You raise a very important subject, one that should be hollered about across the nation. Unfortunately, when ever someone from the "left" suggests that there is an absence of consistent standards for evaluating policies, the "right" manages to stick a big post-it note (TM) to their head that says, "Whiner".

There is a specific example I'd like to mention, but it would detract from the major theme of your post. I will restrain myself.

Anyway... at the risk of falling into dualism... I'd like to know whether the solution is for those concerned about the environment to bring more scrutiny bear on the various other disciplines you mention, thereby illuminating the hypocrisy of the bastards. Or should we just recognize the problem, toss it around a bit, and forget about it?

I have no ideas myself regarding how to correct the situation. I composed this little post only because I saw an opportunity to use your new title.

Y'all have a pleasant weekend.

that is because y'all are not a scientist, therefore y'all are be-muddled by science.

Science is not just the simplistic concepts y'all understand (yes the words are just fine, and really are in the english language)

Science is built upon a massive data-base of concepts drawn from EVIDENCE, so skimming the top only leads to false impressions.  Dangerously FALSE impressions.

This is why pollies have no idea, and the general public has no idea, and often scientists outside their field have no idea,,,, about the real meaning and implications of the written words of science.

You guys REALLY have no idea.

>>  he defended the models against every legalistic quibble from every aggrieved, attention-starved loser with an Internet connection, a history of poor socialization, and too much time on his hands.  >>

Good to see the attitude fostered here... sorry not my scene.

Yes scientists get treated like this by all and sundry.

Let this game unfold and your laughter will turn to tears.... This is my LAST post here, so blow your trumpet or is it your bu(n)gle.

If anyone really wants to know what is happening to the climate, and what is the most likely outcome then read
"The Death of Clouds" available from

omegafour.com

Fires are just starting, and y'all cry about CO2 emissions, LOL.

Its been nice chatting, until the Big Oil lobby started its smear campaign.

Here, Dave says he's got an epidural or something and can't figure out why statistical confidence levels are needed or fair, when measuring like global CO2 concentrations and stuff.

Gee, Dave, if you're not going to measure anything I guess you really don't need any nagging statistics.   Just say it's a done deal like Bush says history will be kind to him.  /sammie

Onward through the fog

Anyway, here's a pretty good, pretty coherent (for Z magazine, anyway) response to the Alex Cockburn idiocy, with shout outs to Grister Thom Athanasiou and also to Coby Beck.  Talks a bit about the nature of science and what it can tell us.

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=57& ...

The 5% Project

Epistemology is the branch of philosophy which answers such questions as: What is knowledge?; What is learning?; How do we learn anything?; What do we mean when we say that we "know" something?; How do we know that we "know" it?

Possibly English is the best language in which to do epistemology, because of that mysterious, uncanny silent "k."  It would have suited Plato fine, who was never weirder than when presenting his hypothetical notion of "anamnesis," that we never actually learn anything new in this body-entrapped existence of ours, we just come to recognize truths that our souls had experienced in their liberated state, floating out there among the Ideas, prior to their incarnation in our bodies at our birth.

Wherefore, I am not quite sure dear DR is using the term "epistemology" correctly.  Scientific reasoning is indeed a very important and fascinating subject, but I think it belongs within Logic, not Epistemology.

Not that it really matters.  One could try channeling Aristotle, I guess.  He knew/knows all about these things; he sort of "wrote the book."  But of course, if I were allowed to conduct a brief interview with Aristotle, a` la Deborah Solomon, I would probably spend most of it on what he remembered about Alexander the Great and Hephaestion, e.g., Did they really look like Colin Farrell and Jared Leto?; Did he allow them to sit next to each other in class?; Did he have to separate them at any point?; Could he keep his eye on them during fire drills?

Anyway, DR's "other disciplines that inform policymakers" is a fascinating subject.  But once you bring "history" and "ethics" into the mix, things get very complicated, rather too complicated for something so simple and straightforward as climate science.  (Ha ha.)  ("Ethics," of course, is yet another great Aristotelian flavor.  And "Ethical Rocky Road" is to die for.  Ha ha.)

Take embryonic stem cell research.  Should it be done?  Those who say "NO!" think that those who do it are committing a sin.  Those who say "YES!" think that those who oppose doing it are committing a sin (though they probably would not put it quite like that).  By most measures of what constitutes "consensus," we ain't there yet.

As for History, another Great Greek Invention -- the royalties have been pouring in to Herodotus of Halicarnassus for millennia -- : Her Majesty HerSelf came to celebrate the 400th anniversary of the English settlement at Jamestown, Virginia.  (Thank God no horse had a fatal accident at the Kentucky Derby!  But then again, if there had been a sacrificial lamb, right there in the Royal Presence, who knows, She, great horse-lover, might have requested a significant pause in that inhumane, highly questionable activity.)  And a lot of interesting history has come out, in connexion with the Jamestown settlement.

The Old, Received Opinion is that the European colonization of the Americas was obviously a Good Thing, especially for tough, enterprising, free-thinking Europeans (who presumably were pains-in-the-neck back home).  And too bad about the Indians, smallpox, the massacres of women and children in their villages, the near-extinction of the bison, and all that.  The Indians were on their way out anyway, weren't they, until we put into their hands a brilliant new invention: the slot machine!

Over against that, the New Opinion is that the settlement at Jamestown started out with the hope of friendship and cooperation between Europeans and Native Americans (yipes!, yet another Colin Farrell movie!, with unwashed hair!, and an indeterminate beard!).  But the initial hope soon went very very bad; and the violence between English and Powhatan established a tradition of mistrust between Native Americans and Euro-Americans, which quickly spread across the continent.  Not only that, but the weird, ill-conceived, exploitative, tobacco-based economy of the Jamestown settlers very early on got them into introducing African slaves: America's original sin, from which we have never quite been able to find absolution.

And so, I am not at all sure our dear DR really wants to go wading into these waters.  The science and ethics of AGW are much much clearer than these examples, certainly.

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

I wrote a little about this elsewhere, referring to the book by Ron Suskind "The One-Percent Doctrine" and the suspiciously, artificially bizarre caution that was applied to concerns over weapons of mass destruction by the Darth Vader of the neo-cons, "Penis" Cheney.  

If BushCo. had applied the same paranoid caution to AGW we would have invaded and captured every PV, Wind, Hydrogen, battery, insulation, fuel cell, CFL, LED, etc., source or supply--then we would have pissed it all away by complete, metaphysically total incompetence and ignorant greed.  And it would have cost the U.S. half a trillion dollars and turned the world against us.    

So epistemological standards mean nothing to these political stooges.  Whatever standard or rule fits the political corporate oligarchy goal, is the rule they will use, and then blink at you without a hint of intellectual recognition, when you try to explain to them why they are dumbasses.  History nor psychology nor political science doesn't offer any help either.

So, it really ain't so arbitrary as it is sloppily, offhandedly calculated for political gain.  And sadly, for the same reasons it ain't about epistemology. And gee shit, it ain't about standards.  

How can they know what they know, when they don't know anything?  How can it make any difference when the lying liars and the lies they tell (apologies to Al) pervade their thought processes?    Who can reasonably assume they have scientific standards given our knowledge of the techniques of the corps of denialists?  

David Roberts, I know I am not answering the question you pose, since it triggers my frustration over the corporate political structure
we face, so I must apologize.

David
Sustainability For Life

Messages done with sustainable energy, with Wind and Sun!  

"I get why deniers hold it (or pretend to hold it) to such absurdly high epistemological standards, but I don't get why scientists and activists play along."

Quite simply... they are scientists. It is their job to ensure all the "t"s are crossed and the "i"s dotted. It is their nature... it is in their blood. They want to get as close to Truth as they can. The peer revue system ensures that no recognized stone is left unturned. Unfortunatey -- but probably for the better in the long run -- the new societal review system has resulted in a bunch of uninformed people asking the same damned questions over and over. There is no accepted public journal, read by all citizens, that presents relatively established "facts" and what still needs to be resolved. Very difficult to form a consensus in such an environment, but we are going to have to find a way to do so.

Opponents of various policies, of course, exploit this problem by generating a lot of flak.

How do we solve this problem? I have no idea.

It is not clear whether Dave wants scientist to lower their standards (tell the politicians that when it comes to science, the scientists are the deciders and everyone else whould shut up), wants policy makers to raise their standards (flood the media outlets with advice regarding evaluating evidence), or just find a coping strategy (because this problem will never go away).

What do you want us scientists to do, Mr. Roscoe Culpepper Town Holler Coot?

How did you reach the conclusion that scientists want to get close to Truth?
google.com/search?q=truth+bible

It is also true that our civilization has evolved in such a way that nowadays many people think that only the Truth pursued by Scientists is worthy of the name.  Of course there persists the observation made by many religionists, that there is a class of questions that Science will always be incapable of answering.  And they could be right.  But I suspect the "Bible truth" people are both abusing the best sense of how religion is a way to Truth, and misunderstanding what kind of book the Bible is.

Anyway, I think a more useful distinction, which WiscIdea seems to be touching on, is between the classic idea of Science as an abstract, disinterested way to Truth, and the more modern, practical, fully interested redefinition of Science as the Handmaid of Technology and the Warner against Danger.  As we see in this story about the discovery of AGW and how it may or may not influence public policy, scientists may occasionally be embarrassed as they try to play two very different roles.

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

"How did you reach the conclusion that scientists want to get close to Truth?"

I am not a philosopher, so I'll leave this to someone else to bat about. Discussions of Truth, Knowledge, Et Cetera rarely seem to  lead anywhere, My opinion -- based on years of education, working as a scientist, knowing others who work as scientists, reading about different fields (not just my own), and studying the history of science for a short time -- is that anyone who REALLY practices science must be interested in developing as accurate of a picture as possible of how the natural world works. They are always interested, though somewhat reluctantly, in revising their views based on new evidence. Anyone who just makes sh*t up will not get very far as a scientist. If they do make sh*t up, eventually their ideas will come tumbling down like a house of cards or someone will reveal that they are charlatans. It is the nature of science to get as close to the Truth as possible. It does not mean they will ever catch the Truth, but scientists have a better chance of getting close than those who employ other means to discover Truth. That is my two cents.

And that and two bucks will get you a ride on the NYC subway.  You can hold on to your two cents. : )

You write:
<<
It is the nature of science to get as close to the Truth as possible. It does not mean they will ever catch the Truth, but scientists have a better chance of getting close than those who employ other means to discover Truth.
>>

First, are you suggesting that for scientists, the "Truth" is asymptotic, and scientists will never quite "catch" it, however close they may approach to it?  If so, that strikes me as a philosophic hypothesis, and not a strictly scientific one.

Secondly, why do you think that scientists' efforts to "get close" to "Truth" are more likely to be successful than those of non-scientists?  This too is a philosophic hypothesis, and not a strictly scientific one.

Thirdly, do I understand you correctly, that you insist on defining "Truth" as specifically the understanding of reality which scientists seek?  Speaking practically, I think we are all in a way scientists, and that that definition of "Truth" is at least partially meaningful to all of us.  And that democratic universality of science is one of the aspects of science which gives it its power.

Nevertheless, as I wrote before, there are other ways of understanding and approaching "Truth," typically and historically through Art or Religion or Philosophy, which are quite independent of the ways of scientists.  It is possible, I suppose, to deny that what is sought through Art, Religion and Philosophy is truly "Truth," and to argue that only Science seeks a goal which deserves to be called "Truth."  But I would say then that such a denial and such an argument deserve to be called philosophic, and not strictly scientific.  And as such, they are open to philosophic challenges.

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

I do not have the tools to discuss this issue. I have my views, but they are probably not based on Reality, whatever that might be. I've encountered the terms on previous ocassions, but I probably do not Know what they Really mean, Nevertheless, my further opinion on this matter is as follows. Discussions of Ways of Knowing do not seem to get anywhere for the simple reason that no one even agrees on the nature of the subject under discussion.

What exactly is Truth?

What exactly is Reality?

What exactly is Knowledge?

What exactly is Science?

What exactly is Religion?

What exactly is Philosophy?

Unless 99% of us can come up with the same set of answers, discussions seem pointless. Thus, I choose to deal with the world as I see it and experience it.

Science does a fairly good job of developing an accurate picture of that world and predicting the outcome of various actions. At the moment, it does not really seem to matter whether the world consists of pale shadows of some sort of ideal forms floating in the ether somewhere.

This does not mean I can safely reject such concepts... it is so difficult to prove something does NOT exists. But if organizing our lives depends on disproving all alternative theories before accepting and coping with the world as it is immediately before us, we will all spend eternity debating the nature of reality rather than actually living the apparently brief lives we clearly have available.

This does not mean -- as I stated elsewhere -- that I believe science can solve all our problems. Art and philosopy are very important for filling in the gaps and helping us employ intuition where science fails to provide answers. But I suppose my confidence in art and philosophy is a relection of my view that those fields are ultimately rooted in rationality as well... a discussion I'm certainly not prepared to pursue at this time!

Science does a fairly good job of doing what Science does.  But that is hardly everything that we would like to do, and that we can manage even within our very short lifespans.

And the functions of Art and Philosophy are NOT just to fill in the gaps left behind by scientists, who are presumably busy doing the important stuff, and in an ancillary way to provide the scientists with the intuition they need to do Science.

And one cannot help but notice that you dropped Religion from the calculus completely.

Just to be clear, this is not a discussion -- which you started, really -- for which you do not have time right now, as you suggest.  It is a discussion in which you will NEVER think it is worthwhile to invest any time, given your pro-Science anti-Everything-Else prejudices.

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

Someone please define "knowledge" and provide an example of knowledge -- EXCLUDING historically acccurate information and inspirational fiction -- available through religion.

Re: "...  the functions of Art and Philosophy are NOT just to fill in the gaps left behind by scientists, who are presumably busy doing the important stuff, and in an ancillary way to provide the scientists with the intuition they need to do Science"

"Gap" apparently was not really what I was trying to say here. It implies a temporary failing of science that will soon be spackled over by research. I intended to communicate that there are things going on that Science very likely cannot explain. We must rely on art and philosophy to find ways of coping with such issues. And intuition is not necessarily a temporary means of acquiring knowledge. It is often all we have.

Re:" ...  one cannot help but notice that you dropped Religion from the calculus completely."

Yes, but only because there is not a clear definition of "religion" available. If it is simply a faith-based approach to undertstanding the world, it is not particularly useful. When there is a conflict, how does one decide whether the Bible, the Koran, or some other text contains the most accurate knowledge. How does one resolve conflicts within a document. Is it all True? Or is it okay to refer to something as "knowledge" and construct a life around it, even if another relgious text present contradictory "knowledge"? If God commands one group of people to turn the other cheek, but commands another group of people to kill all who disagree with them, are both pieces of "knowledge" okay as far as inspiring human behavior is concerned?

Re: "given your pro-Science anti-Everything-Else prejudices"

Please remarks at:

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/5/9/184655/9470/#35 ...

I'm sure I can add more, but I REALLY don't have time right now. I was expressing an opinion. The reason I don't view it as a discussion, is that really don't have the background to support my view. I freely admit this. I wish I could investigate further and acquire a better understanding of philosophy. You probably don't believe this, but I really do value your responses to my comments. I'm not just here to annoy you. It is an opportunity to post my view and learn from those who respond.

Peace.