Off the Deep End
Posted by Jeff Id on July 8, 2009
My god Mike Mann is full of himself. His rubbish math and media appearances have taken him right off the deep end. Now he’s demanding a new class of scientist – a super scientist who apparently can work in public policy complete with a reward system (public funded I assume).
Given that we (scientists) are part of the problem, it must stand to reason that we are also part of the solution. And indeed, this is a primary thesis advanced by Mooney and Kirshenbaum. The authors argue that we must fundamentally reinvent the way that scientists are trained, so as to encourage and reward those who choose to serve as much-needed science liasons and science communicators. Indeed, the reward system must be reworked in such a way as to facilitate the establishment of a whole new class of scientists, so-called ’science ambassadors’ who are rigorously trained in science, but have the proclivity and ability to engage in the broader discourse and to help bridge the growing rift between the ‘two cultures’. We can no longer rely on pure serendipity that figures such as Sagan will just come along. We must be proactive in establishing a pipeline of scientists who can fill this key nich
Science Ambassadors:
What does make sense–and what the authors are indeed arguing for–is that we adapt the current system to facilitate the development of those individuals who are well suited to careers as ’science ambassadors’. An appropriate step might be requiring science majors to take a course in college (perhaps a so-called ‘capstone’ course taken in the senior year) that focuses on the broader societal context within which the scientific topics they’ve studied resides. Some, perhaps even most, of these prospective future scientists will decide that they want no more of this–and that’s fine. Once again, we should not force those who are reluctant to follow this new path. But hopefully the experience will identify, in a self-selecting manner, those scientists who do have broader interests and abilities in this area. And for those who do, there needs to an entire academic infrastructure, ready to absorb them and to help prepare them to joint the ranks of those much needed science ambassadors.
RC actively suppresses any dissent on their site, they won’t even allow references to improvements on their work. In fact my posts are snipped faster than I can type. Yet look at how far gone Dr Mike Mann is:
They find fault in the way policy makers often abuse science (cherry-picking those particular scientific findings which suit their agenda), and in the behavior of corporate special interests who, in areas such as our own area of ‘climate change’, have often deliberately manufactured false controversy and confusion to dissuade the public from demanding action be taken.
The lies of consensus followed by the FALSE accusations of corporate special interests. What about the largest corporations in the world Mike? What about the government special interests Mike? What about suppression of dissent Mike?
We’ve had about half dozen people try and comment at RC on Ryan’s latest reconstruction, I even saw one post go up (Jon P) only to be snipped later. Supression of dissent and supression of non-warming science are the norm in this highly politicized field. RC doesn’t mind it one bit. Another layer of governance simply adds another hurdle for real scientists to communicate to the world, it’s no wonder that Mike Mann would be happy about that.
I’ve got an idea Mike, how about anyone with a voice can speak.. Crazy huh?
Mitchel44 said
Perhaps they are looking for the right “communicator” to follow this path on the believer side of things…
“Simple messages, which make headlines and create doubt amongst the laity, are an easy sell in the pseudo-sceptical world of climate science contrarianism.”
http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/04/27/more-ice-flat-temperatures-what-does-it-all-mean/
Being one of the “laity”, I’m not really looking for someone new, and would much prefer, 1. straight talk, 2. verifiable fact based science, and 3. no hype.
I know, dreaming, but still…..
Antonio San said
Establishing, entrenching the role for state sponsored scientism… and all the power (unopposable and unopposed) that go with the position. Eco-totalitarism at its best. O man, o Mann…
Page48 said
I’ve been expecting something like this to come out of the Climate Science community.
In essence, what Mann is arguing for is a new caste system based solely on academic credentials. Again, not a new idea, but one not so deliberately expressed until this.
I suspect that the idea will receive a lot of support from the American academic establishment, in general, because they’ve long sought to rule. Sociologists, political scientists, and some economists have been clamoring for greater input, if not absolute authority over the people, for years (many have succeeded subtly, especially the sociologists).
He and his ilk are the philosophical descendants of paternalistic white slave holders who viewed the world in terms of a racial and sexual hierarchy, with appropriately pedigreed white men at the pinnacle. The academics have a different basis for the determination of any individual’s caste assignment, but they are seeking a caste system, none-the-less, with themselves at the pinnacle (surprise, surprise).
Kenneth Fritsch said
The true believers on all sides of these issues have a difficult time coming to gripes with the fact that there are “special” interests on all sides, including their own. Actually I am very pleased that Mann speaks out on these issues as it gives a glimpse (to an open book) into what might motivate a scientist, and yes, I’ll say it, might affect his work.
Certainly, a scientist who selectively talks about the corporate special interests is going to favor government control of a situation like AGW regardless of the potential influence that control might have on mitigating the claimed detrimental effects of AGW. And, when they call the roll for a show of hands on the consensus of the climate scientists on AGW and its effects, it becomes easier to understand why those like Mann, and with his predisposition, are not going to let their science instincts make them hestitate to shove their arms into the air.
What it would appear that Mann is advocating is something more than a scientist/advocate and more like an articulate politician who knows the ways around the facts. Jim Hansen comes to my mind as one who is a master politician and the press clips that follow on climate science publication releases would indicate that many of these scientists are past masters at spinning the evidence to fit their predispositions. I would think when comes to climate scientists they would have more potential teachers of political spinning than students.
Carl Gullans said
I can’t believe this guy… he suggests, quite seriously, that Colleges/Universities should force science majors to take classes on how to do PR releases of what they’re trying to advocate. That is the OPPOSITE of what people should be doing.
Fred . . . said
We do need a “New Science Reward ” paradigm. The reward model should include consequences – if these guys promote the wrong science & policies – they should be fired, lose pensions etc.
Right now they can do or say anything – the more extreme the better, and they get rewarded.
Time to call the out on their free ride.
Jim said
In my view no scientist should be allowed to work for the government in a research role other than defense. If the government want to fund science, it should be no-strings-attached money and be doled out via a fair, non-political method. So, basically, no research scientists would be working for the government save defense.
curious said
Can I suggest everyone sharpens up their CV in anticipation of the applications opening!
Dave Stephens said
Mann ignores a colossal avalanche of historic data that SCREAMS “World-Wide Medieval Warm Period!” – he ignores it because it is not “convenient” to his hockey stick made of numbers pasted to tree rings. When one man’s statistical uncertainties trump historical REALITY, you can rest assured there is zero science being done…
Eric Anderson said
Ah, yes. The Intelligentsia . . .
rephelan said
3.Page48 said
July 8, 2009 at 2:12 pm
“I suspect that the idea will receive a lot of support from the American academic establishment, in general, because they’ve long sought to rule. Sociologists, political scientists, and some economists have been clamoring for greater input, if not absolute authority over the people, for years (many have succeeded subtly, especially the sociologists).”
I am a sociologist and wish I could disagree… examine almost any Introductory Sociology text today and you will find it chock-full of misrepresentations, all designed to foster a sense of radicalism in students. Every text book will extoll the virtues of the “sociological imagination” which they usually define as “debunking authority and accepted explanations”. Welcome to the world of the cognoscenti, those who see reality as it is… or as it is cleverly presented…
Stan said
We already have training programs for the super duper science communicator and they have been in place for hundreds of years. They are the classical liberal arts colleges and universities such as my alma mater, Davidson College. The stated goal at places like Davidson is to help students acquire the skills of a scholar. Every student, even those who major in a physical science or pre-med, take a substantial number of courses which require good reading, research and writing skills.
Michael Crichton, a graduate of Harvard College and Harvard Medical School, had no difficulty understanding the science underlying the AGW hysteria or communicating what it was about. There are plenty of others in this country who have no difficulty doing it as well.
Steve in SC said
Science Ambassadors = unindited co-conspiritors.
John D said
Francis Bacon must be spinning in his grave. Bacon is the first proponent of a “state sponsored” scientific establishment. He foresaw the problem of scientific problems that would require many hands and heads and generations of effort to answer. He never imagined that state policy and money could contaminate the process and completely subvert science and the method he advocated. He idealized scientists assuming that they would be more interested in pursuing knowledge than in influencing policy.
Ron said
If this quote,”Given that we (scientists) are part of the problem, it must stand to reason that we are also part of the solution”, is illustrative of the Mann’s reasoning process, then no wonder he is proposing a solution that simply does not flow from the quest of most scholars and scientists throughout history to understand the workings of the world. The first thing a serious scientist is, or should be, interested in is the difference between truth and rhetoric. In my view at least, the reasoning process of Mann we see here is just one non sequitur after another.
hunter said
AGW is a circus. Gore is the announcer getting everyone worked up for the big show, and noticing ow his pick pocket friends are working the crowd. Mann is is one of the carny operators, distracting the crowd with his crooked games.
Hansen is a fortune teller, and the fortunes always end in runaway evil, unless the carbon god is offered a proper sacrifice.
Gavin Schmidt is one of the clowns, dressed like a court jester and trash talking anyone askig him questions.
I am sure there are many acts to this great Cirque de Hype, but it is late.
oakgeo said
“…rigorously trained in science…”. Shouldn’t that be “robustly trained”?
This is insane stuff. From yours and Steve McIntyre’s blogs I often thought that Mann was just an inconsistent scientist, at worst arrogant and self-serving, at best sincere but underwhelming. This, however, scares the bejebus out of me. He seems to advocate politically motivated science, and while I understand that this is already common in an informal sense, he proposes a formalised approach to it. Lord help us.
I knew an Ukranian geologist who emmigrated to Canada because things would be easier for his Jewish wife. He claimed to have a Master’s equivalent from a prestigous institute in Kiev. As I later discovered, a number of courses at the institute dealt with political philosophy (you can probably guess which philosophy). He turned out to be a lousy geologist, and his wife left him (it was easy, apparently).
I would rather hire the guy who took the extra Structural Geology or Advanced Thermodynamics credit. To my mind a course on Dialectics of Cultural Paradigms just doesn’t cut it.
Page48 said
RE #16
Nice metaphor.
And, a sad comment on the current state of science (or, at least, climate science).
You’ll know they’ve truly had it when metaphors like yours start appearing in stand-up comedy and skit shows like SNL.
It might behoove the grant funded like Dr. Mann to worry less about his future influence and worry a little more about where his funding is going to come from in the future.
I’m sick of paying for these people who have no respect for the hardworking hands that feed them.
Andy said
Maybe someone should be paid an awful lot of money to show how crap the work of M Mann is, the guys who do do it for free!
Cosmos said
I suggest that the retraining of scientists should start with teaching the scientific method. Especially the part where the conclusion comes after the research is completed, not before it has begun.
nanny_govt_sucks said
I think we need a new class of scientists that actually follow the scientific method. Including the first step: Objective Observation. When was the last time a science major took a class in Objectivity? Do universities even include such classes as requirements for science majors?
Dave Stephens said
Here’s a little poem to show how hard it is to fight this belief system…
There is a Global Warming sucker born every minute
Each time that turbine blade sweeps to the top
Like dandelions up they pop,
Their ears so big, their eyes so wide.
And though Hansen feeds ‘em bonafide BALONEY
With no truth in it
Why you can bet he’ll find some rube to buy his WARM!
‘Cause there’s a sure-as-shooting sucker born a minute,
And Hansen’s referrin’ to the minute you were born.
Each blessed hour brings sixty of ‘em
Each time the wooden cuckoo Gore shows his face
Another sucker takes his place,
And plunks his Carbon-Tax quarter on the line
To buy Gore’s brand of genuine MALARKEY.
God bless and love him!
But don’t feel sad or hoppin’ mad like thinking folks I’ve seen,
‘Cause there’s a sure-as-shooting sucker born a minute,
But we thinking folks were born the minute in between.
There is a Global Warming sucker born every minute
Each time that turbine blade sweeps to the top
Like dandelions up they pop,
Their ears so big, their eyes so wide.
And though Hansen’s tale is bonafide BALONEY,
Just let him spin it,
And though we thinking folk resist him, wait and see
‘Cause there’s a sure-as-shooting sucker born a minute,
Remember that the biggest one excluding none is HE!
<>
Dave Stephens said
Hey, this important bit was left out.
“only slightly edited by Dave Stephens from “Barnum” 1980″
Will M said
Wasn’t this one of the sub-themes in Atlas Shrugged? Dr. Staddler, as I recall.
Orson said
John D:
[Francis Bacon] never imagined that state policy and money could contaminate the process and completely subvert science and the method he advocated. He idealized scientists assuming that they would be more interested in pursuing knowledge than in influencing policy.
Ron: If this quote,”Given that we (scientists) are part of the problem, it must stand to reason that we are also part of the solution”, is illustrative of the Mann’s reasoning process, then no wonder….[!]
Oakgeo:
this… scares the bejebus out of me. He seems to advocate politically motivated science, and while I understand that this is already common in an informal sense, he proposes a formalised approach to it. Lord help us.
This is in Mann’s review of Chrish Mooney’s new book “Unscientific Illiteracy”
SEE review reactions here
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2009/07/08/unscientific-america-a-must-read-for-anybody-who-cares-about-science/#comments
and elsewhere at his blog
in which the author advocates scientists become advocates to make us better – in short, authoritarianism is to be the instrument of authority, or the authorities.
The contrasting anti-authoritarian science is not Bacon, but Adam Smith and Karl Popper
See the recent book “Sex, Science, and Profit: How People Evolved to Make Money” by biochemist turned academic administrator Terence Kealey.
REVEIW
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/non_fictionreviews/3670675/The-economics-of-evolution.html
Scientific power does not follow from literacy or state sponsorship, which is actually what Bacon believed. Bacon thought that science generated technology and in turn made for progress. Mooney simply updates the argument.
But as Kealey conclusively shows – whether looking at the US versus the Soviet Union or Japan’s MITI, or the industrial revolution and France’s lavishly funded academies and Ecoles versus Britain’s backward educational crucible for the industrial revolution, or recent data from the 40 nation OECD – this is wrong.
Instead, Kealey shows that scientific progress is mediated by old technology and old money impinging newer technology, generating a positive force on both science and progress. Thus in the early 20th century, a federally well funded director of the Smithsonian failed to invent a flying machine, but two bicycle-makers with a measly $1000 in capital succeeded.
The larger dangers in the above argument is best delt with by Mark Notturno in his (sadly OP) book, “Science and the Open Society : The Future of Karl Popper’s Philosophy”
http://www.amazon.com/Science-Open-Society-Poppers-Philosophy/dp/963911670X
See the unianimous 5* reviews there (until another moment when I can complete this thought).
Lucy Skywalker said
Ha! Orson, you’ve got me really hooked on your links. This area interests me too a lot. It’s important that the heretics of today don’t becoming the stonewalling elite of tomorrow.
A note of caution about Notturno’s book. The author of the Preface: George Soros. Having said which, the book may be good. Just as was much of Al Gore’s book Earth in the Balance. Good and bad can run very close together, and you really have to pay very very careful attention.
Orson said
THANKS, Lucy-I was hoping someone would be like you.
TRUE-the Soros connection got me going, too. Notturno is – like Soros – a Democratic socialist.
But his defense and explication of Popper in the earlier chapters (which I think are the most important) are nonpareil. No one really talks this up in the Amazon.com reviews, but their reiterated points cover enough of them to apply to what’s implicitly missing.
On Soros writings? He’s written a few books worth dipping into. Clear and cogent, but I have not absorbed his them yet.
-Orson