Forests and Environmental Damage

[formerly known as hf]

I'm not saying we should ignore fact - I'm saying that fact never means 100% - it never can. In many situations, following 'fact' is safe and desirable.

But when millions of people have a gut instinct against what 'facts' may say - especially when similar 'facts' say something opposite - I (yes - i'm one of those people) would give weight to those gut instincts - I don't see it as mass hysteria, nor mass ignorance.
The trick is to undertsand that facts don't tell the whole story, and that gut instinct on such a size, can, and should count for something, and it should be about relating the two - not 'trying to convince the public' - nor trying to drown out the facts with opinion - there is a mediation that's needed...

[Jos Elkink]

Much like the gut instinct that Muslims threaten the Netherlands, that Jews had all power behind the scenes in pre-war Germany, that ... well, there are many examples I suppose.

Nah, I strongly prefer facts - even when not 100% sure, which, indeed, they never are - over mass hysteria or popular 'guts'.

[formerly known as hf]

And the same gut instinct that the wars in Viuetnam and Iraq were wrong.

But, yes, I agree - mass 'guts' is not something to follow - it is often steeped in deeply biased and predjudiced opinions.

What I was arguing for was a halfway point. Scientific 'facts' make me very sceptical. If you're trying to sell something (nuclear waste facilities) of course the reserach you puiblish will make it look brilliant.

I'll go back to my example about the safety of cigarettes - that may have been some time ago, but I do not feel that the scientific establishment has moved far from that. Research is still, by and large, paid for by corporate ventures. As such, it is biased. Even if research claims to lack of safety of a product or service, it may just go unpublished.

I feel it is somewhat naive to see 'scientific research' as the grail of rationality and objectivity. It is conducted by humans, for humans - full of biases, opinions, and motivations. When I see research published by a corporation, I am very sceptical. Not that, as with cigarettes, that they are outright lying, as much as I am that only the positive stuff would have been published.

I lay the blame not so much on the reserachres - who - as naive as it may be - may certainly try to be as objective as they can be - but instead with the corporations, political and media groups that publish this research and bring it into the public view. The act of selective publicity can make the most horrendously dangerous thing look safe. - Of course a nuclear waste facility will release publications that it is safe - of course a political party trying to roll out nuclear power will release statistics showing the benifits etc. etc.

What I was arguing for was the recognition that science, or at least,m the popular science that is published and placed into public view, is, as much as mass public opinion, not necessarily rational, often biased, and linked to motive - wether that be the action of the researcher(s) or the groups that bring that research into the public domain.

As such, any decision should take both sides into account - all the better when science does link with public opinion (which is thankfully fairly often) - but it doesn't always - and when it doesn't to say that the 'facts' are the best thing to follow does, to me, seem fairly naive - it is putting trust in the 'sancticty' of scientific research - which is something of a myth. In reality - it is placing trust in something that is as equally biased, motivated, unrational and opintionated as mass 'guts'.

[Jos Elkink]

In reality - it is placing trust in something that is as equally biased, motivated, unrational and opintionated as mass 'guts'.

Although I agree with most of your post there, I don't agree with this. Science is not 'equally biased (...) unrational' as public opinion. Public opinion is a lot easier to manipulate than academics, and science is way more rational than public opinion.

It is true that science is still often biased and motivated by other things than pure objectivity - I would definitely not like to deny that. But the solution is to produce counter-evidence. To do further research, collect more data, and provide more logically consistent and empirically founded arguments. The difference between science and non-science is not so much that one is more or less biased, but the different role rationality and logic takes. An academic argument can be countered by proper proof - in most cases - while public opinion is far less rational than that.

Well, I'm not putting it awfully clearly, but I think that striving for rational, consistent, as-objective-as-possible science is the solution to finding the truth, and not following mass public opinion or 'gut-feelings'. The idea that science is not always as objective or value-free or rational as it should be is probably very valid, but that doesn't mean that we should give up the goal, or that we should equate science to public opinion.

I don't believe science is always objective/holy/etc., but I do think that rationality/logic/proof is, and should be strived for, and should never be given up.

[Jos Elkink]

And the same gut instinct that the wars in Viuetnam and Iraq were wrong.

Oh, and you present this as if both were 'obviously' wrong and clear proof that gut instinct is important ... Two things: 1) they are *debatably* wrong, not obviously (I, for one, am still happy Saddam Hoessein is not in power anymore); 2) these concern value judgements rather than fact. If public gut feeling says nuclear power plants are dangerous, and science says it isn't, I trust science more; if public gut feeling says democracy is important and science says it might not be, it's not about facts but about moral values, and then public opinion matters far more (the only thing science can do it subscribe to or undermine the factual observations underpinning the moral values, but not the values themselves).

[formerly known as hf]

I was not presenting them as 'obviously' anything. Both the points about Muslims and the Netherlands, Jews in Pre-War Germany (although that less so than the others) as well as mine are highly debateable.

What I was trying to point out was that scientific 'fact' is just as highly debateable. So to say that we should follow scitnific 'fact' is about following something just as debateable, and fluctuating as public opinion.

I understand the desire not to equate the high levels of fluctuation and irrationality in mass opinion with levels of fluctuation and irrationality in science, and, to a small extent, I agree. As I said, academic science, mostly, does try to be objective and rational (as impossible as both those goals are).
The issue I have is how the academic work is presented to the public. Usually, the scientific 'facts' that get heard are the ones with the money behind them to push them into the public eye. Or are the ones that happen to be so extraordinary as to claim the attention of the media. Hence the 'middle ground' of argument and counter argument is unseen by many.

When Sav describes the overwhelming safety and efficiency of nuclear power, he is presenting one side of a (many-sided) argument - as if it were the only side. The are counter arguments to those claims. I'm not versed enough in nuclear power to know the details, but the one example about the celaring-up of disused nuclear power stations and the cost being put on the taxpayers is but one.

To display one side of an, academic, scientific argument, as the sole 'fact' is to make the science behind it motivated, and biased. This is not necessarily the fault of the scientist - the work may have most likely taken on board criticisms, and described its own faults.
Mostly, this is the fault of governments corporations and media in distorting research to give acceptablke backing to their own plans.

as for:

I do think that rationality/logic/proof is, and should be strived for, and should never be given up.

Here I differ greatly, and I think we've gone round this route before

My opinion starts with the belief that humans are not rational beings. They are full of subjectivities and biases, in a multitude of forms. I would go so far as to say that rationality and objectivity are out of the grasp of any human, or human construct.
In fact, the whole concepts of 'rationality' ,'logic' , 'proof', 'objectivity' and the like are human constructs. Hence, they have no existence beyond the minds of human beings - they are not universal paradigms, they are, as with everything else a 'mater of opinion'.
One person may feel something is completely rational and logical, another may feel the same thing is certainly neither. Who is right? Who has the correct concept of 'rationality'?
That's a rhetorical question - I don't think it can ever be answered. It simply describes how concepts of rationality etc. are just that - concepts - they are created, formed and (ab)used by people - they do not exist as anything tangible or describable beyond our own imaginations.
Hence 'rationality' is not universal - it is not a goal that exists beyond our own interpretation of the world. Hence to strive for rationality is not to strive for some universal truth - no such thing can exist - it is to strive for one concept of what rationality is - it is to fill in only part of the picture.

Anything that we take as universal - mathematics, logic, laws of physics - all of these are products of human soiciety, history, experience, etc. etc.

A fun diversion I always like to take is the discussion about 'alien mathematics' - would aliens have a different form of mathematics than us?
Many argue that mathematics would most likely be the easiest way of communicating with aliens - that 1+1=2 is a universality, and is true no matter where in the universe you are, or what creature you are.
Others, equally numerours, argue that aliens may well have a very, fundamentally, different concept of mathematics, uncomprehensible to us. This is the positon I would take. Mathematics, alongisde physics, alongside chemsitry, and all the other sciences, is steeped in human history - is has dveeloped over time, through social differentiations, via religious frameworks, political deviances etc. etc. As much as it may be nice to think that over the past centuries everyone has aimed at a goal of universality and rationality, I think that line of thinking is deeply wrong.
We have only come to current mathematical, physical, scientific knowledge via an ever changing set of human constructs - these things are not, and can not, ever be universal - can not ever be something beyond human experience and beyond the makings of people....

I apologise if that wandered/repeated/burbled - I was finding it difficult to express the concepts I was trying to get across in ways that I felt could be understood as close as possible to how I intended them to be understood...

[Jos Elkink]

Hmm, I'm not going to try to counter argue the point. For me, once someone starts believing that mathematics / logic is not universal but just a 'matter of opinion', we're so far deviated from each other that I don't know what to say anymore ... In fact, *any* argument I would give to argue against you could immediately be labelled a 'matter of opinion' and hence hardly relevant.

I totally, 100% disagree with you here, but I guess I didn't need to state that again ...

Where people argue that humans cannot observe objective truth, I can go with the idea. And my idea would be that science searches for some kind of intersubjectivity to approach this objectivity. Once people start arguing that there is no such thing as an objective truth, or that we should not strive to learn about it, or that even logic in its purest form is not objective, then there is no common ground anymore to continue the discussion on ...

[Savanik]

'Facts' are not universal, and can be very dynamic. What is 'fact' now may be a deep untruth in later years.

I feel it is somewhat naive to see 'scientific research' as the grail of rationality and objectivity. It is conducted by humans, for humans - full of biases, opinions, and motivations. When I see research published by a corporation, I am very sceptical.

You know, Jos, I am afraid that HF has an inarguable point here - research is conducted by people, and people are only human. However, to say that only research published by a corporation is worthy of skepticism seems incorrect.

Take, for example, the 'hockey stick' graph. I'm sure many people have seen it (although perhaps not by that name) - it's the graph that shows a long trend of stable temperatures throughout history until the 1900's, at which point it tips up sharply. The graph is presented as evidence for the argument that human development has led to increasing temperatures and the study was published in 1998 by Michael Mann. (1, 2)

Mann was using tree ring data - measuring the width between tree rings as an indicator of how warm a year was, with various normalizations and statistical methods to make it all come together. For instance, one tree might be more widespread, another might not have as many measurements taken, etc.

However, as recently as earlier this year, other climate researchers (McIntyre and McKitrick) attempted to duplicate his research, and found numerous errors in his methods. (3) Chief among these was that one of the normalizations he used greatly magnified the effect of any hockey-stick shape in the data. As a result, a single species of tree found only in high-altitudes of the western United States ended up dominating the calculations - a species that has been found to have an unusual growth spurt in the 20th century, which other tree ring researchers have proven did not come from high temperatures, but from higher CO2 concentrations. (4)

In addition, Mann used one 'series' that was based on a sample of only one tree - and counted it twice! Tree ring researches typically do not use data based on only a single tree in their studies.

McIntyre also found that when sampled with 'red noise' (one form of purely random data) over 1000 trials, using Mann's statistical 'normalization' came up with a hockey stick 99 times out of 100.

Mann has been defending his paper with ad hominem attacks against McIntyre and McKitrick, asserting that they are not 'real scientists', despite their publication in one of the same peer-reviewed journals in which Mann's appeared.

There are four requirements for good science: proper procedure, proper performance, repeatability, and peer review. Did they follow the scientific method? Was it an objective study? Is it repeatable? Was it peer reviewed? While Mann's paper might have passed the fourth critera, it was found that it failed the third, under scrutiny failed the first, and in light of Mann's defense of his paper, it has been shown that it failed the second. And yet, Mann's paper was one of the central studies used to support public policy such as the Montreal Protocol and the Kyoto Treaty.

Just because a paper isn't published by a corporate group doesn't mean that the researchers don't have their own biases. And when even Patrick Moore, the co-founder of Greenpeace (who has since left the organization) declares that 'the environmental movement has lost its objectivity, morality and humanity,' don't you think that perhaps he might be worth listening to and investigating his claims?

The Greenpeace Fund, Inc. takes in between $8-10 million dollars a year - and that's only one of its many branches. (5) It doesn't even really do anything other than funnel almost all its money off to Greenpeace, Inc. in the form of both grants and loans. Greenpeace Inc. is not a non-profit organization - as opposed to the Greenpeace Fund, Inc. As such, Greenpeace, Inc., doesn't have to make its tax returns a matter of public record.

You can't say 'corporate scientists are unethical because they get paid corporate money' - because that same argument would apply to the scientists working for environmentalists, funded by Greenpeace, Inc. Whoever they are. We don't know, because... well. Greenpeace Fund, Inc. gave almost all their money to people who don't have to tell you how the money is being spent.

I am equally skeptical of government, corporate, and environmentalist research. My litmus tests are procedure, peformance, repeatability, peer review. Although I do admit, most of the time, unless I'm researching in depth, I tend to look for which side stops slinging science and starts slinging mud.

When Sav describes the overwhelming safety and efficiency of nuclear power, he is presenting one side of a (many-sided) argument - as if it were the only side. The are counter arguments to those claims.

It's true that I am biased towards nuclear power. However, I am biased precisely because I have seen no evidence to convert my claims in my research. I have found pages detailing a number of nuclear accidents that I was previously unaware of, but all I have found so far have only anecdotal evidence, without looking at the statistics involved.

Obviously, you have familiarity with sources other than the ones I typically use. As such, I would be interested in looking at any scientific studies that contradict the studies that I've found that show nuclear power is safer and less damaging to the environment than coal.

Sav


1. Mann, M., Bradley, S., Hughes, M. "Global-scale temperature patterns and climate forcing over the past six centuries." Nature, Vol 392, p779-787, 1998
2. Mann, M., Bradley, S., Hughes, M. "Northern hemisphere temperatures during the past millennium: Inferences, uncertainties, and limitations." Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 26, No. 6, p759-762, 1999
3. McIntyre, S., McKitrick, R. "Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance." Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 32, Letter 03710, 2005
4. Graybill, D., Idso, S. "Detecting the aerial fertilization effect of atmospheric CO2 enrichment in tree-ring chronologies." Global Biogeochemical Cycles, Vol. 7, p81-95, March 1993
5. IRS. "Form 990, Return of Organization Exempt From Income Tax: Greenpeace Fund, Inc." 2003.

[Jos Elkink]

You know, Jos, I am afraid that HF has an inarguable point here - research is conducted by people, and people are only human.

I didn't argue that science was not done by people, not biased, and not motivated by other elements than a search for the truth. I said, that it is less so that public 'gutt feeling', and that at least with science, you can counter it.

The example you give is actually a perfect example. So someone publishes a scientific article, with big loopholes in it. Now others can publish, in a similar or the same journal, describing why the findings are incorrect. Most scientists will now at least have their doubts with the first study - and that's exactly why in the end science will lead to at least an approximation of the truth. (As said, I'm still assuming a truth exists - if you don't, we won't agree.)

Public opinion, on the other hand, is not the result of logic / procedure / peer review / etc. - but it's the result of that combined with demagogy / opinion manipulations / mass fears / etc. I would trust it far far less.

Cf. travelling by plane and by car. Probably many more people are scared of flying than there are scared of crossing the road, even though the latter is probably more dangerous. If a scientific study shows that the probability to die is larger when crossing the road, but public opinion says it's still scary to fly, should I really believe public opinion more?

However, to say that only research published by a corporation is worthy of skepticism seems incorrect.

I doubt that is what he was saying ... the ONLY doesn't fit here, I think

There are four requirements for good science: proper procedure, proper performance, repeatability, and peer review.

What's 'proper performance' in this context?

I missed a good reference on the scientific method ...

[Savanik]

There are four requirements for good science: proper procedure, proper performance, repeatability, and peer review.

What's 'proper performance' in this context?

Proper performance is a sort of 'fuzzy' category. It contains all those little ethical things that aren't always taught really well in universities. It has things like due diligence for data, for example - making sure that your data comes from good research, whether you use your own or others'. It means that you don't cherry-pick sources for a metastudy to come up with your predefined conclusion. In its essence, it means that you conduct the study in an ethical manner and try to seperate the research from your own views as much as possible to make it objective.

Savanik