Scientific Heresy

[Skybird]

I am stressing the need for scientific methodology and rationality quite often, don't I. However, I made it clear repeatedly that I have tight and strict criterions for what qualifies as science and scientific work, and what not, and in this context have criticised my own former branch, psychology, repeatedly in various contexts. I also referred to Karl Popper's criticism of socalled pseudo-science, although I am aware that his thoughts on the issue are not without opposition in public debate.

Last year, a guy named Matt Ridley, whom I never heared of but who seems to be a high-profiled science publicists in Britain, held the 2011 Angus Millar Lecture at the the Royal Society of Arts in Edinburgh, entitled "Scientific Heresy". I found this to be a thankful reading when I found the German translation earlier today, and a needed and useful warning to cold-blooded rationalists like myself that even the claimed scientific categories and methods need to be counter-tested and re-checked time and again, to reduce the risk of pseudo-science taking over truly scientific ground.

On the more specific issue of global warming that he also touches upon, I currently do not comment, since even when we had several indices in the past five years or so that the worst case scenarios we concluded on maybe do not adequately reflect future trends, these indices are just hints currently and it is too early to u-turn on my former basic opinion on global warming. I just take a very close and serious note of his comments on how the climate of fear being created benefits certain profiteers, since this is something i have already noted myself, too, since long before I read this lecture. Reason for that state of alarm on my side is certain innerpolitical issues here in Germany, where obviously lobbyistic policies have made policy-makers to try implementing costly policies that serve certain business branches but are badly founded in argument and cost the general public and house owners plenty of money that gets transferred to said business players.

However, a very good and intelligent lecture that I really recommend to read. An audio-stream to listen too instead of reading it can be found here.

http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2011...ic-heresy.html

[Sailor Steve]

Fascinating. I enjoyed reading the "article" version, so I listened to part of the actual recording and then looked at the PDF so I could see the pictures and graphs.

Unfortunately I can predict that putting that up here is going to lead to some odd replies. 'Believers' are going to come up with reasons why the lecture itself is flawed, and 'Deniers' are going to say "See? I told you so", and both will be right and both will be wrong, and both will be just like religious arguers who already know that they're right and the others are stupid. There will also be the rest of us, who have some opinion or none, but recognize that we don't really know for sure and could be wrong. I speak both in the macro - science doesn't know for sure, which is one of the points of the lecture - and the micro - if they don't know for sure then I certainly don't. But the True Believers on both sides will shout down the other side, and be convinced that their belief is indeed the true one.

Me? I just find his arguments interesting. I especially liked his observation about his own ancester being a true heretic, and paying for it. Not 'liked' in the sense that I enjoyed the thought of a man suffering that way, but in the sense that he saw a certain poetic imagery in the comparison.

Only small issues with just two of his examples
Droughts floods & storms/fatality rates..... in the 1920s there wasn't good forcasting, communications, infrastructure, services or emergency aid programs.
Malaria/decline.....drainage.
Such massive non climate related changes make their inclusion as measures questionable

I do like the reference to pseudoscience of futurology, something the "rationalist" OP practices

[Gorduz]

There is an interesting book called "The great betrayal" by Horace Freeland Judson which touches the topic on freud in science. It takes up some serious issues with peer-review and the way science funding works today. As a scientist by profession I'm glad to see that these debates come up.