Politics Disguised as Science: When to Doubt a Scientific ‘Consensus’
Anyone who has studied the history of science knows that scientists are not immune to the non-rational dynamics of the herd.
By Jay Richards Published on April 19, 2017
https://stream.org/doubt-scientific-consensus/
This week’s March for Science is odd. Marches are
usually held to defend something that’s in peril. Does anyone really think big science is in danger? The mere fact that the March was scheduled for
Earth Day betrays what the event is
really about
:
politics. The organizers
admitted as much early on, though they’re now busy trying to cover the event in
sciencey camouflage.
If past is prologue,
expect to hear a lot about the supposed “consensus” on catastrophic climate change this week. The
purpose of this claim is to
shut up skeptical non-scientists.
How should non-scientists respond when told about this consensus? We can’t all study climate science.
But since politics often masquerades as science, we need a way to tell one from the other.
“Consensus,” according to Merriam-Webster, means both “general agreement” and “group solidarity in sentiment and belief.”
That sums up the problem. Is this consensus based on solid evidence and sound logic, or
social pressure and groupthink?
Anyone who has
studied the history of science knows that scientists are
prone to
herd instincts.
Many false ideas once enjoyed consensus. Indeed, the “power of the paradigm” often blinds scientists to alternatives to their view. Question the paradigm, and some respond with
anger.
We shouldn’t, of course, forget
the other side of the coin. There are cranks and conspiracy theorists. No matter how well founded a scientific consensus, there’s someone who thinks it’s all hokum. Sometimes these folks turn out to be right. But often, they’re just cranks whose counsel is best ignored....
...And how do we tell crankish imperviousness to evidence from legitimate skepticism?” Do we have to trust whatever we’re told is based on a scientific consensus unless we can study the science ourselves?
When can you doubt a consensus? When should you doubt it?
Your best bet is to look at the process that produced, defends and transmits the supposed consensus. I don’t know of any complete list of signs of suspicion.
But here’s a checklist to decide when you can, even
should, doubt a scientific “consensus,”
whatever the subject. One of these signs may be enough to give pause.
If they start to pile up, then it’s wise to be leery.
(1) When different claims get bundled together
Usually, in scientific disputes, there’s more than one claim at issue. With global warming, there’s the claim that our planet, on average, is getting warmer. There’s also the claim that we are the main cause of it, that it’s going to be catastrophic, and that we must transform civilization to deal with it. These are all different claims based on different evidence....
...(2) When ad hominem attacks against dissenters predominate
Personal attacks are common in any dispute. It’s
easier to insult than to the follow the thread of an argument. And j
ust because someone makes an ad hominem argument, it doesn’t mean that their conclusion is wrong.
But when the personal attacks are the first out of the gate, don your skeptic’s cap and look more closely at the data.
When it comes to climate change, ad hominems are
everywhere. They’re even smuggled into the way the debate is described. The common label “denier” is
one example. This label is supposed to call to mind the charge of columnist Ellen Goodman: “I would like to say we’re at a point where global warming is impossible to deny. Let’s just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers.”
There’s an old legal proverb:
If you have the facts on your side, argue the facts. If you have the law on your side, argue the law. If you have neither, attack the witness. When proponents of a scientific consensus
lead with an attack on the witness, rather than on the
arguments and evidence, be
suspicious.
(3) When scientists are pressured to toe the party line
The famous Lysenko affair in the former Soviet Union is example of politics trumping good science. But it’s
not the only way politics can override science. There’s also a conspiracy of agreement, in which
assumptions and interests combine to give the
appearance of objectivity where none exists. This is even
more forceful than a literal conspiracy enforced by a dictator. Why? Because it
looks like the agreement reflects a fair and independent weighing of the evidence.
Tenure, job promotions, government grants, media accolades, social respectability, Wikipedia entries, and vanity
can do what gulags do, only more subtly. ...
....(4) When publishing and peer review in the discipline is cliquish
Though it has its limits, the peer-review process is meant to provide checks and balances. At its best, it helps weed out bad and misleading work, and make scientific research more objective. But when the
same few people review and approve each other’s work, you get
conflicts of interest....
...(5) When dissenters are excluded from the peer-reviewed journals not because of weak evidence or bad arguments but to marginalize them.
Besides mere cliquishness,
the “peer review” process in climate science has, in some cases,
been subverted to prevent dissenters from being published. Again, those who follow the debate have known about these problems for
years. But the Climategate debacle in 2009 revealed some of the gory details for the broader public.
And again, this gives the lay public a reason to doubt the consensus.
(6) When the actual peer-reviewed literature is misrepresented...
...In fact, there are plenty of dissenting papers in the literature. This is despite mounting evidence that the peer-review deck was stacked against them. The 2009 Climategate scandal underscored this: T
he climate scientists at the center of the controversy complained in their emails about dissenting papers that survived the peer-review booby traps they put in place. They even fantasized about
torpedoing a climate science journal that dared to publish a dissenting article.
(7) When consensus is declared before it even exists...
...In 1992, former Vice President Al Gore reassured his listeners, “Only an insignificant fraction of scientists deny the global warming crisis. The time for debate is over. The science is settled.”
In the real 1992, however, Gallup “reported that 53% of scientists actively involved in global climate research did not believe global warming had occurred; 30% weren’t sure; and only 17% believed global warming had begun. Even a Greenpeace poll showed 47% of climatologists didn’t think a runaway greenhouse effect was imminent; only 36% thought it possible and a mere 13% thought it probable.”
Seventeen years later,
in 2009, Gore revised his own fake history....
...(8) When the subject matter seems, by its nature, to resist consensus
It makes sense that chemists over time may come to agree about the results of some chemical reaction, since they can repeat the results over and over in their own labs. They’re easy to test. But much of climate science is not like that. The evidence is scattered and hard to track. It’s often indirect, imbedded in history and laden with theory....
...(9) When “scientists say” or “science says” is a common locution
In Newsweek’s
April 28, 1975, issue, science editor Peter Gwynne claimed that
“scientists are almost unanimous” that
global cooling was underway.
Now we are told, “Scientists say global warming will lead to the extinction of plant and animal species, the flooding of coastal areas from rising seas, more extreme weather, more drought and diseases spreading more widely.” The phrase “Scientists say” is ambiguous. You
should wonder: “Which ones?”
Other times this vague company of scientists becomes “
SCIENCE.” As when we’re told “what science says is required to avoid catastrophic climate change.”
“Science says” is an weasely claim. “Science,” after all, is an abstract noun. It can’t speak. Whenever you see these phrases used to imply a consensus,
it should trigger your baloney detector.
(10) When it is being used to justify dramatic political or economic policies
Imagine
hundreds of world leaders and NGOS, science groups, and UN functionaries gathered for a meeting. It’s
heralded as the most important conference since World War II, in which
“the future of the world is being decided.” These officials seem to agree that institutions of
“global governance” need to be set up to
reorder the world economy and restrict energy use. Large numbers of them
applaud wildly when
socialist dictators denounce capitalism. Strange
activism surrounds the gathering. And we are told by our president that all of this is based, not on fiction, but on
science — that is, a scientific consensus that our greenhouse gas emissions are leading to climate catastrophe.
We don’t have to imagine that scenario, of course.
It happened at the UN climate meeting in Copenhagen, in
December 2009. It happened again in Paris, in
December 2015. Expect something
at least as zany at the
March for Science....
...When the megaphones of consensus insist that there’s no time, that we have to move, MOVE, MOVE!,
you have a right to be wary.
(11) When the “consensus” is maintained by an army of water-carrying journalists who defend it with partisan zeal, and seem intent on helping certain scientists with their messaging rather than reporting on the field as fairly as possible
Do I
really need to elaborate on this point?
(12) When we keep being told that there’s a scientific consensus
A consensus should be based on solid evidence. But a consensus is not itself the evidence. And with well-established scientific theories, you never hear about consensus. No one talks about the consensus that the planets orbit the sun, that the hydrogen molecule is lighter than the oxygen molecule, that salt is sodium chloride, that bacteria sometimes cause illness, or that blood carries oxygen to our organs. The very fact that we hear so much about a consensus on climate change may be enough to justify suspicion.
To
adapt that old legal rule, when you’ve got solid scientific evidence on your side, you argue the evidence. When you’ve got great arguments, you make the arguments.
When you don’t have solid evidence or great arguments, you claim consensus.
Adapted from THE AMERICAN. This piece has been updated since its original publication.
Jay W. Richards is Executive Editor of The Stream. Follow him on Twitter.