Leading Horses to Water
Ancient Greeks began the way of
thinking originally known as natural philosophy but which we now call
science. Science emerged as we know it during the Renaissance, in
an age dominated by fear, superstition, injustice, and brutality.
In other words, pretty much like the present. These musings are
aimed at explaining how science works, and how science can serve even
nonscientists in their efforts to make sense of the world. I can
try to explain things but it’s up to you to decide whether or not you
wish to drink from these waters.
#22 - Conspiracy Among Scientists?
American Heathen: aired: 29 September 2012
The topic of global climate change continues to be in the news, so I’m
discussing it again. A while back, I offered the opinion that it
was absurd to even entertain the notion that hundreds of global climate
change scientists (as represented by the IPCC consensus)
have been engaging in a conspiracy to promulgate scientific ideas and
results known to be wrong, purely for personal gain. I described
how funding for science really works and why the safeguards against
misuse of those funds for personal gain make it impossible for most of
the scientists participating in global climate change science to add
significantly to their income by promoting this alleged
conspiracy. There is no plausible reason for such a cabal to
exist. If there’s any chance for a conspiracy to push bad science
onto the public, it’s most likely in the private sector, where backing
for global climate change deniers supports a small number of vocal
scientists (most of whom are not global climate change scientists!) who
may be benefitting from that backing. Recently, one of the more
credible deniers actually reversed his stance and now believes the
scientific consensus.
But precisely how and why is a widespread conspiracy among scientists
such an unlikely situation? One argument against such a
conspiracy is something you’re either going to trust me on, or you
won’t. In my experience, virtually all of my scientific
colleagues are working long and hard to figure out what’s going on in
the natural world. The very idea of intentionally producing false
results is for all practical purposes, unthinkable to most of us.
Why would we promote ideas we know to be wrong? Yes, there are a
few isolated individual cases of scientific fraud discovered every
year. And the penalty for perpetrating scientific fraud is swift
and irrevocable: a complete and utter loss of credibility for the
likely short duration of one’s subsequent scientific career following
the revelation of a scientific fraud. Publishing incorrect
results, using flawed methods, drawing inappropriate conclusions -
these errors happen unintentionally all the time. Errors and
mistakes eventually are discovered and corrected. There’s no
serious penalty for making inadvertent or even stupid errors. But
to mislead intentionally is both unforgivable and difficult to prove.
We scientists make no claim to being perfect, although the egos of some
of us are fragile enough to find it difficult to admit mistakes.
We make mistakes all the time, so our peer-reviewed publications are
not filled only with truth, but include errors and misconceptions of
all sorts. Science works on the principle of an evolving
consensus about the workings on the natural world; it’s a process
that can never end with the achievement of some immutable
“truth”. Science simply doesn’t recognize the concept of
immutable truth! The consensus is always provisional, subject to
review by any one of us, and subject to revision when the evidence
forces us to abandon earlier notions that proved to be inadequate or
inaccurate. However, anyone who would deliberately mislead
colleagues by publishing results known to be incorrect would be
ostracized instantly from the scientific community forever, regardless
of any other institutional or judicial punishment.
I talked about the peer review process a while back. It’s not
perfect, but if someone attempts scientific fraud, a serious challenge
to that fraud is peer review. Any bogus results stand a good
chance of being discovered during peer review and fraudulent
findings are likely to be detected and rejected before ever being
published in a scientific journal.
However, even if someone seeking to publish false results somehow
manages to slip it past peer review and publishes a result that
contravenes the consensus, that work instantly becomes a target for
those in the scientific community who continue to believe in the
correctness of the consensus. The standard of evidence for a
major change to the consensus is set very high – as the saying goes,
extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence! It’s likely
deliberately bad science would be challenged even if it were to be
published. Just being published in a refereed journal is not like
papal imprimatur!
Despite the likely reaction to challenging the consensus, each of us
must make a name for ourselves within the profession by proposing
changes to the consensus. If all you can contribute as a
scientist is “Me, too!” to the consensus, then your career will be
pretty much undistinguished. Proposed changes to the consensus
run the gamut from wholesale revolution (like Einstein’s Theory of
Relativity) to minor changes regarding some esoteric point. If
someone were to propose a major paradigm shift within the consensus,
their work would be run through a gauntlet of challenges from other
scientists.
Now try to imagine literally hundreds of scientists conspiring to
promote something they actually know to be a scientific
falsehood. The very idea of such a thing is well beyond being
ridiculous. How could such a cabal be kept secret? What
would be the point of doing it? How and why would hundreds of
scientists endanger their scientific careers for a cause that could not
offer them some enormous benefit to compensate for taking such a
risk? It’s one thing for a particular scientist to take what
amounts to an incorrect position on some topic – this actually happens
all the time, of course! But to engage hundreds of others in an
effort to lead the science down a path known to be incorrect?
Utterly and absolutely preposterous! It would be an enormous,
simultaneous betrayal by hundreds of individuals of everything that led
them to become scientists in the first place. Sadly, some
well-known scientists have attacked global climate change science with
exactly the accusation that it’s a gigantic conspiracy to perpetuate
bad science for personal gain. To disagree is one thing, but to
impugn the motives of hundreds of colleagues is quite a leap! It
can be argued that it’s a major ethics violation to make such an
accusation without extremely compelling evidence. No one has yet
done so.
Among the things that attracted me to a career in science was the
recognition that an absolute commitment to professional integrity is
the sine qua non of science. Deliberate falsehood is
anathema! Being wrong is no problem, but being deliberately wrong
is nothing less than unforgivable! No true scientist could
participate in such a conspiracy. Perhaps some small number of
individuals might be able to rationalize doing so, but a successful
conspiracy involving the majority of global climate change scientists
is simply not possible. Only a nonscientist could entertain such
an idea!
When you hear such things in the media, reject them for the utter nonsense they are!
Science
is not a religion but rather a tool for those who wish to think for
themselves about the natural world. Its primary characteristic is
its willingness to entertain questions from those who wish to obtain
believable answers.