The politics of "scientific consensus"

[Pangloss]

Interesting blog post by George Musser at Scientific American:

 

"Please stop talking about the global warming consensus"

 

In a nutshell, he suggests that talking about a consensus makes sense from a scientific perspective, but may be rubbing laypeople the wrong way.

 

So the invocations of consensus are seen, by scientists, as expressions of humility. Yet the general public sees them as expressions of arrogance. To the man in the street, all the talk about scientific consensus sounds like: "Trust us, folks. Don't worry your pretty little heads about it. Just think what we tell you to think."

 

Given the current political climate of the country, as well as the deep-seatedness of christian conservatism, I think perhaps he has a point. We should always do our best to educate positively rather than negatively, and encourage people towards the truth.

[Mokele]

I agree that it probably does rub people the wrong way, but the only way to educate positively would be to force everyone back to school, then massively overhaul it so that a US high school diploma is worth more than used toilet paper.

 

The ugly fact of the matter is that you cannot teach everyone everything they need to know on this without several years of college courses and intense studying. It's the same in other fields. I take other people's word about this 'dark matter' stuff or nanotechnology or computer chip design, because there's no way in hell they can give me enough of a grounding in it where there's not some element of just accepting what the experts say. Similarly, people take my word about snakes or about animal locomotion, for precisely the same reason.

 

Yes, in an ideal world we could just explain things to everyone. But in the real world, people don't have time for the sort of extensive study that's required to *really* understand the reasoning. It would also be nice if the public could get over this rampant anti-intellectualism and realize that we call people experts for a reason, but it won't happen.

 

Granted, I do have a way to solve it all, but my fiancee has firmly forbidden me from carrying out any plan that results in a global human population of less than 1 million.

 

Mokele

[Sisyphus]

god help you if you walk into a pub and act full of yourself, as many climate scientists do

 

Now THAT's a stereotype I haven't heard before.

 

Seriously, though: there IS a consensus, even if the average armchair pseudoscientist doesn't know what "consensus" means. It shouldn't be a secret, because it's true and it's highly relevant to major decisions we have to make as a society. It would, of course, be better if people understood what that actually meant, and WHY it's a consensus, but realistically, I'd rather see ignorant faith on the grounds that "science works" and it's the best information we have than ignorant skepticism on the grounds that "they used to think the world was flat!!!1!!1!111".

[Pangloss]

Interesting points.

 

It kinda raises the question of what a typical reporter is thinking in his or her head when they use the term "scientific concensus". Are they reporting the interesting fact that scientists more or less agree on the subject and are persuing hypotheses under that aegis? Seems likely not.

[Phi for All]

We should always do our best to educate positively rather than negatively, and encourage people towards the truth.

I don't like the idea of scientific consensus being considered negative education. And I think encouraging people towards "the truth" is the real culprit here. Nobody (especially deep-seated conservative Christians) likes to hear "truths" that are at odds with what they believe. And I think the only positive way to educate people scientifically (outside of Mokele's total re-education or total annihilation programs) is to lay out the facts, show what conclusions experts draw from those facts, and then *ask* people to decide for themselves. Let them know you're trusting their judgment and you remove the idea that we know the truth and they don't.

 

People are funny. If there is only one palatable dish on the buffet and nine different kinds of crap, they still resent being force-fed the good stuff. Many will choke down the crap on principle.

[D H]

Interesting read. I got to thinking about this a few days ago when I tuned in good ol' Rush Limbaugh (I do so once or twice a week; the urge to listen dies quickly as he often comes up with gems like "if I evolved from a money then why are there still monkeys?" BTW, Rush has done more to persuade me that anthropogenic global warming is a *fact* than anyone in the global warming crowd.) Anyhow, he went on a rant about science not being ruled by consensus.

 

In a sense, science is ruled by consensus. It is usually hard to get contrary views published because the consensus is in turn ruled by fact. It is only when the scientific consensus is "our science is really f*ed up" (e.g., physics at the turn of the 20th century) that radical notions can take hold quickly. As the article mentions, this is not the case with regard to global warming. The meteorological consensus is that "our science is very clear".

 

Two final thoughts on global warming:

 

First, there is another term that the global warming crowd uses that is much worse than "consensus", and that phrase is global warming denier. The use of this phrase is extremely stupid; it is guaranteed to turn people off. If you want to convince people of the truth of global warming, stop using that phrase.

 

Second, just as non-meteorologists are largely ignorant of the science behind anthropogenic global warming, meteorologists are largely ignorant of the economic impact of their desires. The economic consensus is that adopting some of the harsher measures (e.g., Kyoto) will wreak extreme economic havoc. There is no way the US will make an extreme economic sacrifice without an extremely compelling reason. Polar bears don't cut it.

[Pangloss]

I don't like the idea of scientific consensus being considered negative education.

 

I don't either. But it's a bit obvious that the scientific and engineering community is less than optimal at shaping public opinion in the modern world. The predominence of people who are good at shaping public opinion aren't interested in shaping it towards the truth.

 

We're simply out of our league.

[Mokele]

We're simply out of our league.

 

The problem is that it's not what we do. There are people who are professionals at shaping public opinion, who spend a long, long time learning how to do it, while scientists are lucky if they're able to squeeze in a few interviews and soundbites between research, teaching, and paperwork.

 

What we need is basically a PR firm for scientists, but that run afoul of getting money, since there's no way in hell the government would ever foot the bill for something like that.

 

Mokele

[Phi for All]

There are people who are professionals at shaping public opinion, who spend a long, long time learning how to do it, while scientists are lucky if they're able to squeeze in a few interviews and soundbites between research, teaching, and paperwork.

If scientists *had* sound bytes the public would probably have a better opinion. Unfortunately they usually need to explain a lot more than their detractors and the public switches off when it goes beyond their technical threshold.

[Gypsy Cake]

I realise there is apparently a "scientific consensus" on global warming but there is some contrary opinion. I watched a programme on channel 4 (UK) that showed how a lot of evidence used to account for global is misinterpretted. An example would be that increase in CO2 does not lead a temperature increase but in fact the other way round. The programme claimed that as the Earth heats up CO2 (which had been absorped by the oceans) is released; this was backed up by graphs.

There were many examples of this and some interesting stuff on solar spots. It was of course very biased and therefore, as a non-expert, very hard to disagree with. Though I did spot some flaws.

 

Did anyone else see this or know that it was produced by a load of crack-pots? And if not, then should we be suggesting there is scientific consensus?

[the tree]

Did anyone else see this or know that it was produced by a load of crack-pots?

Channel 4 have already faced inquiry and made to apologise for airing stuff by the same guys, I can't remember if they got any official wrist slapping for this one, but yes, crackpots.

[Gypsy Cake]

Oh that's disappointing. I thought perhaps it was unlikely that the sudden increase in global temperature and human greenhouse emissions were just coincidence.

 

PS. I've started using the Google spell checker as suggested.

[geoguy]

A couple years ago at the Geologic Survey of Canada we had one of those questionaires on global warming come around. Asking our opinion..etc. As one older doctor emeritus said: "%@!$ if I know". What did it matter what any of us thought? None of us were climatologists and hadn't studied anything about carbon based molecules since chemistry in first year university. No friggin idea how any of these carbon gases impact anything withouht knowing 100 other variables. If I want to know what the weather is like I stick my head out the window.

 

Then some report comes out 'x' number of scientists agree that...blah...blah. Who cares what they think any more than the waitress in the cafeteria thinks? Any consensus agreed upon by anyone outside of the immediate discipline is meaningless. There may be a consensus of scientists but there might also be one of waitresses that has as much value. Science is about hypotheses, evidence and so on and not a popularity poll among scientists or anyone else.

 

I don't have much of a basis to make a judgement on man's impact on global warming. I do know, however, that much of the so-called science on both sides in the debate would get an 'F' on a test. A lot of the debate takes on the absolutism of religious zeal.

[Sisyphus]

The consensus in question IS among those in the immediate discipline. Obviously.

[geoguy]

The consensus in question IS among those in the immediate discipline. Obviously.

 

Why obviously?... and what consensus on what variables?