Postmodernism versus global warming
Back in June I wrote about the way French Theory could be used to undermine evidence. I received a challenge among the comments to provide some evidence for this. Well, at the time, I didn’t have much evidence (as I thought I had made clear), but now a small aliquot has arrived courtesy of Arts & Letters Daily, which pointed out a wonderful example by Ron Rosenbaum from Slate.
Rosenbaum frames the debate as one between Consensus and Dissent—Consensus being the belief among most climate scientists that humans are causing global warming by pumping out industrial quantities of carbon dioxide, and Dissent being the belief among a much smaller number of qualified scientists that humans and carbon dioxide have very little to do with climate. The main thrust of Rosenbaum’s argument is that dissenting voices need to be heard in the mass media. I agree with that naturally, and I agree with him that the Columbia Journalism Review has not kept to its own philosophy very well on this particular matter, but Rosenbaum makes no attempt to decide what counts as reasonable Dissent, for of course the mass media are under no moral imperative to publish every voice of Dissent. But what really interested me was Rosenbaum’s flamboyant display of Thomas S. Kuhn in defence of global warming dissent.
Indeed, the century’s foremost historian of science, Thomas Kuhn, believed,…that science often proceeds by major unexpected shifts: Just when an old consensus congealed, new dissenting, contradictory reports heralded a “paradigm shift” that often ended up tossing the old “consensus” into the junk bin.
So far so good. In fact, it goes without saying that at some point every successful scientific theory started out as a minority position and every successful scientific theory consigned an older consensus theory to the dustbin. But then Rosenbaum bites off more than he can chew.
If it hadn’t been for the lone dissenting voice of that crazy guy in the Swiss patent office with his papers on “relativity,” we still might believe the “consensus” that Newtonian mechanics explained a deterministic universe. And what about Ignaz Semmelweis and his lone crusade against the “consensus” that doctors need not wash their hands before going from an infected to an uninfected patient? Or the nutty counterintuitive dissenting idea of vaccination? The consensus was wrong. In fact, science proceeds by overturning consensus.
The number of errors in this one paragraph is extraordinary. First of all, I don’t think anyone believes that we would still consider Newtonian theory the gold standard of physics. By the time Einstein wrote his paper on special relativity in 1905, classical physics was already in deep trouble. Newtonian physics was at odds with Maxwell’s equations and the Michelson-Morley experiment and thermodynamics was so at odds with the observed spectrum of black-body radiation that physicists called the problem “The Ultraviolet Catastrophe.” Special relativity would have arrived without Einstein, and Einstein agreed, saying, “There is no doubt, that the special theory of relativity, if we regard its development in retrospect, was ripe for discovery in 1905.” Rosenbaum is also incorrect in implying that special relativity undermined the determinism of Newton. For a start, relativity is actually much older than Einstein. It goes back to Galileo and is often referred to as “Galilean relativity” and this is why Einstein called his theory “special” relativity to distinguish it from the prevailing theory. Even more importantly, special relativity is just as deterministic as the Galilean relativity it replaced. Most scientists consider special relativity to be a classical theory of physics because it deals in precise points in space and time and is utterly absolutist. Einstein did not demolish absolutism but substituted one absolute term (length of space and time) for another (the speed of light). And even then, special relativity still represents space and time in absolute objective terms. The death of naïve determinism came not from relativity but from quantum theory and chaos theory.
Now all of this goes to show that Rosenbaum is not particularly knowledgeable about the history of science. But of all his mistakes, the worst is in misrepresenting Kuhn, who never made a statement as sweeping as that science proceeds by overturning consensus. Kuhn himself was appalled that his work was continually misused by the postmodern movement to imply such a thing.
Under normal conditions the research scientist is not an innovator but a solver of puzzles, and the puzzles upon which he concentrates are just those which he believes can be both stated and solved within the existing scientific tradition.
As Kuhn pointed out, “frameworks must be lived with and explored before they can be broken.”
Even more importantly, what Rosenbaum fails to appreciate is that, just as in journalism, overturning consensus is not a goal in itself. What really matters is the quality of the consensus view versus the quality of the dissenting view. In Einstein’s time there were dozens of competing theories proposed to explain the increasingly glaring problems with classical mechanics; some of them were quite unfeasible, for instance the attempt to redefine the properties of the luminiferous æther which resulted in the proposition that æther was a massless, frictionless, perfectly compressible fluid that moved at different velocities to propagate different wavelengths of light. Needless to say, this view did not please many scientists. Likewise, just because there are dissenters from the global warming consensus does not mean that their views deserve widespread attention. (There are respected scientists who are informed global warming skeptics such as Freeman Dyson, but I leave it as an exercise to the reader to figure out why these prominent, scientifically-astute skeptics are rarely found in the company of those who generate media time for the anti-warming platform.)
What it all depends on is evidence and argumentation, which Rosenbaum seems not to give the slightest indication of addressing. He’s aware of the problem…
But which arguments? It’s a fascinating subject that I’ve spent some time considering. My last two books…were, in part anyway, efforts to decide which of the myriad arguments about and dissenting visions of each of these figures was worth pursuing. For instance, with Hitler, after investigating, I wanted to refute the myth (often used in a heavy-handed way by anti-Semites) that Hitler was part Jewish. The risk is that in giving attention to the argument, one can spread it even while refuting it. But to ignore it was worse.
But having decided that it’s a fascinating subject, Rosenbaum has concludes the best solution is to ignore the problem.
But I’d argue that journalists should be on the side of vigorous argument, not deciding for readers what is truth and then not exposing them to certain arguments.
Except that journalists and editors make decisions every day about what arguments to report and not report. And even if they report on an argument, they decide how much space to give and how much prominence. And I can’t see how you can be in favour of “vigorous argument” if you make no decisions about what is vigorous and what is frivolous. In the end, Rosenbaum is all about Consensus versus Dissent, not the quality of the consensus or the dissent views. And he has drawn on Kuhn (erroneously as it turns out) to promote the uncritical reporting of Dissent. I think it speaks to his blindness on this matter that he refers to vaccination as one of the Fruits of Dissent without seeming to understand that it is the anti-vaccinators who are today’s Dissenters and who thrive on the undeserved attention of the media and the courtroom.
And that prompted me to look for some more examples. Here we go…
The blog Contratimes contains a long article in favour of Dissent. It starts with Mark Twain and ends with Thomas Kuhn. This writer, one Bill Gnade, at least gets Kuhn right thank goodness. And his point is perfectly valid: consensus does not demonstrate truth. But he makes little effort to discuss the evidentiary value of consensus versus dissent and ends up using Twain and Kuhn simply to praise himself for being a dissenter as if that was a cardinal virtue. I also note in another of Gnade’s articles that he uses (without naming it) semiotics to argue that there are such things as “racist facts” and that any attempt to define racism in a way that doesn’t suit him can be dismissed because “dictionaries only list how words are used and not how they must be used.” In other words, we channel Saussare to defend “racist facts” in public discourse.
And there’s more. I stumbled upon the website for Channel 4′s provocative documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle. Whatever one thinks of global warming, this particular documentary is misleading and deceptive and promotes an alternative theory to anthropogenic global warming that is just not really “vigorous.” And what do you find on its website? A list of four recommended books: three anti-global warming polemics and…The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas S. Kuhn.
I will keep reporting as I find instances of postmodernism being used to undermine evidence in a way that supports powerful interests.
Tags: consensus, dissent, french theory, global warming, postmodernism, ron rosenbaum, thomas s. kuhn
9 People have left comments on this post
I thought special relativity was so called because it applied only to inertial frames (ie the later general theory of relativity extended the theory to cover accelerating frames and gravity)?
Anyway, I applaud your discussion of the misapplication of Thomas Kuhn, it is a private bugbear of mine, too. Besides the misapplication in ways that Kuhn wouldn’t have approved of, there is also the issue that Kuhn just isn’t particularly current philosophy of science, for precisely the reason that it poorly explains what most scientists do all day, and how a reasonably well established science generally advances. I prefer Imre Lakatos’ ideas, though my philosophy of science is over a decade out of date, perhaps there are more current accepted theories.
What if Maxwell was silenced as well?
Imagine the Intergovernmental Panel on Physical Sciences (IPPS) decided in 1820 that the Consensus was Newtonian physics and that the physical properties of our world were settled once and for all.
Then not only Einstein, but all the scientists who preceeded him would have been silenced.
You ever wonder why it took so ffing long for the Ptolomaic system to be overthrown?
Whenever I hear or read a creationist or climate change skeptic touting the idea of “teaching the controversy”, I suggest it would be at least as important to have students discuss whether George W. Bush or Al Gore actually won the 2000 election.
My Dear Talking Squid,
It is very nice to make your acquaintance.
I feel I should make some sort of defense here regarding my Twain and Kuhn essay. But would it do any good? One wonders.
I read Kuhn, I don’t know, several times in college, and at least once after my matriculation. I was a philosophy student then; I think I was turned on to Kuhn in 1982, my sophomore year, when I enrolled in the course “The Philosophy of Natural Science.” I recall LOVING that fine work; I recognize that it remains a strong force in any discussion of the history of science.
My purpose in my essay was not to flesh out Kuhn in all his provocative glory. I merely wanted to iterate that Twain was clearly Kuhn’s predecessor; that Twain was not some odd and unconfirmed voice, but that Kuhn validated much of what Twain averred about “consensus.” My audience — clearly — is not your audience. So I did not think I needed to present Kuhn in any detail (and not that I could after 20 or so years since my last reading of TSOSR).
I find it curious that you should find it necessary to criticize my essay on racist facts. I would love to know where you find it faulty or deficient. Egads! Are you suggesting that I should have mentioned “semiotics”? Well, I notice you have not divulged to us all that you are engaged in semiotics in this essay; isn’t any discussion about the written or spoken word semiotic? But I nit-pick. However, I do not channel Sausarre at all, whoever the hell that is; I MIGHT channel Saussure, but that’s a stretch. The bone which I picked was with a particular radio talk-show host, who summarily dismissed a man who was straining to make a point. Are you suggesting that my undeniably accurate position on dictionaries somehow discredits me? And are you inferring that because I have attempted to empathize with those who believe in “racist facts” (I note you steer clear of my actual argument), I am somehow intellectually stunted, ill-equipped to apprehend the rarified air of global warming science? Would you not consider your presentation of my work as fallacious? Well, I would.
I think, if you look closely at my piece about Twain, you will see that I am not “pro-dissent,” as if I’ve just snagged dissent out of the warming air. I am actually suggesting that there is considerable evidence that the political opportunists in the global warming camp have leapt right over the conflict phase I believe Kuhn describes, and have seized “consensus” as a means to suppress discussion and to enact reforms that fall, politically, in their favor. Perhaps I do not suggest all of this, but I surely aver that what we are witnessing is what MUST happen: a fight between paradigms, if you will, or between one group who believes a forceful paradigm has emerged and one group that does not. I merely believe that those who tout “consensus” have been wildly premature. They may “have” a consensus, but unlike you, that consensus does not strike me as convincing. At the very least, I have found the doubters quite interesting.
Lastly, I had in mind just ONE reader of mine who believes that “consensus” ends discussion. And no, that reader is not Al Gore. So my draft was really rather pointed: I was attempting to help a man see that consensus is not always what it appears.
I pray this explanation goes some way toward clarification and understanding. I feel a bit like this apple has been compared to that orange. But perhaps I’ve got things wrong.
That’s no surprise.
Peace to you,
Bill Gnade
Hi Chris,
As you did in your earlier post on the problem with “French theory”, you’re grabbing at some rather peripheral sources to promote your position. Let me point out a couple of papers to show how science studies scholarship, influenced by “postmodernism” and “French theory”, does in this case the opposite of what you claim – in the first paper (Boykoff), expose the techniques by which consensus is misrepresented as contention, and in the second (Demeritt) engage in a meta discussion of the usefulness of a “constructivist” critique of climate change dissent.
Boykoff, Maxwell T. 2007. “From convergence to contention: United States mass media representations of anthropogenic climate change science”, Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 32 (4): 477-489.
Demeritt, David. 2006. “Science Studies, Climate Change, and the Prospects for Constructivist Critique”, Economy and Society 35 (3): 453-479.
Cheers,
Matt Chrulew
To Bill Gnade:
I apologise for taking so long to reply. I’ve been flu-ridden for more than 2 weeks and just getting back to non-essential activities. I’m glad to hear that you are not automatically “pro-dissent” but I think if you go back and read your post with a clear eye, you’ll agree that it is the natural conclusion to be drawn from a piece that quotes Twain at length, including the statement that “Whatever new thing a Consensus coppers, bet your money on that very card and do not be afraid.” And you yourself chimed in with this: “It is not merely a fact of history, but one of process: scientific knowledge is not advanced by consensus. If anything, it is advanced by the force of a lone voice, by the voice of the minority, shaped and perfected by the stubborn denials of the majority. By the way, Dr. Jacques Loeb was right. The New York Times, aligned with all the really ‘bright’ minds united in consensus, was wrong.”
This is particular poignant given that Twain was writing to dismiss an opinion in the New York Times that just happened to be correct. Loeb was wrong in his claim to have synthesised life from chemicals in his laboratory and the New York Times was right. Loeb was, I should say, correct in many other matters, but not this time. To make matters more interesting, Loeb’s most famous experiment was his artificial activation of unfertilised sea urchin eggs by chemical means. That was in 1914, nine years after the NYT article, and one wonders if in fact, rather than being a hindrance to Loeb, the opinions reported in that article helped him improve his experimental techniques. After all, the article advises that “there are many organisms the eggs of which are hatchable without fertilization. It may be that Loeb has found that the list of these is increased by one.” In other words, this well-intentioned criticism may have helped Loeb tweak his experimental design to improve the strength of his evidence.
I’d also point out that the article was rather egregiously misquoted by Twain. The link you provided shows that the New York Times gave reasons to distrust Loeb’s announcement and the reference to scientific consensus on Loeb’s methods was backed up by argument rather than being a simple appeal to authority. And, of course, the fact that the NYT was right does tend to undermine Twain’s assertion that you can safely bet against Consensus.
Having said that, I would like to reiterate that I was pleased to see you represent Kuhn accurately. He is usually grotesquely caricatured by both his detractors and his most ardent admirers.
Dear Mr. Lawson,
It is my turn to apologize for a late reply. I’ve not the sort of excuse you have; I have felt fine. I am glad to hear that you are feeling better.
Permit me to work backwards. If, as you say, the New York Times was right and Mr. Loeb was not, I am dumbfounded (quite) by the preponderance of evidence that contradicts your claim. Mr. Loeb appears to have been right; he seems vindicated rather quickly, at least as quickly as scientific vindication could progress during the first years of the 20th century.
Maybe the following will explain some of the confusion; a quote from a much later New York Times article sheds some light:
‘But in Loeb’s day word of his experiments captivated the public. Newspaper headlines, reflecting the naivete of early science writing, virtually claimed that Loeb could create life in a test tube. Some compared it to reproducing “virgin birth” in the laboratory, starting living cells on a course that had long been regarded as miraculous. Loeb’s experiments, in a seaside laboratory and on marine organisms, became so mixed up in the popular mind with the allegedly mysterious powers of the sea that unmarried women were advised not to bathe in the ocean. Childless couples, on the other hand, rushed hopefully to beach resorts. Loeb even received letters from desperate couples asking him to give them a child.’ (quote found here, ¶27
Since the original New York Times article does not actually report what Mr. Loeb was claiming, I think we need to be rather cautious asserting one thing or other about the Times or Mr. Loeb. But I think the above quote supports the idea that even the New York Times in all its naive zeal misrepresented what Mr. Loeb had claimed. Moreover, am I wrong in asserting that Mr. Loeb’s sea urchin experiments actually did yield the results he claimed (note that the NYT mentions these experiments in the article I initially cited)?
Also, even if Mr. Twain was wrong for finding the Times’ position flabby and sophomoric, it does not follow that his one mistake discredits him. Surely he is quite right about the other instances of snickering and sneering consensuses. Add to the mix what Mr. Kuhn averred about the progress of science, and I think one can conclude that Mr. Twain’s opinion rings true and not false.
I will grant that the skepticism of the consensus in Mr. Loeb’s time may have helped Mr. Loeb hone his ideas to razor sharpness. But that only means that the consensus’ stupidity made Mr. Loeb all the more intelligent. Should we conclude that the current consensus on global warming will be vindicated because it is forcing skeptics of anthropogenic sources of global warming to be even more accurate and compelling than the consensus?
Lastly, as to the sequence of events in the Loeb/Times dialectic, I will defer to you. I am no historian. But I think Mr. Twain’s broader suspicion of consensuses is justified.
Peace to you, and stay well. And thanks for this engaging discussion.
Bill Gnade
The issue raised with Climategate goes beyond the tendency of specialists and laity alike to prefer and hold on to models and theories which they’re comfortable with, and reject assaults thereon. It goes to the direct interference with the pursuit and interpretation of evidence by those with political and financial goals and resources. It is a textbook example of the consequences of self-reinforcement by control of review and funding agencies by one side of a dispute, deployed to suppress and silence disagreement.
The issue bears heavily on major decisions being made as we speak about the constraints and direction of the global economy; making a prime virtue of suppressing CO2 production has major consequences, especially on those least able to work around the use of combustion to produce energy. The data, theory, and motivations of those pressing for such change need intensive examination, not protection from all dissent.
Global warming is becoming such an obvious problem that someone somewhere other than the US President needs to step up to help drive a massive campaign which aims to reduce Global Warming.
Sorry, comments for this entry are closed at this time.