Perry World
In Wednesday’s Republican Presidential candidate debate, Rick Perry said global warming was one big Ponzi scheme. And that Galileo was burned at the stake for being the climate skeptic of his day.
Or something like that.
UPDATE: Many readers seem thrown by my attempt at sarcasm. Next time I’ll be less subtle. But a direct translation of what I was trying to say is provided by Matthew Yeglesias here:
He [Perry] gave a rambling, incoherent answer to a pretty straightforward question about climate change, insisted on making inflammatory statements about Social Security divorced from any policy point, etc.
See also Glenn Kessler (aka The Fact Checker) in the Washington Post.
Politicians always oversimplify.
To be more precise, AGW is based on science, with large uncertainties. Carbon trading under Kyoto Protocol, designed to alleviate global warming, is an ineffective and wasteful policy that does not reduce emissions ans has resulted tens of billions of euros transfer from taxpayers to energy companies. You could call especially CDM’s a scam. See e.g.
http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/Issues/2007/April/CleaningUpCarbonMarket.asp
Too bad that a scam is based on science and good intentions.
> Rick Perry said global warming was one big Ponzi scheme
Pardon? That doesn’t sound very plausible. The site says “Rick Perry is sticking to his guns on Social Security, standing by the inflammatory language in his book declaring the entitlement program a “Ponzi scheme” and a failure.” which sounds at least coherent.
The Galileo stuff is interesting too. You might want to look up what actually happened, or maybe I’ll beat you to it and blog it myself.
Before we all get hot and bothered about Galileo, we should all read the book “Agansot M ethod” by the philosopher Paul Feyerabend
From Wikipedia
===============
Feyerabend was critical of any guideline that aimed to judge the quality of scientific theories by comparing them to known facts. He thought that previous theory might influence natural interpretations of observed phenomena. Scientists necessarily make implicit assumptions when comparing scientific theories to facts that they observe. Such assumptions need to be changed in order to make the new theory compatible with observations. The main example of the influence of natural interpretations that Feyerabend provided was the tower argument. The tower argument was one of the main objections against the theory of a moving earth. Aristotelians assumed that the fact that a stone which is dropped from a tower lands directly beneath it shows that the earth is stationary. They thought that, if the earth moved while the stone was falling, the stone would have been “left behind”. Objects would fall diagonally instead of vertically. Since this does not happen, Aristotelians thought that it was evident that the earth did not move. If one uses ancient theories of impulse and relative motion, the Copernican theory indeed appears to be falsified by the fact that objects fall vertically on earth. This observation required a new interpretation to make it compatible with Copernican theory. Galileo was able to make such a change about the nature of impulse and relative motion. Before such theories were articulated, Galileo had to make use of ad hoc methods and proceed counterinductively. So, “ad hoc” hypotheses actually have a positive function: they temporarily make a new theory compatible with facts until the theory to be defended can be supported by other theories.
Feyerabend commented on the
Galileo affair as follows:
The church at the time of Galileo was much more faithful to reason than Galileo himself, and also took into consideration the ethical and social consequences of Galileo’s doctrine. Its verdict against Galileo was rational and just, and revisionism can be legitimized solely for motives of political opportunism.
[2][3][4]
====================
So perhaps, everyone in this debate should stop trying to cloak themselves in the invincible armor fo science as opposed to the unreasoning prejudice of their opponents . The story of Galileo is not as simple as people try to make out.
So have I beaten William Connnelly in blogging about the use of the Galieleo meme by both sides in this AGW culture war?
Before we all get hot and bothered about Galileo, we should all read the book “Agansot M ethod” by the philosopher Paul Feyerabend
From Wikipedia
===============
Feyerabend was critical of any guideline that aimed to judge the quality of scientific theories by comparing them to known facts. He thought that previous theory might influence natural interpretations of observed phenomena. Scientists necessarily make implicit assumptions when comparing scientific theories to facts that they observe. Such assumptions need to be changed in order to make the new theory compatible with observations. The main example of the influence of natural interpretations that Feyerabend provided was the tower argument. The tower argument was one of the main objections against the theory of a moving earth. Aristotelians assumed that the fact that a stone which is dropped from a tower lands directly beneath it shows that the earth is stationary. They thought that, if the earth moved while the stone was falling, the stone would have been “left behind”. Objects would fall diagonally instead of vertically. Since this does not happen, Aristotelians thought that it was evident that the earth did not move. If one uses ancient theories of impulse and relative motion, the Copernican theory indeed appears to be falsified by the fact that objects fall vertically on earth. This observation required a new interpretation to make it compatible with Copernican theory. Galileo was able to make such a change about the nature of impulse and relative motion. Before such theories were articulated, Galileo had to make use of ad hoc methods and proceed counterinductively. So, “ad hoc” hypotheses actually have a positive function: they temporarily make a new theory compatible with facts until the theory to be defended can be supported by other theories.
Feyerabend commented on the
Galileo affair as follows:
The church at the time of Galileo was much more faithful to reason than Galileo himself, and also took into consideration the ethical and social consequences of Galileo’s doctrine. Its verdict against Galileo was rational and just, and revisionism can be legitimized solely for motives of political opportunism.
====================
So perhaps, everyone in this debate should stop trying to cloak themselves in the invincible armor fo science as opposed to the unreasoning prejudice of their opponents . The story of Galileo is not as simple as people try to make out.
Keith… I’m at a loss this is not like you..
MAybe we need to consider; Kloor World?
Why this total misrepresentation.:
“Rick Perry said global warming was one big Ponzi scheme”
Why do this, global warming is not mentioned, he is refering to a social security program, whilst I no little about USA Social Security, I imagine a similar criticism to the UK’s national State pension, ..
ie taxes go in, and straight out again to pay pensioners (ie pensions unfunded/uninvested) which could easily labbelled (and has been) as a giant state ponzi scheme. And it is right to criticise it, look at it as long term it is unsustainable (ie more pensioners / working people ratio and life expectancy)
So why do this:
Presumably just a ‘joke’ (sarc off) because,
“Or something like that” says Keith
I guess that you do not like Perry much, but this just refelects badly on Collide a Scape. Are we going to have this ‘standard’ of comments from all the USA blogs in the run up to Presidential elections.
The real KK is still on holiday. Meanwhile his blog has been hacked by someone trying to discredit him with rubbish that’s similar in tone and style and politically partisan like his usual stuff.
Maybe
“Or something like that”
means
“In fact he said neither of those things”.
Oh, Jeez. Folks, I was being intentionally facetious. I thought the links would make it obvious.
TG: Feyerabend is wrong, obviously.
KK: still not sure what the point was, sorry. I’m probably being too literal, I usually am.
I don’t get it.
Sorry Keith.. Maybe you need to put a smiley in, or sarc comment…
Oy. Folks, I deliberately mashed up and played with Perry’s responses on Social Security (being a Ponzi scheme) and climate change.
It seems only Charles got the snark (I think).
The big news coming out of the debate was Perry’s doubling down on his Social Security remarks. And there was lots of eye-brows raised over what he said on climate change. I was just having fun!!
Next time, I’ll try to make the snark more obvious.
Keith, I got it. I’m not sure if the failure to get the sarcasm across is due to it being insufficiently silly in light of Perry’s actual claims or what.
I’m trying to figure out how “facetious” is used to explain completely making things up. There isn’t even any humor or flippancy in Keith Kloor’s post. How exactly are readers supposed to interpret a post which clearly states something as facetious simply because the links it provides are irrelevant to anything the post says? Imagine if I claimed facetiousness justified this sentence:
Barack Obama supports the anti-vaxxer cause, or something like that.
I know, I know. My example isn’t quite right. Obama actually did say something in that link which was related to what I said. I just couldn’t bring myself to completely make something up about him. Still, that sentence is obviously facetious.
Right?
TB,
I wondered that as well. But I do think that part of the fault lies with me, since I don’t do those kinds of posts often enough and this one was probably just too subtle.
And Jack Hughes, while this is still not likely to satisfy you, it would be good for you to know this: All the media stories right now are focused exclusively on the Republican Presidential candidates and their tactics and what they say.
So it stands to reason that a blog that often discusses climate change will key in on controversial statements by someone who is widely considered to be the Republican front-runner.
Brandon,
I knew I could rely on you to (as someone aptly described what you do on that other thread) “raise dust.”
I think you should leave your brain to science when you die.
At the other end of the spectrum, good ole Prince Charles, despite his politically correct views, is not exactly the latest word in the field of street credibility. The guy condemns unsustainable lifestyle in speech given at St. James’ Palace:
Prince Charles warns of human extinction
Mankind will become extinct, the Prince of Wales has warned, unless humans transform our lifestyles to stop mass consumption, run away climate change and destruction of wildlife.
Btw, the Guardian is warning that Perry might defeat Obama:
The world needs to prepare for a climate sceptic defeating Obama
Barack Obama is losing his grip on the White House – and climate sceptic Rick Perry is favourite to succeed him
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2011/sep/08/rick-perry-climate-change-sceptic?commentpage=last#end-of-comments
re 9
William Connelly writes
============
TG: Feyerabend is wrong, obviously.
=============
In what way is Feyerabend wrong?
Mr. Kloor –
At this point I would advise you to quit digging and avoid disparaging any of your baffled readers.
Tom C,
Nice try. It’s still hard for me to imagine that some readers thought I was being serious when I wrote this (while providing a link to what Perry actually said):
“And that Galileo was burned at the stake for being the climate skeptic of his day.”
But it’s not hard for me to believe that some readers would insist that I was not attempting to be sarcastic.
I happen to be a political junkie, so I watched highlights of the debate right after it ended, listened to some of the cable TV pundit analysis, and read much of the live blogging and post-debate media coverage.
Anyway, to avoid any potential confusion for readers that have yet to wander into the post I’ve inserted an update in with some links.
Matthew Yeglesias had his “I only will hear what I wish to hear” ears on.
Rick Perry said of SS that for those 25-30 who contribute today will not receive beneifts as the plan exists today which is a true statement. He further said it should not be eliminated, we cannot go back 70 years in time and prevent its passage, but we need to fix it, do something about it.
That was his point he also specifically said that the SS system for seniors should/would not be changed.
All the detractors want to hear is “Poinzi Scheme” which under the current conditions for the younger generation that define SS perfectly, but that is not all he said on the subject.
Hi Keith, forgiven, you did manage to puzzle me AND Wlliam Connolley..
Somes news – Prince Charles (‘anti-science’ homeopathy, etc) New President of WWF.
A ‘little’ criticism 😉 ! in the comments. (mainly 😉 ) anti’hunting comments
http://www.wwf.org.uk/news_feed.cfm?5225/New-President-for-WWF-UK
Leo Hickman – Guardian) tweeted that WWF defends itself in the comments….
https://twitter.com/#!/leohickman/status/111806987133661184
I’m @realclim8gate
And the President of Kiribati – just jumped the shark. Leo’s laughing, I think.
https://twitter.com/#!/leohickman/status/111833796269191168
leohickman
It’s Logan’s Run On Sea! > “Artificial island could be solution for rising Pacific sea levels”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2011/sep/08/artificial-island-pacific-sea-levels
Yeglesias said Perry gave a rambling and incoherent answer about climate change. Keith agreed.
Let’s go to the transcript and find out what Perry said about climate change. Perry seems coherent to me. Is Yeglesias capable of comprehending the spoken word? What I fail to understand is why Keith would accept Yeglesias at his word.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/08/us/politics/08republican-debate-text.html?pagewanted=21&_r=1
HARRIS: Governor Perry — Governor Perry, Governor Huntsman were not specific about names, but the two of you do have a difference of opinion about climate change. Just recently in New Hampshire, you said that weekly and even daily scientists are coming forward to question the idea that human activity is behind climate change. Which scientists have you found most credible on this subject?
PERRY: Well, I do agree that there is — the science is — is not settled on this. The idea that we would put Americans’ economy at — at — at jeopardy based on scientific theory that’s not settled yet, to me, is just — is nonsense. I mean, it — I mean — and I tell somebody, I said, just because you have a group of scientists that have stood up and said here is the fact, Galileo got outvoted for a spell.
But the fact is, to put America’s economic future in jeopardy, asking us to cut back in areas that would have monstrous economic impact on this country is not good economics and I will suggest to you is not necessarily good science. Find out what the science truly is before you start putting the American economy in jeopardy.
HARRIS: Just to follow up quickly. Tell us how you’ve done that.
(APPLAUSE)
Are there specific — specific scientists or specific theories that you’ve found especially compelling, as you…
(CROSSTALK)
PERRY: Let me tell you what I find compelling, is what we’ve done in the state of Texas, using our ability to regulate our clean air. We cleaned up our air in the state of Texas, more than any other state in the nation during the decade. Nitrous oxide levels, down by 57 percent. Ozone levels down by 27 percent.
That’s the way you need to do it, not by some scientist somewhere saying, “Here is what we think is happening out there.” The fact of the matter is, the science is not settled on whether or not the climate change is being impacted by man to the point where we’re going to put America’s economics in jeopardy.
WILLIAMS: Governor, time.
Bob Koss, what makes you think I’m taking anybody but Perry at his word? In addition to being wrong and incoherent, “what Perry said about Galileo was flat-out moronic,” to quote James Fallows.
Keith, I just showed you what Perry said. Your quote of Yeglesias in your head post “But a direct translation of what I was trying to say is provided by Matthew Yeglesias here:”
So you agreed with him. Now you say you are taking Perry at his word and not relying on Yeglesias’ word. Then why did you quote and affirm Yeglesias unless you really think what Perry said was incoherent? Just what what did Perry say that was incoherent? It seems reasonably clear to me.
Now you quote James Fallows as saying Perry is somehow moronic about Galileo. I’ll take that as tacit agreement with yet another person who refused to quote Perry, but felt no compunction about slamming him.
You’ll notice what Perry said about Galileo is also in my comment #25. Maybe you could expound on why you think Perry was moronic for saying Galileo got out voted for a while? I’m always open to another rational opinion.
Keith Kloor, I asked legitimate questions with honest intent. You respond by mocking me. That’s pathetic.
Bob,
I read what Perry said. I told you he was wrong and yes, I agree with with the two sources I quoted. You’re welcome to live in Perryworld. I’ll choose the real world, thank you very much.
Brandon,
It should be abundantly clear to you by now that I find you eminently mockable and not worth taking seriously. Yet you remain a loyal reader. What does that make you?
Bob Koss,
Perry is full of Bull. Galileo didn’t get outvoted by scientists. He pissed off the Vatican. They weren’t scientists. Part of his problem was personally insulting the Vatican.
The part about air pollution is nonsense. It is irrelevant that Texas reduced its air pollution by a lot. Texas still has the worst air pollution in the nation. He was forced to take action, and is now resisting finishing the job.
Perry claimed he had no doubts about the executions in Texas. That is a shame. A innocent man was executed for arson on the basis of testimony from an expert who turned out to be wrong. Perry refused to stay the execution, and tried to hush the whole thing up.
Keith, you didn’t say Perry was “wrong”. You said you agree with people who say Perry was “incoherent” and “moronic”. Not the same thing is it? Well, unless bias has corrupted the definition of those words. In which case you might consider “incoherent” and “moronic” as valid replacements for “wrong”.
Keith Kloor, you claim I “remain a loyal reader,” but that isn’t true at all. I’ve often gone months without looking at your site, and the only reason I am still loading up your site after your recent insane behavior is my continued involvement in one other thread. Once that ends, I don’t imagine I’ll have any motivation to come here.
Aside from that, I find it remarkable you respond to me for no reason other than mockery. I have no problem with mocking people while addressing what they say, but mocking what they say while avoiding discussing it is basically just using ad hominem.
Though now that I think about it, it might be worth remaining “a loyal reader” just to see how absurd you behave. Your comments are like a case study in irrationality.
Jon P
Perry said that SS was a Ponzi scheme a number of times. He also claimed that it was unconstitutional. He obviously didn’t believe in the idea.
In fact social security is fixable rather easily and has been very effective in keeping seniors out of poverty.
Bob Koss,
@31
Are you for real? The category wrong ovbiously includes moronic and incoherent . Your denial is like saying that a bass is not a fish. You are cluttering up the thread with nonsensical posts.
Eric,
And if SS is not changed it is a Ponzi Scheme. Perry also said he understands we cannot undo 70 years of precedent and that SS needs to be fixed and people around 55+ should have no changes, do you disagree with that?
I’ll yield that his answer on AGW was incoherent and muttled. Perry was not very sharp last night although he did have some moments. I think his position on SS is the correct one.
Do not know who the Republican nominee will be, but if that person wins the election, Newt would make a great Chief of Staff!
KK: yes, Perry is generally portrayed over here as such a bozo (and you folks as so dumb for even considering him) that it really is hard to know what he wouldn’t say.
TG: everything connected to science. But specifically all the words you quoted about G and the church.
#36, see the difference between a real comments section and one that has Stalinist moderation? That’s why you have to venture out past your own backyard to get into a real conversation.
JonP,
It is not a Ponzi Scheme.
There is no fraud in social security. No one is promised an exorbitant return on investment.
It is not unconstitutional as Perry claims.
Eric,
Are you saying that without changes to SS when people who are currently 25-30 years old, when they retire at 67 they will get 100
% of what they are promised today? What about using what is supposed to be in the SS Trust Fund for the regular budget, that is not fraud?
“It is not unconstitutional as Perry has previously claimed.” Fixed it for you, because he will not continue that claim in the general election so it has zero relevance.
Let me repeat my question since you avoided it:
“Perry also said he understands we cannot undo 70 years of precedent and that SS needs to be fixed and people around 55+ should have no changes, do you disagree with that?”
Eric Adler,
Texas made substantial headway in reducing emissions. Yet you find this irrelevant? I suspect most people disagree with you. Try telling your wife it is irrelevant when she tells you she washed 75% of the laundry today and will wash more when it again rises high enough in her priority list, That’s if you have a wife. You sound awfully tough to live with. 🙂
All though not the best of sources, I suspect the wikipedia item on Galileo has this part right about the distribution of beliefs back then.
“Galileo’s championing of heliocentrism was controversial within his lifetime, when most subscribed to either geocentrism or the Tychonic system.[10] He met with opposition from astronomers, who doubted heliocentrism due to the absence of an observed stellar parallax.”
If a vote of scientists had been taken Galileo likely would have lost. But, the Pope had the only vote that counted anyway. Ergo, Galileo was out voted.
I’m not a lawyer, neither am I at all familiar with the Texas legal system. I suspect the governor’s only involvement is the ability to stay an execution. If the Governor followed the rules of the system, maybe some changes should be made to the system, rather than putting all the blame on the Governor. Here we may have a difference of opinion, but it is off topic to this thread anyway. So this will be my only response about the death penalty.
A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment operation that pays returns to separate investors, not from any actual profit earned by the organization, but from their own money or money paid by subsequent investors. The Ponzi scheme usually entices new investors by offering returns other investments cannot guarantee, in the form of short-term returns that are either abnormally high or unusually consistent. The perpetuation of the returns that a Ponzi scheme advertises and pays requires an ever-increasing flow of money from investors to keep the scheme going.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ponzi_scheme
SS sure seems like a Ponzi Scheme to me in its current form.
Eric Adler #34,
What a foolish thing to say.
Here is an actual dictionary with definitions and lists of synonymous words. I think you’ll find more reliable than what you have rattling around in your head.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/
Since it appears your intent is to now conduct our exchange at a very low level, I won’t be responding further.
re 36
William Connelly writes
===============
TG: everything connected to science. But specifically all the words you quoted about G and the church.
=============
I am not really interested in an IS-IS NOT discussion. Feyerabend made an argument. Your reply is IS NOT. Do you have anything of substance beyond IS NOT?
Yep, Social Security is a Ponzi scheme & all non-zombies know it. At least on this issue, the US would not be “so dumb” to consider Perry. He is forcing a conversation that pols on both sides have avoided for decades and many appreciate that (potentially suicidal) effort.
Mr. Kloor –
Your attempt at satire here was not subtle, it was incoherent. Nothing wrong with that, just try harder next time
Regarding Galileo, it would have been better not to drag him into the AGW question since the analogy is very strained. Having said that, it is most certainly true that the scientists of his day disagreed with heliocentrism and for many plausible reasons. The church vs. science narrative is a cartoon and there are many good books that explain the dispute in its full context.
Perry Rocks. Bachman is hot. Newt should be chief of staff. Romney needs out – a Romney campaign would be called “dancing with health care”. Where is Chris Christy; somebody pull him away from that doughnut. Huntsman is actually a liberal plant; the manchurian. Santorum… meeh. Palin is on a mission to bring down BHO; she won’t run; good bless her (she’s hot too).
Funnily, there are so many fronts on which Perry is vulnerable (a hint, think crony), that there’s no need to make stuff up. It’s just a liberal habit that’s hard to break.
Sadly, I don’t think republicans have found their candidate yet. I’m thinking Cain .vs. Obama would be most entertaining.
Frankly, I don’t care who defeats BHO as long they shrink government, cut spending, keep taxes low, burn the tax code (all copies), repeal Obama care, Structuraly reform the (not a ponzi scheme ;-)) entitlement programs, roll back regulations, disband the EPA, get the federal government out of education, and reduce NASA funding 85%.
Is that too much to ask? Well one can always hope.
Bob Koss
@40, on the question of Perry and the death penalty, there is this story:
“DALLAS, Texas (CNN) — An investigation into claims that faulty evidence led Texas to execute an innocent man in 2004 was at a “crucial point” when the state’s governor replaced three of its members this week, one of the three said Thursday.
Gov. Rick Perry’s shake-up of the Texas Forensic Science Commission came two days before it was to hear from the author of a scathing report in the case of Cameron Todd Willingham. That Friday session has been postponed indefinitely in the wake of Perry’s new appointments, and critics of the governor accused him of trying to quash the Willingham probe.
…
Beyler’s report is the latest of three to conclude that arson was not the likely cause of the 1991 fire, and the first commissioned by a state agency. Death penalty opponents say an impartial review of the Willingham case could lead to an unprecedented admission that the state executed an innocent man.
The Beyler report concluded that the ruling of arson at the heart of Willingham’s conviction “could not be sustained” by modern science or the standards of the time. The report, filed in August, said the state fire marshal who testified in Willingham’s trial approached his job with an attitude “more characteristic of mystics or psychics” than with that of a detective who followed scientific standards.
Perry, who faces a Republican primary challenge in his bid for a third term next year, refused to issue a last-minute stay of execution for Willingham in 2004 and has said he remains confident that Willingham was guilty. So have authorities in Corsicana, south of Dallas, who prosecuted Willingham in his daughter’s deaths.”
TG: OK, in details:
> The church at the time of Galileo was much more faithful to reason than Galileo himself,
This is wrong.
> and also took into consideration the ethical and social consequences of Galileo’s doctrine.
This is arguable, but wrong.
> Its verdict against Galileo was rational and just,
This is wrong.
> and revisionism can be legitimized solely for motives of political opportunism.
Somewhere between meaningless and wrong.
You’ve offered no evidence in support of your implausible assertions, so I don’t see why I should be expected to offer much by way of rebuttal. But I suggest you start with “Its verdict against Galileo was rational and just” which is most clearly wrong.
Being facetious/sarcastic does not work on a blog in the climate debate. I hope you have learnt that now.
Keith needs a ‘ridiculae’ tag for posts like these. Or he could preface his post with a gigantic ‘sarc on’.
re 48
William Connelly writes
[In response to an widely acknowledged argument by the major philosopher of science Paul Feyerabend about Galileo and the church (taken from a major book)]
==========
This is wrong. … This is wrong. … most clearly wrong.
==========
or in other words
IS NOT … IS NOT … IS NOT
The sad part about this is that this is typical of the level of discourse on the topic of AGW. It is just people yelling “IS NOT” and “IS TOO” at each other over and over again.
　
Feyerabend’s analysis offers us insight into how and why the AGW has become politicized and why each side in this culture war sees the other as irrational and unreasonable. His insight that each side will see the science in terms of larger social issues and will have their view of the view of the science tuned by thee considerations is very important. So we have science that is young and necessarily affected by uncertain observations and incomplete theories. The implications of this science could be critical but the findings are plagued with uncertainty. How will the findings of this science by accepted by society? Of course, since the findings can have major ocial and economic effects, each side will take what it needs from the uncertain results. Each side will view the other as wrong, most clearly wring etc – i.e. irrational and unrasnable. The debate will become people yelling “IS NOT” and “IS TOO” at each other.
So perhaps, Feyerabend’s arguments can offer us insight into just what is happening in AGW
Sorry I pasted an un-proofed version
re 48
William Connelly writes
[In response to an widely acknowledged argument by the major philosopher of science Paul Feyerabend about Galileo and the church (taken from a major book)]
==========
This is wrong. … This is wrong. … most clearly wrong.
==========
or in other words
IS NOT … IS NOT … IS NOT
The sad part about this is that this is typical of the level of discourse on the topic of AGW. It is just people yelling “IS NOT” and “IS TOO” at each other over and over again.
　
Feyerabend’s analysis offers us insight into how and why the AGW issue has become politicized and why each side in this culture war sees the other as irrational and unreasonable. His insight that each side will see the science in terms of larger social issues and will have their view of the science tuned by these considerations is very important. So we have a science that is young and necessarily affected by uncertain observations and incomplete theories. The implications of this science could be critical but the findings are plagued with uncertainty. How will the findings of this science by accepted by society? Of course, since the findings can have major social and economic effects, each side will take what it needs from the uncertain results. Each side will view the other as wrong, most clearly wring etc – i.e. irrational and unreasonable. The debate will become people yelling “IS NOT” and “IS TOO” at each other.
So perhaps, Feyerabend’s arguments can offer us insight into just what is happening in AGW
Bob Koss,
The only reason that air pollution was reduced in Texas was that there was a federal mandate that Texas do something, which Perry has resisted.
http://articles.boston.com/2011-09-08/news/30131243_1_romney-minimum-wage-unemployment-rate/3
“THE FACTS: Texas has reduced emissions as Perry described, but most of those reductions were required under the federal Clean Air Act. However, the Environmental Protection Agency recently rescinded the state’s authority to grant some air pollution permits because the state did not comply with federal regulations. Texas, home to America’s oil and gas industry, still emits more carbon dioxide “” the chief greenhouse gas “” than any other state in the country, according to government data. Several metropolitan areas in Texas still violate health-based limits for smog, and the county that is home to Houston is one of the biggest emitters of hazardous air pollution in the country. The Texas Legislature also passed, and Perry signed, a law that will delay enforcing stiffer clean air regulations by two years.”
One commentor said that Perry’s claiming credit for pollution reduction is like the cock crowing in the morning and claiming he made the sun rise.
Tom Gray,
@52,
The science of climatology is not that young. The radiation effects of greenhouse gases were discovered in 1859, and John Tyndall who did the experimental work, understood that the earth is made warmer, especially at night because they retard energy loss from the earth’s surface. The role of industrial emissions was pointed out by Arrhenius in 1896 when he calculated climate sensitivity to CO2 for the first time. The basic physics has been understood for 152 years. Improvement in instruments, observations from space, and computing have allowed more detailed calculations and more effects to be included. The chance that a revolutionary overthrow of established theories that occurred in Galileo’s time, facilitated by a totally new measuring instrument, like the telescope is very slim.
The real skeptical scientists who oppose AGW don’t propose anything big or new. They are just nitpickers. There lis of course a lot of quackery, for example MisKolczi.
http://www.realclimate.org/wiki/index.php?title=Ferenc_Miskolczi
Perry thinks the quacks are real scientists. If he doesn’t have the intelligence to know the difference it is scary to think where he will take America if he gets elected.
His insight that each side will see the science in terms of larger social issues and will have their view of the view of the science tuned by thee considerations is very important.
It may be important, but one would have no idea what it is from this garbled description. Sorry if I’m being “unrasnable.”
I don’t think Feyerabend’s 1975 insight is particularly novel or earth-shattering in 2011. He’s saying that the scientific method is not sacrosanct, that scientists use ad hoc methods and so forth. Feyerabend uses a reductio ad absurdum to paint all of science as hidebound and locked into a rigid, inflexible philosophical framework. And, like any critique, this has elements of truth as well as being an oversimplification: anyone actually involved in science can tell you how anarchic it really is in the trenches.
With regard to the Church’s verdict taking “into consideration the ethical and social consequences of Galileo’s doctrine,” one could turn to a source no less autoritative as Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and thus a direct institutional descendant of those who sat in judgment of Galileo, who said in 1990:
To my great surprise, in a recent interview on the Galileo case, I was not asked a question like, “˜Why did the Church try to get in the way of the development of modern science?’, but rather exactly the opposite, that is: “˜Why didn’t the church take a more clear position against the disasters that would inevitably follow, once Galileo had opened Pandora’s box?’
Today we know Ratzinger as Pope Benedict the Sixteenth.
It’s common to look at everything and see in it confirmation of your cherished beliefs. Intellectual integrity begins with recognizing and challenging that tendency.
re 55
PDA
I think that the point should be emphasized that Feyerabend did not see:
“all of science as hidebound and locked into a rigid, inflexible philosophical framework ”
but that social groups would take their own forms of science that would be compatible with their social goals. So for example, a green university would not have a department concerned with nuclear engineering while the universities of other groups would. Each would have a science that fitted their soail needs.
So there are multiple climate sciences, each serving teh social needs of their groups.
As one example, the vehement denunciations that one reads of “the Pielkes” that one reads in some blogs and in the Climategate emails can be explained by this. The Pilekes generate valid science but that science is not compatible the climate sciences of certain groups. So “IS TOO – IS NOT” goes on forever.
re 54
Eric Adler
You are giving a good summary of the climate science of the RealClimate group. However there are other climate sciences that are held by other groups. Each of these sciences has theories and models that conform to observational evidence to a degree that is acceptable to their adherents. Each conforms to the social imperatives of these groups.
The issue is how these varying viewpoints can be made compatible so that an effective political choice can be made on the issue of AGW. These is nothing wrong with this. This is how a pluralistic society can understand and come to terms with an issue. However the idea that this can be accomplished by everyone accepting that one group has access to the clear and unvarnished “truth” (whatever that is) as determined by unbiased science is unworkable. We have clear evidence that that method does not work. As Mite Hulme has observed, people have their own minds. Feyerabend’s account is one which can allow an understanding of just what is going on and why the problem seems so intractable.
If Feyerabend is correct that there are “multiple climate sciences,” Tom Gray, how does one evaluate which of these sciences most correctly reflects the world as it is?
re 58
PDA
The sciences are plagued with uncertainty. Each science takes the observations that it requires and deprecates the others. One climate science trumpets tipping points and the dangers to future generations. Another climate science deprecates the tipping point theories as doubtful and points out the dangers to future generations of the cost of AGW mitigation. Rival climate sciences take their own discount rates for future costs.
Each of these climate sciences is compatible with the observations that it chooses to be compatible with. Green science and non-green science are each compatible with the observations surrounding nuclear engineering. One need only look at Fukushima for that. One would accept it and one would reject it
Kessler needs some basic instruction on the difference between opinion and fact. His report on the debate is just pathetic. What kind of an arrogant idiot sets himself up to judge the accuracy of an opinion.
Social security has been determined to be unsustainable by lots and lots of knowledgeable people who have studied it closely. They may be wrong. After all, expert predictions usually are. But it is certainly well within accepted discourse to say the social security is unsustainable. And it’s absolutely true that the early retirees in the system got benefits far, far in excess of any reasonable return on their contributions. In that regard, it clearly has characteristics that resemble a Ponzi scheme. And lots of politicians have been guilty of a lot of misrepresentations regarding the nature of the program. They have successfully fooled a lot of voters into beliefs about SS that are not true. Fooling voters into supporting the program can certainly by likened to the falsehoods which underly a Ponzi scheme.
Note — Congressman Claude Pepper, perhaps the most staunch proponent of SS in history, specifically argued in favor of the program back in the 1980s with the claim that what made SS so great for senior citizens is that they received benefits far greater than they could have expected had they made the same contributions into a private retirement plan.
Tom, I don’t understand your reply.
Are all “climate sciences” similarly valid? If I start a “climate science” that says the earth is being warmed by the exhalations of fire-breathing dragons, would it be on an equal footing with the two “climate sciences” you mention?
If not, what is the bar for separating a “climate science” from a notion, or a fantasy?
re 61
PDA writes
=====================
Are all “climate sciences” similarly valid? If I start a “climate science” that says the earth is being warmed by the exhalations of fire-breathing dragons, would it be on an equal footing with the two “climate sciences” you mention?
If not, what is the bar for separating a “climate science” from a notion, or a fantasy?
====================
　
　
Yes there are differing sciences and they are all “valid” but one has to understand just how they are “valid”
In the Galileo case the Church was defending Aristotelian science against an upstart new science that was emanating from the Protestant north. the Church’s science had been in existence for about 2,000 years. It had served the purposes of St Augustine, Thomas Aquinas and untold others. People had lived deep and fulfilling lives and the science of Aristotle served their purposes. So the Galileo affair was not simply about the forces of ignorance suppressing the truth of incorruptible science. It was the contesting of two world views that differed on the validity of the political and social structure of that time in Europe.
Aristotle’s science placed nature in a rigid order. It was a science that was compatible with a social structure based on established authority. The new Protestant science overturned that order and removed the authority that separated the individual from God. Aristotle’s science was good enough for the scientific purposes of the Church and it had been good enough for centuries. They saw no need to change to accommodate a few unexpected celestial observations.
What people really do not realize is that the science we have today comes from the social structures that originated in millenarian Protestant Christianity. So yes, there are different sciences for different social groups and these sciences make differing predictions about the world. All of these sciences are “valid” in the sense that they provide the answers that their originating society wants to have.
Much of the AGW controversy is based on differing views of humanity’s role in the world. is it to act as stewards to the environment or is it to enhance the life of the single individual? Can fulfillment come from stewardship or consumption. Both of these derive from the ideas of millenarian Christianity since they both are aspects of the Protestant science of which Galileo was a part. However, as we can see from the endless controversy, they interpret the observations quite differently.
Tom Gray,
You are neglecting the contribution that Galileo made to science. He established the primacy of observation and experiment as a means of determining the validity of a theory.
Stephen Hawking has called him the father of modern science
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
Galileo’s mistake, was not his advocacy of heliocentrism. He insulted pope Urban VII. That is what got him convicted and penalized with house arrest.
Steve McIntyre is no Galileo.
Tom Gray @ 56,
There are not really 2 climate sciences. Most of the opposition to AGW comes from blogs. Only 3% of climate scientists do not accept the theory of AGW.
The opposition scientists use the same tools and methods of climate scientists, and come to somewhat different conclusions, and focus on a different set of facts.
Tom Gray,
I meant @57 in my previous post.
RE 62
The validity of science is not determined by non scientists or politicians or the general public. It is determined by scientists who over time will refute, discard or ignore theories that turn out to be in conflict with observations and experiments. This is currently happening to Spencer, Lindzen, Michaels and Soon etc.
Are there really significant numbers of biological scientists who don’t accept evolution by random variation and natural selection? Should we consider other ideas such as biblical creation because some politicians and about 1/2 of the American public believes it?
Your idea seems bizarre to me.
Tom Bray,
Are we going to revise history because Perry says Galileo was burned at the stake?
re 63
Eric Adler writes
===========
You are neglecting the contribution that Galileo made to science
=========
And the Chruch was defending the science of Aristotle who was one of the great thinkers of all history. It is not useful to think of this as a conflict between “science” and the forces of ignorance. The AGW issue is similarly not a clash between science and ingorance although the RealClimate group likes to portray it as such.
And, for what it is worth, nobody at RealClimate is in the same league as Galileo or Aristotle
Tom Gray,
Where do you get the idea that Galileo was pushing Protestant science? In fact Galileo had support for his ideas among the Jesuits, until he insulted the pope. Kepler and Copernicus who proposed a heliocentric world, were opposed by Protestants.
Galileo’s real crime was to insult the pope.
http://www.catholic.com/library/Galileo_Controversy.asp
Tom Gray
@67,
John Tyndall and Svante Arrhenius, the founders of climate science are among the greatest scientists of their day. Their work was done over a century ago. The people at RealClimate are building on this legacy.
re 65
Eric Adler writes
============
Should we consider other ideas such as biblical creation because some politicians and about 1/2 of the American public believes it?
==============
And why do you think that these people have chosen this as their science. What purpose is it fulfilling in their lives?
From what I can tell you are of the opinion that there is only one true from of science in the world. What do you say to the multitudes of people who find this science unsatisfying? Is it because, this science, as it is practiced, is based on a philosophical position that discounts core beliefs that these people find essential. is it because many modern biologists have infused their science with their own moral position on the relation of humanity and the environment? I have heard many of them say that humanity is only one species like all the others. This is not a scientific statement. it is not falsifiable. It is a moral statement but is used by many biologists as an explanation of their view of evolution.
Tom Gray,
Science describes the behavior of the material world. It is falsifiable. Evolution is a scientific theory. In the case of human origin, it is based on the morphology of physical remains millions of years old, and DNA sequences that show the kinship between apes and humans, as well as the body of theory. The characteristics that make human beings what they are understood from a biological point of view. If the DNA of human beings had a totally different chemical composition from that of animals, or the biology of man bore no relatonship to that of any animal, the theory would be falsified. It is wrong to claim the descent of man from animals is not a falsifiable theory.
To call the biblical story of the creation, science doesn’t make any sense. There are no observations in the material realm to support it. In fact, the text of the creation story contains internal contradictions. You are conflating religious beliefs with science. Your ideas are bizarre.
re 71
Eric Adler writes
================
Science describes the behavior of the material world. It is falsifiable. Evolution is a scientific theory. In the case of human origin, it is based on the morphology of physical remains millions of years old, and DNA …
===========
I didn’t ask you for a critique of creationist thought, I asked you why so many people are attracted to it and accept it as describing the behavior of the material world.
　
I also asked you why so many biological scientists infuse their pronouncements about evolution with non-falsifable moral statements about the place of humanity in the environment.
For me, an understanding of this will provide insight into the apparently intractable culture war over AGW. Why do some groups of climate scientists make scientific pronouncements that go beyond the scientific evidence? Why do some climate scientists make statements that reveal a belief in pixie dust? Why do climate skeptics do teh same things.
Tom Gray @72,
It is pretty clear why people in the US find the creation story more believable than the biologists story. The religious story is perpetuated by institutions and families in the US. There is a pervasive anti intellectual climate in American culture. In many areas of the country, evolution is not taught as the fundamental theory which explains the earth’s biology. Acceptance of evolution varies from country to country. In Germany it is 80%, in the US 35%.
It seems that religion and morality have survival value for humans because they are a social animal. It is clear that emotion can trump logic and facts, due to motivated reasoning. The extent to which this happens depends on the educational level of the individual and the personality they are born with.
I read a lot of stories about different fossil discoveries which contain interviews with biologist. I am not familiar with the moral statements by biologists which you refer to. Show me what I am missing.
Tom Gray,
“For me, an understanding of this will provide insight into the apparently intractable culture war over AGW. Why do some groups of climate scientists make scientific pronouncements that go beyond the scientific evidence? Why do some climate scientists make statements that reveal a belief in pixie dust? Why do climate skeptics do teh same things.”
The culture war over AGW is easy to understand. All you have to do is read the history. As the evidence for AGW began to mount, strong opposition to the scientific theory arose from political forces that hate the idea of government regulation. The had fought against the idea that smoking harmed health, the idea that reduction in stratospheric ozone would be harmed by CFC’s, and other scientific theories that implied governmental regulation is needed to protect the environment. There were a number of scientists who shared the ideology, and lent their prestige to these battles and got well paid for it. Among them were Jastrow, Singer and Seitz. There will also be iconoclasts who get off on defying the conventional wisdom.
http://failuremag.com/index.php/feature/article/merchants_of_doubt/