James Lewis over at The American Thinker has written a nice essay that describes the type of “junk” science that I’ve previously referred to in my rants about global warming.
The most memorable quote in the article is something that I couldn’t say better myself:
There is such a thing as pathological science. Science becomes unhealthy when its only real question — “what is true?” — is sabotaged by vested interests, by ideological Commissars, or even by grant-swinging scientists. Today’s Global Warming campaign is endangering real, honest science. Global Warming superstition has become an international power grab, and good science suffers as a result.
What is Pathological Science? Simply put, this is wishful thinking on the part of the observer. A scientist observes a body of facts, and through prejudice or design, makes a falsifiable theory. The most common argument against this is that all scientists have a bias, and therefore, their observation contaminates the events being observed. Robert A. Heinlein phrased this in a folksy, colloquial way: “You pays your money and you takes your frame of reference.” The implication, of course, is that you pay a scientist to run your experiments, and then don’t complain about the resulting theories.
Understanding science and interpreting data should always involve an evaluation of the men and women conducting the experiment. What is their motivation? What is their education? How does their bias, as determined by their personal and educational background, skew their interpretation of the data? This is a whole branch of the psychology of science that is left mostly untapped, to the detriment of the scientfic community as a whole.
The result of Pathological Science is the advent of Pop Science. Science is broken down into easily digestible sound bites that polarize our people along a divide that more often than not splits down partisan lines. Since governments typically control the bulk of research dollars, science becomes politicized as a necessity. When science becomes politicized, you end up with researchers being pressured to deliver results that further the goals of a particular candidate or a branch of government in order to continue their funding. This starts a nasty cycle that begins with a slight misinterpretation of results and ends with presidential candidates talking about global warming.
Our growth in the sciences has been unprecedented in the twentieth century, but I cannot help but wonder if the involvement of politicians and special interest groups in the design and direction of experiments will handicap our researchers. Are we doomed to a period of stagnation in our progress until we realize our mistakes? Or are there enough independent researchers in the world who value their quest for truth enough to over-ride the likes of political parties and Nobel prize committees?
This is a very compelling argument to all the hype that seems to be lurking around every corner. While I don’t necessarily believe that consumption conservation is a bad thing, the degree of fear promoting the end of the world, at which celebrity, politics and major corporations are shoving down the proverbial collective throat is quite sickening.
There is only so much, “We’re all going to die! Ahhhh! The evil trash monster will rise from the ever growing landfills on the first day of impending ice age!” that I can take.
I just hope that your ‘junk’ science theory doesn’t lead us to another ice age. If so, your house is first on my list for firewood.
I like cold weather, and I like to ski. Ask yourself if another ice age would be really bad? Texas might actually see snow in the winter!