I came across a paper that might be of interest to regular readers of this blog. It’s by Hans von Storch and is a Brief communication: Climate science as a social process – history, climatic determinism, Mertonian norms and post-normality. Before I start, there is some background. A few years ago, I had a discussion with the author in the comments of a Die Klimazweibel blog post. In one response, they stated: In other words: physicists (and other natural scientists), back into your baracks! The author of the post on which we were commenting also once suggested that [t]here is an eerie similarity between race science and climate science. In my view, some rather strange views about physical/climate science.
To be honest, I’m finding it tricky to develop a coherent comment on the paper; I found it all rather confusing. Maybe some commenters can develop more coherent responses, but I thought I would comment on some general themes.
- Post-normal science: The paper suggests that climate science is in a “post-normal” phase. Post-normal science is, supposedly, when “facts [are] uncertain, values in dispute, stakes high and decisions urgent“. I think there are a number of issues with this. Firstly, I don’t see much difference between climate science and many other areas of “normal” science. Secondly, how does this account for attempts to manufacture uncertainty? Given the definition of post-normal science, one way to undermine inconvenient results from “normal” science is to argue that the “facts” are more uncertain than they actually are and, hence, that this “normal” science is actually “post-normal”. Finally, defining something as post-normal is meant to help when “facts [are] uncertain, values in dispute, stakes high and decisions urgent” but, despite numerous discussions with one of developers of this idea, I’ve no idea how this is actually meant to work.
- Mertonian norms: The paper also suggests that climate science has been taken over by physical scientists who have imposed a set of norms. These Mertonian norms are Communalism, Universalism, Disinteredness, and Organized Skepticism. They were actually first described by a sociologist, not by a physicist. Although I think most physical scientists would regard them as reasonable ideals, I’d be surprised if most were aware of the term Mertonian norms, and I doubt that most would only regard something as scientific if it satisfies them. Our confidence in something may grow the more it satifies these norms, but they don’t define what is scientific. I’d also argue that these are reasonable norms for any area of research, not just the physical sciences.
- Climate determinism: I do think this is something that is worth being aware of. We do have to be careful of suggesting that the climate, or some change in the climate, will determine some societal response. Clearly, how society responds will depend on many factors, and can be influenced by how resilient, and prepared, a particular society happens to be. However, physical scientists do tend to think in terms of all else being equal. This doesn’t mean that they think all else will be equal, but it can be a useful baseline against which to judge what might need to be done to deal with the impact of some change. So, I do sometimes think that some confuse climate determinism with suggestions that climate change could be severely disruptive unless we take action to minimise the impact.
This paper also reminds me of another paper by Reiner Grundmann which essentially suggested that there should be less science, more social science. My issue with these type of arguments is that they seem to misrepresent how research works in practice. When topics become of interest, more and more scholars will start to study it. If you don’t like the resulting focus, or the dominance of some scholars, the ideal would be to do the scholarship that you think is missing, and convince people of its significance. Suggesting that the problem is these other scholars who have somehow taken over, just seems churlish and – in my view – rather unconvincing.
Links:
Brief communication: Climate science as a social process – history, climatic determinism, Mertonian norms and post-normality – paper by Hans von Storch.
Climate change as a wicked social problem – Die Klimazweibel blog post by Reiner Grundmann.
Mertonian norms – my post about Mertonian norms.
Less science, more social science – my post about Reiner Grundmann’s paper.
...and Then There's Physics 
Something that I should clarify is that the Reiner Grundmann paper that I was discussing in this post was also the topic of the Die Klimazweibel post on which we were commenting a few years ago.
The dispute between those in the Flat Earth community and the Globalists could be argued to show the same charateristics.
It is Post-Normal, in that the facts are uncertain or at least disputed.
The field has been invaded by Mertonian norms in that physicists and geometers have imposed their assumptions on the subject.
Globalist determinism is dominant and there is a strong societal presumption that it is accurate without any deep understanding of the underlying issues by the general public which blocks any acceptance of the Flat Earth alternative.
The parallels with climate science should be obvious.
Indeed 🙂
To me the paper over-generalizes, In particular the term “climate science” is too broad and where the confusion arises. The physical science itself is fact based and not that uncertain. Its the human reaction to both climate science and climate change that is uncertain. Anything from benign to catastrophic is possible.
The result is that the post-normal flag gets planted over a wide geography. Better to prune that down, focusing mainly on the human response where the uncertainty lays, before planting the flag
I’d like to go back to the original thought – “climate science as a social process”; is it? I can’t see much evidence that climate science per se has changed or become ‘post normal’, as far as I see it the same stuff is going on as has been for a while, maybe slightly better than before.
If there is a consideration of it as a social process, then perhaps the target is the public discussion of said science. Has this changed in recent times? All I see is the same old same old on one side, and some improvement in communication to the non-scientifically inclined, but maybe that’s just me.
Chubbs,
Yes, I think you’re right. I don’t think there is any doubt that there are aspects related to climate science that are uncertain and where values are in dispute, etc, but I don’t think it means that climate science itself is “post-normal”. It’s essentially trying to find a simple label for the reality that any form of decision making is complicated. I don’t think it helps, partly because it over-simplifies a very complex process, but also because it get’s applied to parts of the process which aren’t really all that uncertain.
Fergus,
Indeed, this is also my general impression.
My impression is that the post-normal label hampers the social aspects, because it allows people to suggest that climate science is uncertain, rather than there being valid differences in terms of what we should be doing, given the knowledge/understanding that climate science provides.
” It’s essentially trying to find a simple label for the reality that any form of decision making is complicated. ”
or perhaps it is trying to find a simple label for promoting someone’s research agenda? STS is also a social process and you won’t attract interest by saying it is a complicated problem – you need a buzzword.
“less science, more social science.”
More social science would be great, it (and politics) is where the fundamental problem lies, but we don’t need to have less science to achieve that – they ought to be complementary (and if they are not there is a problem somewhere). Again this seems like a soundbite/slogan to promote a research position.
Indeed. One issue I have with STS is a sense that they think that their criticisms of other disciplines doesn’t apply to them. Even in the above paper, why would all scholars not at least be aiming for Mertonian norms and why would it problem that climate science has been taken over by a group that supposedly does? As I said in the post, I don’t think they are as prominent as the paper implies, but there’s nothing intrinsically wrong with them as an ideal.
Here is a thought experiment.
Suppose you are a reviewer from a journal which only accepts anonymous submissions. You have to review this paper or a similar one. It glistens in glittering generalities. It contains nothing you [did not] read in Climateball dozens of times.
Would you publish it?
My own suggestion would be to redirect it to the editorial section. There is no real original research behind it. At best it is an armchair commentary inflated by an analytical framework that has never really been tested except in contrarian blog rants.
I suspect the only reason why this “article” has been published is because of the seniority of its sole author. If scientists ever wanted to see what privilege looks like, this is it.
“Post-normal science is, supposedly, when “facts [are] uncertain, values in dispute, stakes high and decisions urgent“.”
Post-normal is another slogan. The definition here is a bit off as it is only the uncertainty bit that is actually science – the values and stakes are both social, economic or political considerations, so why is it the science that is “post-normal”?
“One issue I have with STS is a sense that they think that their criticisms of other disciplines doesn’t apply to them.”
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
It is ironic because in STS there seems to be less constraint of cognitive (and other) biases because it is bound to end up being opinion based (this is why social science is hard). It isn’t easy to see how Feynman’s maxim about your theory being wrong if it disagrees with the outcome of experiment can apply to STS.
Willard –
> It glistens in glittering generalities. It contains nothing you have ever read in Climateball dozens of times.
Did you mean to write you haven’t ever read?
I also don’t understand why accepting Mertonian norms would be a bad thing in science (or indeed in many other things). The one that I find somewhat ironic is
[via Wiki]
which reminded me of the harassment of CRU for data that they didn’t have the right to pass on (or which was already in the public domain). The data has now been made publicly available, but while I suspect most scientists would have wanted it to be in the public domain already, the thing that actually made it happen was pressure from the society.
N.B. “all scientists should…” anyone that does science is a scientist – you don’t need a lab coat or an academic affiliation or qualifications, however some of these things do improve the chances of you doing good science and not being a crackpot.
> There is no real original research behind it….
I spent a few minutes reading it. I understood almost nothing in the abstract.
As I read on, I saw sweeping claims about historical developments with zero references to works of history or anthropology. The only citations were to discrete elements, distinct from those claims, and one citation to the self same author to back up a sweeping historical claim previously made.
My question isn’t so much about how and why it got printed (not to say those aren’t good questions), but why does the author think he’s making an intellectual contribution? That’s fascinating too me.
It reminds me of a Brett Weinstein or Jordan Peterson podcast where they believe (or pretend to believe) that they’re providing Nobel-worthy insight with un-reaeaeched off the cuff hot takes, like how they’ve figured out the mechanics of evolution from reverse engineering Just-So stories from societal characteristics.
I changed it to “did not”, J. Simpler.
The pushback against nuclear power is an interesting social process. Nuclear power is safer than any other form of power generation, especially with the newest reactor designs. You get thousands of times the bang for the amount of mining needed (uranium versus coal for example, or the mining necessary for solar panels and wind farms). You ship thousands of times less material. And nuclear is very low carbon emitting. Yet the social process is against building new nuclear power plants and would have us shut down as many existing plants as possible. Why? It is irrational. It is a form of mass hysteria. It is dumb.
So I think eliminating the best solution to humans impact on the climate because of an irrational fear is an interesting social process which is still unfolding. I hope we get over it soon and target producing 80% of our power needs from nuclear, with the remaining being renewable (hydro, wind and solar).
Obviously if we can get fusion working that would be better than [fission] – but I suspect we are far away from that invention. So in the meantime – lets fund small scale reactor research and thorium reactor research and quadruple our reliance on nuclear power. It is the rational thing to do.
Yes, but it’s not climate science. It’s related, in the sense that evidence from climate science might be suggesting that we should implement more of it, but it’s still not climate science.
The pushback against renewables is even more interesting, Rick:
https://www.volts.wtf/p/the-right-wing-groups-behind-renewable#details
But Nukes drive-by done.
ATTP: I agree – it is related but not climate science. I thought it relevant because it is a social process.
Willard: I agree – that is interesting. But I will drop it (as you request).
> Yet the social process is against building new nuclear power plants and would have us shut down as many existing plants as possible. Why? It is irrational. It is a form of mass hysteria. It is dumb.
Can I respond re: the irrational, dumb, and hysterical libertarian and rightwing fear-mongering about centralized policies and federal spending on infrastructure?
I didn’t read the paper but I have long had a problem with what is called “climate science” and “climate researchers/experts” in media. Most of the researchers I see are most visible in the climate debate are not climate scientists but are working with tools like lcas to make bold statements on what is good or bad for the climate, while in the reality their methods are not suitable for use in dynamic systems. Their results are already determined by the assumptions. And their assumptions are detemined by their values and world view.
Gunnar,
What is an lcas?
I do agree that there can be problems with what some will confidently state when they communicate publicly. However, I would argue that there is still a difference between climate science/research and the public statements of those who either are, or claim to be, climate researchers. What the latter say clearly is often strongly influence by their biases, and values, and it would be good if this was acknowledged more than it currently is. However, this doesn’t mean that climate science is in a post-normal phase.
In some sense, it might be good if there were scholars who could help us to distinguish between the knowledge that has developed through research that has involved a large number of scholars and that has been checked/tested thoroughly, and those views that are heavily influenced by people’s biases and values. My general view is that a lot of the claims about science being social tend to produce more confusion, rather than providing some kind of clarity.
> Can I
No, J. Not even by apophasis.
***
> Most of the researchers I see are most visible in the climate debate are not climate scientists but are working with tools like lcas
The knowledge management software I know under that name has nothing to do with climate modulz, Gunnar.
Could you please clarify?
> researchers/experts” in media. Most of the researchers I see…
What’s your metric, how do you account for selection bias?
Nuclear again?
There are pros and cons for every energy source but nuclear is a special case.
Every time nuclear comes up I always remember the two things for which there are no technological fixes; Human error and malfeasance. It doesn’t matter if the failure was because some technician failed at their job or because a hostile actor uses sabotage to create a crisis. When something goes very wrong at a nuclear plant hundreds of square miles are at risk of contamination for decades. Other problems stem from its highly toxic feed stock, a very limited supply of reliable uranium sources and the safe disposal or reuse of the spent fuel.
We need to really need to move aggressively towards geothermal.
If we can efficiently drill down to the base of the mantle cap rock we could put megawatts of power virtually on any place on the face of the planet. Even the at the poles and in the oceans. With inert gases as the working heat transfer medium you don’t even need water.
https://www.gadrilling.com/geothermal-anywhere/
https://www.quaise.energy/
https://www.eavor.com/technology/
Full research report on Texas geothermal opportunities leveraging their existing oil & gas expertise published last month.
https://energy.utexas.edu/research/geothermal-texas
So, hmm, err, Racism with a capital R, or did you all miss that one?
That is how that author sees it, in other words, a one person show or an op ed if you please.
Not exactly how I would connect those dots, but somehow that is this author’s attempt to enslave modern day climate science with historical global racism. In other words, von Storch embodies Eurotrash rather nicely! 😀
This is in the form of a non sequiter. If it involves more than one human then it is a social construct. So you might just want to stop playing with your …
Thus, it makes sense, in particular in a blog aiming past physical scientists, to make this trivial assertion. (to borrow a quote form somewhere else)
Post-normal science is, supposedly, when “facts [are] uncertain, values in dispute, stakes high and decisions urgent“. I think there are a number of issues with this. Firstly, I don’t see much difference between climate science and many other areas of “normal” science.
its all explained by this guy
https://judithcurry.com/2012/08/03/post-normal-science-deadlines/
in normal science
“. We can use the recent discovery of the Higgs Boson as an example. Facts were uncertain–they always are to a degree; no values were in conflict; the stakes were not high; and, immediate action was not required. What we see in that situation is those doing science acting as we expect them to, according to our vague ideal of science. Because facts are uncertain, they listen to various conflicting theories. They try to put those theories to a test. They face a shared uncertainity and in good faith accept the questions and doubts of others interested in the same field. Their participation in politics is limited to asking for money. Because values are not in conflict no theorist takes the time to investigate his opponent’s views on evolution or smoking or taxation. Because the field of personal values is never in play, personal attacks are minimized. Personal pride may be at stake, but values rarely are. The stakes for humanity in the discovery of the Higgs are low: at least no one argues that our future depends upon the outcome. No scientist straps himself to the collider and demands that it be shut down.
basically in normal science SITUATIONS, the behavior of scientists with regard to
uncertainty , values, and action reflects our vague ideal of science.
the truth is out there, we can take our time discovering it and be conservative.
our values( or lets say politics) are not on the line, so we dont attack each other personally. see einstein and nazi physicists for a rare counter example.
in post normal situations. note i say situations, the behavoir changes.
uncertainty becomes a weapon rather than a shared problem. values become the target rather than unquestioned, and action becomes required.
its not that science changes. its that behavoir changes. and attitudes change.
so lets call it science in a post normal situation.
science in the middle of a pandemic.
i never meant to use deadline as a pun
Steven,
Yes, I don’t think anyone disagree that there will be situations where the implications of science are in dispute. The problem I have with the term “post-normal” science is that it often seems to imply something about the science itself, rather than about how the scientific information might be received and used. It seems like an overly simplistic term that doesn’t really clarify anything, doesn’t actually tell us how to resolve these complex issues, and – in my view – mostly acts to muddy the water, rather than make it clearer.
i think i said it best
When you are in a PNS situation, all sides must deny it. Those demanding immediate action, deny it by claiming more certainty*than is present; those refusing immediate action, do so by increasing demands for certainty. This leads to a centralization and valorization of the topic of uncertainty, and epistemology becomes a topic of discussion for those doing science. That is decidedly not normal science.
what got me interested in climate science was seeing how it devolved into epistemology. and discussion of confirmation holism.
i mean who would ever imagine that could happen? for me i always thought skeptics devolved discussions into philosphy of science because they lost the science argument.
Steven,
I would also argue that the example you provide in your post doesn’t even really work. People who work in cosmology, or particle physics, are just as dismissive of those who claim to have over-thrown the theories of Einstein as climate scientists are of those who claim that there is no greenhouse effect.
It might not be as evident, but I think there are many areas of science where values are not in dispute, the stakes are not high, and there is no need for urgent decisions but in which scientists don’t pay attention to conflicting theories that are clearly wrong.
Climate scientists have listened to conflicting theories. It’s just that some people continue to promote them despite the over-whelming evidence against them. Climate scientists are still more than willing to consider challenges, just – typically – not those that have been debunked time and time again.
Steven,
Except, this still isn’t science. This is about those who are advocating for action, or advocating against action. This is politics. It may well be that some scientists will try to satisfy these demands, but I’ve seen little evidence that this is particularly prevalent (why, for example, did the likely range for the ECS remain largely unchanged for decades?).
Not to be overly semantic, but seems to me that “post-normal” science OR behavior is pretty much a non-starter.
WTF could post “normal” actually mean?.
How could something be post “normal?”
Was there a “pre-normal?” what did that look like? When did the change-over take placw?
“Post-normal” seems to me to be rather like “kids today.”
Just old men yelling at clouds?
Joshua,
You may know this, but I think it’s meant to be an extension of Kuhn’s “normal” science.
“People who work in cosmology, or particle physics, are just as dismissive of those who claim to have over-thrown the theories of Einstein “
reminds me of:
Einstein to Lemaitre: “Your calculations are correct, but your grasp of physics is abominable.”?
AFAIC Stephen has not addressed the point that it is not the actually the science that is post-normal but societies response to the science that is the issue (I don’t need a slogan – I don’t have a research agenda on this).
” This leads to a centralization and valorization of the topic of uncertainty, and epistemology becomes a topic of discussion for those doing science. That is decidedly not normal science. “
I sounds like deeply normal statistics (and plenty of scientists are very interested in that and those that aren’t probably should be).
Seems to me that this “post-normal science” is just trying to form a position, a bit like “lukewarmer”, with the roughly the same amount of justification.
Anders –
Thanks. Maybe I knew when I first read Steven’s post but I guess I forgot.
Still seems pretty arbitrary to me in the current context. I’m going to guess that the distinction of what is normal or post-normal is a pretty subjective determination and depends on whose ox is being gored.
Joshua,
Indeed, I think that’s one of the issues. It seems pretty subjective as to when something is post-normal and it doesn’t really seem to provide any real insights as to how to resolve the value disputes or how to help with the urgency of decision making.
Which of the following are examples of ‘Post-Normal Science’?
The assertion we live on a globe versus the conviction we live on a plain.
The assertion that all life has a simple common ancestor from which more complex forms evolved versus the conviction that WE were created by a supernatural intelligent entity.
The assertion that vaccinations are an effective way of preventing disease by potentiating our immune system versus the conviction they are at best useless and at worst a danger to our health.
The assertion that the global climate is warming as a result of humans burring fossil fuels which release CO2 versus the conviction that most climate change is the result of natural variation with little influence from changing CO2.
What added benefit does describing any of these as ‘Post-Normal’ have on our understanding of the associated science ?
My own opinion would be that such a description is a way of disputing the validity of the science because the conclusions it leads to are ideologically unwelcome.
WTF could post “normal” actually mean?.
How could something be post “normal?”
i spent time with Ravetz and asked him why he used this term.
basically to contrast with the puzzle solving “normal science” of Kuhn.
he admitting regretting the choice.
in our discussions my suggestion was that we simply look empirically at how scientists behaved.
he thought this was too radical, but then im a quinian. so naturalizing epistemology is not a big leap for me.
in short as i argued Much of the behavior is the same: colecting data, testing hypotheses, etc. but some of the behavior is decidely different
look today scientists are disccusing a follow on to CERN
nobody is strapping their body to the building.
look just recently people started to discuss a concept of settled science
wtf?
so to repeat, the science isnt different, but attitudes toward certain issues have
changed.
attitudes toward uncertainty, personal values and civic responsibility
would attp blog if the issue were only dyson sphere detection
@-GR
“I have long had a problem with what is called “climate science” and “climate researchers/experts” in media.”
It is a fact that much of the media is biased against the concept of climate change as human caused. This probably a result of its dependency on maintaining the status quo to perpetuate its profitability.
” …while in the reality their methods are not suitable for use in dynamic systems.”
Climate science deals specifically with the dynamics of the system. The methods used almost invariably treat it as such. It is the ‘skeptics’ that make the a prior assumption that the climate system is inherently stable and will not be significantly altered by human actions.
But I have a suspicion this may not be how you view things.
Perhaps you could elucidate your reservations about climate science that is NOT in the media, in more detail ?
@-SM
“would attp blog if the issue were only dyson sphere detection”
I suspect he would, and I suspect the interest would be equal or greater than it is for climate science.
After all the detection of structures that exceeded human capabilities around other stars would have implications for our place in the universe of some import.
What added benefit does describing any of these as ‘Post-Normal’ have on our understanding of the associated science ?
My own opinion would be that such a description is a way of disputing the validity of the science because the conclusions it leads to are ideologically unwelcome.
as i said
n normal science, according to Kuhn, we can view the behavior of those doing science as puzzle solving. The details of a paradigm are filled out slowly and deliberately.
The situation in climate science are close to the polar opposite of this. That does not mean and should not be construed as a criticism of climate science or its claims. The simple point is this: in a PNS situation, the behavior of those doing science changes. To be sure much of their behavior remains the same. They formulate theories; they collect data, and they test their theories against the data. They don’t stop doing what we notionally describe as science. But, as foreshadowed above in the description of how high energy particle physicists behave, one can see how that behavior changes in a PNS situation. There is uncertainty, but the good faith that exists in normal science, the faith that other people are asking questions because they actually want the answer is gone. Asking questions, raising doubts, asking to see proof becomes suspect in and of itself.
what benefit?
well dont forget that there are two modes of question asking.
normal situation : ” can i see you data” is a simple request for help
post normal: “can i see your data?” is s bad faith request intended to
a)make you look bad if you dot share
b) bad faith effort to find silly unimportant mistakes
note the words are the same. “can i see your data?” but the meaning is different.
My own opinion would be that such a description is a way of disputing the validity of the science because the conclusions it leads to are ideologically unwelcome.
weirdly Ravetz accepts climate science as do I and
skeptics at WUWT universally reject post normal concepts.
now that would be 2 bits of evidence against your opinion
My own opinion would be that such a description is a way of disputing the validity of the science because the conclusions it leads to are ideologically unwelcome.
but then since we are in a post normal situation i should expect that you have to deny it. because it’s ideologically welcome.
so lets make it easy. i make an empirical claim.
we are in a siuation where
a. facts are uncertain:
b. values are in conflict
c: stakes are high
d: action is needed.
your free to disagree with any one of those, explaining which one would be helpful.
the further claim is that a-d get severe enough, the behavior of scientists can change.
whether of not these changes influence or undermine the science, is TBD
want to know if a situation is post normal? see if emails gt released or hacked
Not sure about that last test, Mosh, for it has nothing to do with your first item. Once you get to 2-3-4, it’s easy to fabricate FUD about 1. I think Covid simply killed the PoNo line for AGW.
Most of the relevant facts about AGW look more solid to me than the facts about Covid. The objective is clear, and we have more time to think about a range of actions. Collective actions toward net zero can run on parallel somewhat more easily than toward full immunity. We need to throw everything we got at AGW (hence why But Nukes usually fizzles), whereas a pandemic response needs to be coordinated.
I can’t think of any empirical science for which the Bingo Core wouldn’t apply:
Source: https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2021/05/23/the-bingo-core/
It’s too easy to raise concerns about science, truth, evidence, bias, advocacy, the press, costs, or politics. We know the drill. First it was Climateball. Then it was Covidball.
We are living in a post-Twitter world now.
> That does not mean and should not be construed as a criticism of climate science or its claims.
What about if it is explicitly intended as a criticism of climate science or its claims, or more specifically, the scientists themselves?
Part of problem is distinguishing when it is or isn’t so intended. Sometimes it’s perceived as so intended when it isn’t so intended. Sometimes it is dishonestly (or even cluelessly) so intended.
I think there’s a problem if the concepts are abstracted and then just layered on top of what’s going on without controlling for context.
@-SM
“normal science, according to Kuhn, we can view the behavior of those doing science as puzzle solving. The details of a paradigm are filled out slowly and deliberately.”
As a philosophy of science I regard Kuhn as just a passing paradigm.
As you say, the actions of the researchers involved is the same in ‘normal’ science and in the PNS case. Even the questions asked are the same. The difference is in the assumptions and attitude of those who are asking the questions. As well as the qualifications of the questioners.
-“so lets make it easy. i make an empirical claim.
we are in a situation where
a. facts are uncertain:
b. values are in conflict
c: stakes are high
d: action is needed.”
a. I would regard as untrue. The known facts about the influence of CO2 changes on the climate, and the source of that CO2 are not at all uncertain.
b. is obviously true, the values of preserving the status quo of enterperenial profit are in direct conflict with the values of reducing CO2 emissions by eliminating the burning of fossil fuels as much as possible.
c. is true, the stakes are high for those nations who produce fossil fuels, those enterprises that extract and refine them, and the end user who buys and uses them. Any restriction or reduction of such activity would be seen as a threat.
d. this is false. one ‘side’ in this regards no action as the appropriate response. If I follow your simplistic binary dissection of the situation.
-“want to know if a situation is post normal? see if emails gt released or hacked ”
In any case where the conclusions of the science are in conflict with ideological principles, or socio-economic norms there will be bad faith actors questioning the sci3entific findings in such a way as to cast doubt (at least) on the scientific findings.
I still fail to understand how then calling that science ‘Post-Normal’ helps understand the science any better. It just seems to signify a political disagreement with it.
‘-W
“We know the drill. First it was Climateball. Then it was Covidball.”
I suspect opposition to the findings about tobacco, Lead, preceded Cimateball, and similar conflicts over the role of CFCs and insecticides preceded Covidball.
Good point, izen.
We may backtrack to the existence of things in general:
In truth, nothing exists. We have no evidence that anything exists. Scientists have no idea what science is, except Feynman, Galileo, Einstein, Popper, and [insert favorite contrarian guru].
Even if something existed, nothing could be known of it. The media would lie about it.
And if we could know anything, we could not communicate our knowledge to otters. But if you could, nobody could understand you. At any rate knowing would cost too much.
Anyone who claims that something exists is a shill for Big Philosophy. Anyone who claims that everything exists would have a strong Parmenidean bias.
Thank you.
Stephen “nobody is strapping their body to the building.”
what proportion of climate scientists are strapping their bodies to buildings?
Stephen
As I pointed out, only one of those (a) is a scientific issue, so why is it the science that is post-normal?
But it isn’t the scientists that are doing that, it is the activists. So why is it the science that is post-normal?
Again, the issue is outside science, so why is it the science that is post-normal?
[could it be that those coining post-normal are using it to establish a political position that wants to dispute the science because it is ideologically unwelcome – not that such a thing could happen in STS?]
Steven, sorry s/Stephen/Steven/g in the above
“the further claim is that a-d get severe enough, the behavior of scientists can change.”
The behaviour of anybody will change if they are unreasonably harassed, but it has nothing to do with the science.
Steven,
I’m a scientist who chooses to blog. This isn’t science. Scientist who strap themselves to buildings are not doing science. Scientists are not simply people who do science. They’re also citizens. They have a right do things other than science. They also sometimes do things they maybe shouldn’t do. This doesn’t then mean that their scientific discipline is somehow changed because of this. This is one problem with the idea of post-normal; it seems to be judging a scientific discipline on the basis of public actions of people who are associated with it.
Consider the following. Researchers get a result that suggests a potential problem. They check. Others check. It becomes clear that the evidence indicates a potential issue that society might want to take seriously. Society mostly ignores this. The scientists get more active and start to engage more publicly. Others dispute the science and claim it is uncertain. Is this post-normal, or simply normal science that has societal relevance?
A key reason for doing research is to understand and explain things. It doesn’t all have to have immediate societal relevance, but clearly one reason the public funds research is because it often does. If we start to re-label research that produces results that are inconvenient, then that seems rather counter-productive.
Steven,
Nicely illustrating the issue with the concept. Why should someone hacking emails change the way in which we perceive a scientific discipline? It shouldn’t. The issue with the concept of post-normal science is that it seems designed to allow people to manipulate the public’s perception of a scientific disciplines that produce results that are inconvenient.
The really dim thing, is that if we are going to divide science into “stuff that has policy consequence or potentially scares someone” and “normal science” the vast majority of science is the first, and has been since pretty much the dawn of science.
I mean, Gallileo’s emails would have been hacked.
“I have also other proofs of the watchfulness of my persecutors. One is that a letter from some foreigner, I do not know from whom, addressed to me at Rome, where he supposed me still to be, was intercepted, and delivered to Cardinal Barberini.”
“Why should someone hacking emails change the way in which we perceive a scientific discipline?”
It also isn’t the science that is the problem, so why is it the science that is post-normal rather than the organised harassment of scientists that is “post-normal”?
We are in a situation where:
facts are cherry-picked
values are mocked
stakes are insignificant
action is avoided
If the facts are uncertain then would actions be needed?
Somehow the logic is not foolproof.
But then again we are talking about whatever post normal science is supposed to be as given to us by STS fools!
Google “Why do they call it political science?”
Some answers follow …
“Political science is called political science because it deals with the study of politics and government. Not so much how politics and government are organized but how they are related to people and communities. Political science studies and analyzes political thought, political behaviors, and political activities.”
So the study of politics, is that actual science though or just studies of politics?
“Political science is the scientific study of politics. It is a social science dealing with systems of governance and power, and the analysis of political activities, political thought, political behavior, and associated constitutions and laws.”
So PolySci is a social science. I always wondered about that one, ever since I was in college even, I always thought of it as an oxymoron, so now I know that it is a social science. So where can I get a PolySci lab coat?
Does PolySci have a Theory Of Everything (Or TOE)?
> If the facts are uncertain then would actions be needed?
The *and* connector is not an implication, at least not outside STEM.
“I suspect opposition to the findings about tobacco, Lead, preceded Cimateball, and similar conflicts over the role of CFCs and insecticides preceded Covidball.”
Some time ago, I seem to vaguely remember some minor conflicts between scientists studying biology (particularly evolution) and certain individuals or organizations with viewpoints that found the concept of evolution to be rather inconvenient.
(Where is that html sarcasm tag when you need it?)
“If the facts are uncertain then would actions be needed?
Risk management is about probabilities, not certainties. “This might happen”, not “this will happen”.
Standard risk analysis says that action should be taken for low probability risks if the result of the risk becoming an event would mean high costs.
Different people may have different thresholds on the cost ratio of “avoid it” vs “fix it afterwards”. Those thresholds are particularly fluid when the person or group that pays to avoid it is different from the person or group that will have to pay to fix it. Add in a twist of “the person or group that profits from not avoiding it”.
Perhaps we should relativise Sayre’s Law. Stakes always seem high to those who are caught in a dispute. Why else would they bicker so much?
More on that later this week.
The word that comes to mind is ‘Dated’, in that Merton’s perspective on the philosophy of science in large measure continued that of Bernal and Haldane.
While such views are commonplace in postmodern History of Science departments, and science policy think-tanks, they rarely figure in the discourse of praxis in the lab.
dikranmarsupial –
[could it be that those coining post-normal are using it to establish a political position that wants to dispute the science because it is ideologically unwelcome – not that such a thing could happen in STS?]
That was my conclusion. It does read like climate science should be treated like something built on socially mutable foundations and is insufficient to base serious policy on. With a few caveats thrown in so von Storch can plausibly deny that is what he meant.
The paper would better suit a doubt, deny, delay tankthink journal methinks. A bit behind the climateball I think – it isn’t a case of fringe activists leading the way and setting the agenda anymore (if they ever did), it is informed people apart from fringe activists taking the lead, and they tend to trust the science.
I must admit that the phrase “post-normal science” always evokes in me an image of science denial in a pretty dress…
Pingback: The PoNo Principle | …and Then There's Physics
Let’s go PoNo:
Yet again, climate skeptic scientists get another special issue of a physics journal on climate. The guest editors are Leslie Woodcock and Igor Khmelinskii. There are four papers accepted so far, of which two are written by Woodcock (which is not a good idea), and one by Peter Stallinga (who has published lots of incorrect papers on the carbon cycle). Oddly enough, the new paper is also on the carbon cycle and quotes the paper on this topic by my fictional alter-ego “Gavin Cawley”. Both of the editors have previously published papers with Stallinga, on either the carbon cycle (IK) or COVID (IK and LW). Did the editors contact Gavin for a review or comment? No. Did Stallinga do so as a courtesy? No.
So yet again a climate skeptic journal special issue with, shall we say “favourable review conditions” for skeptic views that would stand only a negligible (everybody makes mistakes) chance of getting into a climate science journal? Plus ca change, …
Is this an example of climate science as a social process? There is certainly more “social process” going on here than “climate science”.
Does anyone know if the author of the papers in the journal mentioned in Dikran’s comment are actually at the University of Algarve, or are they just people who’ve retired in the Algarve and created their own “institution”? I can’t even find a Department of Physics at the actual University of Algarve.
Woodcock does have a page on their website, but it is essentially empty
https://www.ualg.pt/bio/lvwoodcock
He is apparently a “guest full professor”.
Stallinga and Khmelinskii have pages there as well
https://fct.ualg.pt/bio/pjotr
https://fct.ualg.pt/bio/ikhmelin
Khmelinskii’s includes a publication list, but oddly enough his work on climate and COVID is somewhat conspicuous by it’s absence (although it does include collaborations with Stallinga and Woodcock on other topics).
MDPI?
I am somewhat more skeptical of anything published in any MDPI journal.
Dikran,
Thanks, I just found those too.
Beall’s list (search for MDPI) mentions specifically deciding to not list MDPI, but links to this Wikipedia web page and advises caution:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MDPI#Controversies
https://beallslist.net/