Science Turns Authoritarian


Recommended Posts

Green%207.26.10.gif

Science is losing its credibility because it has adopted an authoritarian tone, and has let itself be co-opted by politics.

In the past, scientists were generally neutral on questions of what to do. Instead, they just told people what they found, such as ?we have discovered that smoking vastly increases your risk of lung cancer? or ?we have discovered that some people will have adverse health effects from consuming high levels of salt.? Or ?we have found that obesity increases your risk of coronary heart disease.? Those were simply neutral observations that people could find empowering, useful, interesting, etc., but did not place demands on them. In fact, this kind of objectivity was the entire basis for trusting scientific claims.

But along the way, an assortment of publicity-seeking, and often socially activist, scientists stopped saying, ?Here are our findings. Read it and believe.? Instead, activist scientists such as NASA?s James Hansen, heads of quasi-scientific governmental organizations such as the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, editors of major scientific journals, and heads of the various national scientific academies are more inclined to say, ?Here are our findings, and those findings say that you must change your life in this way, that way, or the other way.?

So, objective statements about smoking risk morphed into statements like ?science tells us we must end the use of tobacco products.? A finding of elevated risk of stroke from excess salt ingestion leads to: ?The science tells us we must cut salt consumption in half by 2030.? Findings that obesity carries health risks lead to a ?war on obesity.? And yes, a finding that we may be causing the climate to change morphed into ?the science says we must radically restructure our economy and way of life to cut greenhouse gas emissions radically by 2050.?

<snip>

If science wants to redeem itself and regain its place with the public?s affection, scientists need to come out every time some politician says, ?The science says we must?? and reply, ?Science only tells us what is. It does not, and can never tell us what we should or must do.? If they say that often enough, and loudly enough, they might be able to reclaim the mantle of objectivity that they?ve given up over the last 40 years by letting themselves become the regulatory state?s ultimate appeal to authority. Hey, you know, perhaps Biba has something there?maybe science does need better PR!

http://www.american.com/archive/2010/july/science-turns-authoritarian

Link to comment
Share on other sites

TrueMonolith, that was just about to be my point. Any time a publication comes out, it is always the reqording by a journalist in the media that get's printed. Personally, I think the fear mongering among the media today is what has lead to a rise in the "Scientists say we must..." style stories. So often the paper comes out and says "We have found a link between <x> that can cause <y>", which then gets turned into "Scientists say we shouldn't do <x>!" by some tabloid reporter, which isn't what it usually says. It is often the case that the intricate nature of these findings are not truly reported in the media.

Just my 2 pennies anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

TrueMonolith, that was just about to be my point. Any time a publication comes out, it is always the reqording by a journalist in the media that get's printed. Personally, I think the fear mongering among the media today is what has lead to a rise in the "Scientists say we must..." style stories. So often the paper comes out and says "We have found a link between <x> that can cause <y>", which then gets turned into "Scientists say we shouldn't do <x>!" by some tabloid reporter, which isn't what it usually says. It is often the case that the intricate nature of these findings are not truly reported in the media.

Just my 2 pennies anyway.

My favorite are the ones where the media gets in panic mode when somebody releases a study showing that your 0.0000000000000001% chance of something happening goes to 0.00000000000001% if you do something else. IT JUST INCREASED BY 100 TIMES! OH MY GOD, BUILD A PADDED BUNKER!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

TrueMonolith, that was just about to be my point. Any time a publication comes out, it is always the reqording by a journalist in the media that get's printed. Personally, I think the fear mongering among the media today is what has lead to a rise in the "Scientists say we must..." style stories. So often the paper comes out and says "We have found a link between <x> that can cause <y>", which then gets turned into "Scientists say we shouldn't do <x>!" by some tabloid reporter, which isn't what it usually says. It is often the case that the intricate nature of these findings are not truly reported in the media.

Just my 2 pennies anyway.

Hrmmm:

JH: We need to distinguish tipping level and the point of no return, as explained in our new ?Target CO2? paper. The tipping level is the level of greenhouse gases that will lead to large, undesirable, even disastrous, effects. We have reached the tipping level for several important effects. That is why we must go back in CO2 amounts at least to 350 ppm and possibly lower.

http://www.worldwatch.org/node/5775

Obesity must be ranked among the most intractable of our health problems

?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC123098/pdf/pq1402009096.pdf

Just do a google on MUST and 'name a field of science' and you'll find plenty of them

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Science is not authoritarian.

People that use science to their benefits (like politicians, etc.) try to turn it that way.

Last time I checked, to get your article published in a journal, you only needed to talk about the findings and the future work, not what is best for humanity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Science is not authoritarian.

People that use science to their benefits (like politicians, etc.) try to turn it that way.

Last time I checked, to get your article published in a journal, you only needed to talk about the findings and the future work, not what is best for humanity.

One needs to read an article in order to respond to it in a coherent way. From this post it's obvious you didn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But along the way, an assortment of publicity-seeking, and often socially activist, scientists stopped saying, ?Here are our findings. Read it and believe.? Instead, activist scientists such as NASA?s James Hansen, heads of quasi-scientific governmental organizations such as the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, editors of major scientific journals, and heads of the various national scientific academies are more inclined to say, ?Here are our findings, and those findings say that you must change your life in this way, that way, or the other way.?

http://www.american.com/archive/2010/july/science-turns-authoritarian

This is called Scientism. And indeed it is an escalating issue. It seems to me, that a lot of the people who resort to this ideology, like Richard Dawkins, do so because of their "falling from grace" out of a religious denomination, and if anything is consistent about human behavior, it's that we give up one evil for another.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One needs to read an article in order to respond to it in a coherent way. From this post it's obvious you didn't.

One needs to study a science to understand how its done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hrmmm:

JH: We need to distinguish tipping level and the point of no return, as explained in our new ?Target CO2? paper. The tipping level is the level of greenhouse gases that will lead to large, undesirable, even disastrous, effects. We have reached the tipping level for several important effects. That is why we must go back in CO2 amounts at least to 350 ppm and possibly lower.

http://www.worldwatch.org/node/5775

Obesity must be ranked among the most intractable of our health problems

?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC123098/pdf/pq1402009096.pdf

Just do a google on MUST and 'name a field of science' and you'll find plenty of them

I would just like to point out that your first citation is an interview with a scientist. Scientists are human and during interviews can interject subjective opinions. I opened your second citation, and while I didn't have time to read it as of yet, I did do a search for "must" and not one match was found so I'm not sure why you included it.

The problem here is that people get their "science" information from magazines. Magazines rarely (if ever) have articles from actual scientists with real experimental/research data. This is why I don't read magazines. Journalists have a knack for reporting on scientific experiments/research and adding their own opinions or adding subjective opinions of the scientists for the purpose of sensationalizing their articles. I have several subscriptions to scientific journals with peer-reviewed research and experiment date. Peer-reviewed research and experiment data do not have these authoritative commentary as this data should only include a pre-experimental hypothesis, experimental preparation and procedure information, conclusive data, and a conclusion containing objective commentary.

When scientists are interviewed, subjective views and opinions will be exhibited as it is the appropriate time for a scientist to express his/her subjective bias. It is within a peer-reviewed scientific publication that one will find objective information without any form of subjective commentary. I find there is nothing wrong with scientists expressing their opinions as long as it is not in their scientific publications.

This is called Scientism. And indeed it is an escalating issue. It seems to me, that a lot of the people who resort to this ideology, like Richard Dawkins, do so because of their "falling from grace" out of a religious denomination, and if anything is consistent about human behavior, it's that we give up one evil for another.

I've read six or seven of Richard Dawkins' books and I have no idea why you would think that he takes an authoritative stance on science. Richard Dawkins is a very intelligent man that has written a large selection of books that are extremely educational. Dawkins references many experiments and research done by other scientists with citations so that the reader may follow up and confirm the results for themselves. Not once, in any of his books, have I come across a section where Dawkins requires the reader to take his word for it. All of his literary works have proof to back them up and Dawkins willfully admits when information is pure conjecture or the research isn't complete to one-hundred percent verify a claim. The God Delusion is the only book where he uses subjective opinion and Dawkins lets the reader know that it is his opinion. A great deal of that book argues a position opposing that of religion. A majority of his arguments are based on logic and facts that are readily available to him. Dawkins does exhibit arrogance in The God Delusion. When I first began reading it, I felt his arrogance to be somewhat overwhelming until he explained his position. Dawkins explained his frustration with the fact that he spends more time arguing whether the Theory of Evolution is real then actually teaching and educating people on the Theory of Evolution. Dawkins asked the reader to pretend to be a history teacher that taught a class on the Roman Empire. While teaching this class on the Roman Empire, several people (who no little to nothing about the Roman Empire) enter the classroom and start screaming that the Roman Empire never existed. Even though these people exhibit a great ignorance for the Roman Empire and its history, people start listening to what these people have to say and start questioning the Roman Empire's existence as well. There isn't a problem with questioning something, however, questioning something and ignoring all the evidence put forth in front of you is something different. Dawkins also points out that the Theory of Evolution is the only scientific theory that is allowed to be scrutinized by people with little to no education on the actual subject and still be taken seriously. Imagine if someone with nothing more than a high school diploma walked into a physics conference and simply said "Quantum physics isn't real." People would probably have a quick chuckle and then return to discussing science like nothing ever happened. The remainder of his literary works are filled with supported evidence and at no point does he ever ask the reader to just trust his word.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would just like to point out that your first citation is an interview with a scientist. Scientists are human and during interviews can interject subjective opinions. I opened your second citation, and while I didn't have time to read it as of yet, I did do a search for "must" and not one match was found so I'm not sure why you included it.

Glad you noticed it was a scientist, because that's the OP. Scientist saying we MUST do this or that. Authoritarian.

The very first line of the second link i even put in my post: Obesity MUST be ranked among the most intractable of our health problems

I fail to see how you could miss that.

The OP is not where people get their information, but if scientists have become authoritarian. Which they did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Glad you noticed it was a scientist, because that's the OP. Scientist saying we MUST do this or that. Authoritarian.

It's not authoritarian; it's a subjective opinion being expressed by a human being who happens to be a scientist. It's only authoritarian if they are expressing those views within the scientific research itself or if these scientists are actually in a position to force society to their will. I agree that authoritative language shouldn't be in published scientific research. However, scientists expressing a subjective opinion through commentary or during interviews is appropriate. Again, it's not authoritarian; it's expressed opinion. Politicians use this language all the time.

The very first line of the second link i even put in my post: Obesity MUST be ranked among the most intractable of our health problems

I fail to see how you could miss that.

As I said, I didn't actually read the article. I used the search function and typed in "must" and for some reason it showed "0 results". I went back and performed that same search and it found it.

The OP is not where people get their information, but if scientists have become authoritarian. Which they did.

The OP may not be about where people get their information but it is still relevant to the discussion. If people are getting their information from a magazine in which articles are written by journalists who are using the authoritative language, that shows that there is a misconception about who it is that is using the authoritative language. Are scientists using the language in their published research? Not that I've seen. Is that published research being expressed in a magazine that has subjective commentary added to the information and results by a journalist that has nothing to do with the original scientific research? Well, I can honestly say that I've seen that more than I can recall. So yes, where people get their information is pertinent to this discussion as it confuses people as to who is actually using the authoritative language.

At the risk of repeating myself, I'm going to (again) voice my opinion and say that I feel it is perfectly acceptable for a scientist to express a subjective opinion using authoritative language in interview and non-formal commentary/inquiries.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At the risk of repeating myself, I'm going to (again) voice my opinion and say that I feel it is perfectly acceptable for a scientist to express a subjective opinion using authoritative language in interview and non-formal commentary/inquiries.

We'll agree to disagree. Scientists can voice their opinions the same like anyone else, but when one appeals to one's position as scientist one can't use authoritarian words such as must. This is sort of abuse of power, you give your opinion weight by using your position as scientist above and beyond mere opinion. It becomes factual.

If the plumber says 'we must conserve energy' that's an opinion.

If a scientist says from his position as scientist 'we must conserve energy' it's not an opinion but a statement of fact based on his/her (presumed) knowledge. Since there are as many scientists as there are theories to explain something, being a scientist and having knowledge doesn't make your insights facts.

Science should be objective. Stating opinions as scientific facts is not objective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

there is so much wrong with pigeonholing all science as objectivity-seeking (some are not) and that the only way to achieve objectivity is to remain absolutely neutral on everything (it is not), I don't know where to begin pointing out the problems of the article.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Science should be objective. Stating opinions as scientific facts is not objective.

If this were a position you legitimately held...you wouldnt be a denier would you.

Scientists for the most part are a-political. Those that are political, conveniently lend their voice and credibility to the right wing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know where to begin pointing out the problems of the article.

I noticed that, because you don't.?

Science

A particular discipline or branch of learning, especially one dealing with measurable or systematic principles rather than intuition or natural ability. [from 14th c.]

The collective discipline of study or learning acquired through the scientific method; the sum of knowledge gained from such methods and discipline. [from 18th c.]

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/science#English

I infer from this that science is meant to be objective.

Ofcourse of you are going to redefine Science as 'Anything One Has An Opinion On' i guess you're right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't ever feel I "must" do anything a scientist tells me. I feel the say way about religious figures telling me how to live my life. Humans give them places of authority, as well.

I simply take whatever information I am given, no matter what title to person giving it to me has, and make up my own mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who would have thought a conservative think tank (the American Enterprise Institute, which published the article) would have something bad to say about science?

As regards the AEI's own methodology;

To see if our suspicions were correct, we decided to do a bit of informal research, checking Lexis Nexis for growth in the use of what we would categorize as “authoritarian” phrasing when it comes to scientific findings... Some of this may simply reflect the general growth of media output and the growth of new media, but if that were the case, we would expect all of the terms to have shown similar growth, which they do not... In other words, around the end of the 1980s, science (at least science reporting) took on a distinctly authoritarian tone.

Sounds to me like they're highlighting how the *media* has become more forthright in reporting on science, i.e. Science reporting turns authoritarian rather than Science turns authoritarian.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I noticed that, because you don't.?

Science

A particular discipline or branch of learning, especially one dealing with measurable or systematic principles rather than intuition or natural ability. [from 14th c.]

The collective discipline of study or learning acquired through the scientific method; the sum of knowledge gained from such methods and discipline. [from 18th c.]

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/science#English

I infer from this that science is meant to be objective.

Ofcourse of you are going to redefine Science as 'Anything One Has An Opinion On' i guess you're right.

that's the hard definition of the traditional natural sciences, which pretty much still remains the same today, but the entire field of science is much more expansive than just the natural sciences. there's nothing wrong with being opinionated per se, it depends on the kind of research you're doing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sounds to me like they're highlighting how the *media* has become more forthright in reporting on science, i.e. Science reporting turns authoritarian rather than Science turns authoritarian.

Been there done that. https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/925272-science-turns-authoritarian/page__p__592973644entry592973644

that's the hard definition of the traditional natural sciences, which pretty much still remains the same today, but the entire field of science is much more expansive than just the natural sciences. there's nothing wrong with being opinionated per se, it depends on the kind of research you're doing.

As i said, if you redefine science as anything goes then sure be as opinionated as you want as a pseudoscientist. Just make it clear beforehand that you're not a scientist but a pseudoscientist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would just like to point out that your first citation is an interview with a scientist. Scientists are human and during interviews can interject subjective opinions.

(...)

When scientists are interviewed, subjective views and opinions will be exhibited as it is the appropriate time for a scientist to express his/her subjective bias. It is within a peer-reviewed scientific publication that one will find objective information without any form of subjective commentary. I find there is nothing wrong with scientists expressing their opinions as long as it is not in their scientific publications.

+1

Glad you noticed it was a scientist, because that's the OP. Scientist saying we MUST do this or that. Authoritarian.

The very first line of the second link i even put in my post: Obesity MUST be ranked among the most intractable of our health problems

I fail to see how you could miss that. The OP is not where people get their information, but if scientists have become authoritarian. Which they did.

Actually your point was "science has become authoritarian", there's a difference. Although I still think both points are wrong.

For example your obesity quote, how is that authoritarian? That's just a scientist saying obesity is quite a large problem for public health at the moment, if he can support that with data then good for him. It's like me saying my fridge MUST be among the coolest areas in my house, or that walking uphill MUST be the hardest part of getting to work. Just because I'm using the word "must" doesn't mean I'm being a bossy **** all of a sudden.

And as Heretik pointed out, that's not science. That's one scientist saying something he thinks is true. Not everything that comes out of a scientists mouth is science, and they are entitled to opinions. And if they're experts on a subject, of course their opinions should count more than other people's when they're imparting their subjective views on it.

We'll agree to disagree. Scientists can voice their opinions the same like anyone else, but when one appeals to one's position as scientist one can't use authoritarian words such as must. This is sort of abuse of power, you give your opinion weight by using your position as scientist above and beyond mere opinion. It becomes factual.

It becomes factual if the person reading it is an idiot, that's a flaw of the reader, not the scientists.

If the plumber says 'we must conserve energy' that's an opinion.

If a scientist says from his position as scientist 'we must conserve energy' it's not an opinion but a statement of fact based on his/her (presumed) knowledge. Since there are as many scientists as there are theories to explain something, being a scientist and having knowledge doesn't make your insights facts.

Science should be objective. Stating opinions as scientific facts is not objective.

Again, what I said in bold above. A plumber doesn't have a clue about whether or not we need to 'conserve energy'. A scientist who has spent time studying the problem... Are you honestly telling me you would give his opinion equal weight?

EDIT: Also, you seem to be denying that it's the reporters/politicians/lobby groups abusing raw scientific data, and not scientists. I beg to differ, even the article you posted states "scientists need to come out every time some politician says".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.