract between science and society by Steven Mosher
““Question” doesn’t automatically mean “reject”. What if the light’s broken?”
my question was
1. How do respond to stop signs and red lights when you drive?
do you question the stop sign and wait for an answer?
do you wonder of the light is broken?
of course kids tried the arguments you are trying. None worked.
At the bottom was the insight that one can’t live if all you do is question.
At the bottom is the recognition that every day we accept ‘authority” without question. We accept the authority of laws, accept the authority of our past experience, accept the authority of people who tell us to question authority.
So comes the question, when is it ok to question. Are all questions acceptable? do I always have a right to question?
Now typically we let academics get away with questioning everything because they have no power and they need some compensation for their pitiful existence.
↧
Comment on On the social contract between science and society by Ron Clutz
I have long thought the Hartwell Paper was insightful on this point.
“Climate change was brought to the attention of policy-makers by scientists. From the outset, these scientists also brought their preferred solutions to the table in US Congressional hearings and other policy forums, all bundled. The proposition that ‘science’ somehow dictated particular policy responses, encouraged –indeed instructed – those who found those particular strategies unattractive to argue about the science.
So, a distinctive characteristic of the climate change debate has been of scientists claiming with the authority of their position that their results dictated particular policies; of policy makers claiming that their preferred choices were dictated by science, and both acting as if ‘science’ and ‘policy’ were simply and rigidly linked as if it were a matter of escaping from the path of an oncoming tornado.
In the case of climate modelling, which has been prominent in the public debate, the many and varied ‘projective’ scenarios (that is, explorations of plausible futures using computer models conditioned on a large number of assumptions and simplifications) are sufficient to undergird just about any view of the future that one prefers. But the ‘projective’ models they produce have frequently been conflated implicitly and sometimes wilfully with what politicians really want, namely ‘predictive’ scenarios: that is, precise forecasts of the future.”
Page 18, the Hartwell Paper, 2010
↧
Comment on On the social contract between science and society by Joshua
To be more specific:
How have we faced these new stresses? Unfortunately, many scientists have responded by resorting to advocacy. Worse, we’ve too often dumbed down our lobbying until it’s little more than simplistic, orchestrated,…/blockquote>
How has Bill determined that these stresses are “new?” To what extent are the new?
Has there been some measurable increase in “advocacy?” How has that been identified?
Has there been some measurable increase in “dumb[ing down]” lobbying? How has that been identified?
But here we get to something interesting…
…self-serving pleas for increased research funding,
So here we see, perhaps, why Bill has decided that scientists are giving impressions as opposed to being judged by those who are inclined towards reaching certain impressions. But still there’s a problem. By what measure is “pleas” for increased funding determined to be “self-serving.” How does one, for example, determine how much of a “plea” for funding of research into pediatric cancer “self-serving?” By what measure does increasingly higher bars on research funding explain those “pleas” as opposed to self-interest?
And please note, the connotation of “pleas” for funding. Why doesn’t Bill call them funding proposals, or funding applications?
…accompanied at times by the merest smidgen of supporting argument.
Hmmm. “At times.” Well, that is qualified, at least. Qualification is good. But it isn’t particularly well qualified. How should we judge a phenomenon that happens “at times?” Is it a lot of “at times.” A little? A high percentage? A low percentage? And how is the magnitude of “supporting argument” being measured? Should we just go with Bill’s determination of what = a “smidgen?”
↧
↧
Comment on On the social contract between science and society by Stan Brown (@stanbrown56)
Part of the social contract is that the work is quality work. At present, we have no way to know if the work is quality. No one ever checks.
Science is failing because science, as an institution, has no quality control process. Ridiculous crap like the hockey stick and the polar bear study continue to be cited to the public long after they were finally exposed (and only exposed because of the work of amateurs). A science establishment that routinely produces incompetent crap and has no interest in cleaning up is one that has broken the social contract.
↧
Comment on On the social contract between science and society by bedeverethewise
Sorry, i didn’t realize the game was rigged. I’m starting to think this is nothing but a cheap political propaganda stunt
↧
Comment on On the social contract between science and society by Joshua
With formatting (hopefully) fixed, if not the poor logic…
To be more specific:
How have we faced these new stresses? Unfortunately, many scientists have responded by resorting to advocacy. Worse, we’ve too often dumbed down our lobbying until it’s little more than simplistic, orchestrated,…
How has Bill determined that these stresses are “new?” To what extent are they new?
Has there been some measurable increase in “advocacy?” How has that been identified?
Has there been some measurable increase in “dumb[ing down]” lobbying? How has that been identified?
But here we get to something interesting…
…self-serving pleas for increased research funding,
So here we see, perhaps, why Bill has decided that scientists are giving impressions as opposed to being judged by those who are inclined towards reaching certain impressions. But still there’s a problem. By what measure is “pleas” for increased funding determined to be “self-serving.” How does one, for example, determine how much of a “plea” for funding of research into pediatric cancer “self-serving?” By what measure does increasingly higher bars on research funding explain those “pleas” as opposed to self-interest?
And please note, the connotation of “pleas” for funding. Why doesn’t Bill call them funding proposals, or funding applications?
…accompanied at times by the merest smidgen of supporting argument.
Hmmm. “At times.” Well, that is qualified, at least. Qualification is good. But it isn’t particularly well qualified. How should we judge a phenomenon that happens “at times?” Is it a lot of “at times.” A little? A high percentage? A low percentage? And how is the magnitude of “supporting argument” being measured? Should we just go with Bill’s determination of what = a “smidgen?”
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
