Like I said in another post, for some people science is not about advancing our understanding of the material world, but legitimising their particular “ism”. Whether it’s liberalism ["If we prove that global warming is real and we're responsible, it'll prove that liberalism is correct and the only acceptable world view to have."] or conservatism ["If we prove that global warming is a farce, especially human-induced global warming, then it'll prove that conservatism is correct and the only world view one should have."] or any other “ism”, science’s only purpose is to prove that “my side is correct, not yours”.

Knowledge is not the goal for them; winning is.

Small wonder why neither side wants to give in–it means that the other guy will win.

From Mary Midgley’s “Science As Salvation”:
“The attempt to dedramatize nature was meant to form part of this great scheme. It was intended to bypass weighted language and biased points of view, so as to reveal the facts directly. But there are, unfortunately, far more ways in which points of view can be biased than one might hope, and also many good reasons for using various kinds of language. As a distant, guiding ideal, the removal of bias is thoroughly proper. But the notion that anybody could actually achieve it has turned out no more realistic than the attempt to see the world fairly by standing nowhere.
The history of thought is littered with supposedly universal and final schemes which have had something good in them, but have failed lamentably in what they claimed. It has become clear that we can indeed aim to correct partiality by balancing one bias against another, but can never assume that we have finally succeeded in becoming universal. Our knowledge does not consist of pure bits of information, warranted final, but of world-pictures which balance each other and constantly need modification. That is why the disinfecting project has fallen into the rather dangerous difficulties that I have been describing.”

We do, indeed, all operate with a world-view and it’s partial, biassed and riddled with error – for every one of us.

Read the whole chapter: http://www.giffordlectures.org/Browse.asp?PubID=TPSASV&Volume=0&Issue=0&ArticleID=6

Rich

In developmental psychology (Robert Kegan, Susanne Cook-Greuter, Don Beck) these visions of the world, are found to be a series of worldviews that emerge sequentially, in individuals and more broadly in culture–so there is always a large group of people who can agree with you in how you see the world.

But people tend not to think of themselves as having a worldview that automagically paints the picture of the world that they form. A person who has an atheist worldview, looks at the data from science, and believes that the science data directly leads to only one rational conclusion: atheism!

Worldviews are self-reinforcing… up until they become too painful that a break with the old happens, and a new worldview might emerge (but this takes decades).

But the point is, people, including scientists, say that “the science” proves XYZ, but often it only proves X and the YZ is just the sub-culture’s worldview tacked onto the end.

This is how environmentalists can claim that they come “only with peer reviewed science”, but they ignore that science when it’s about genetic modification being safe. This is how environmentalists can say there is a problem with coal, but if a clean technology is invented for coal, they simply insist that it is nonetheless “evil”–they aren’t attacking coal so much as trying to get everyone else to adopt their worldview. The trouble with worldviews–and if the authors mentioned above are to be believed, we all operate with a worldview–is that most worldviews believe that the world would be a better place is everyone adopted the same worldview–our view is the right view.

Maybe this is OT but I find it more interesting than the usual accusation that environmentalists are “religious”. If we want to understand the IPCC and the UN, then we need to take on board what their overall worldview is, and how that is self-reinforcing their policies and aims. And that is not so much about politics, it is more about what is driving people and organisations towards certain political stances and strategies.

“Biology doesn’t talk in terms of ‘working models’. Although neither does it stoop to talk of ‘the consensus’ like climate science does.”

Regarding that last sentence, presumably you are referring to working, operational biology, rather than theoretical evolutionary biology? If so, I agree. However, if you are referring to the latter, you need to get out a bit more, as the use of authoritative “consensus” arguments is pervasive in the field . . .

I’m imagining what could have happened if the Royal Society had diverted all of its efforts and resources in the late 1600s and early 1700s into phlogiston sequestration, on the basis that the world faced a fiery doom caused by runaway combustion. Lord May’s 18th century counterpart might have exclaimed: “Magnetism? Electricity? Gravity? What frivolities are these, when the end of the world is nigh?”

Maybe if CERN’s and LHC’s objectives were to advance our understanding of climate change [read: remind people that it's All Our Fault that the climate is so fucked-up], they’d be more supportive of it?

“He illustrates that feeling common amongst environmentalists that humanity has gone too far with dirty technology and that we need to go back to some sort of (mythical) balance.”

The mythical balance the proponents make a lot of noise over, but don’t seem too enthusiastic about actually adopting into their lives–that’s for the poor people in places like Africa.

“The fact that environmentalists think this whilst using computers, flying in planes, wearing cotton clothes and using soap and clean water, seems to suggest that they are not as holistic in their thinking as they claim to be.”

But but but! It’s all organic and fair trade and and and! That counts for something, right?

He shows to the public that scientists aren’t simply geeks looking for cold facts. Instead, they often bring their own moral judgements along and their feeling for how they want the world to change. His final argument is that too many people are attracted to projects like the LHC, whist they should, you know, *really* be going into climate change research. Really? Says who?

He illustrates that feeling common amongst environmentalists that humanity has gone too far with dirty technology and that we need to go back to some sort of (mythical) balance.

The fact that environmentalists think this whilst using computers, flying in planes, wearing cotton clothes and using soap and clean water, seems to suggest that they are not as holistic in their thinking as they claim to be.