Steve Kurtz wrote (forwarded via Arthur):
> http://afr.com/p/lifestyle/review/science_held_hostage_in_climate_Uamwgc7zXE
> sU6RbQJ5MWIJ
> Uncertainty is key.
The author make the point that uncertainty is the key element in the
real science -- the real efforts to deduce or infer how climate works
and whither (if anyplace determinate) it is trending.
But he also opines:
But the real worry with climate research is that it is on the very
edge of what is called postmodern science. This is a counterpart of
the relativist world of postmodern art and design. It is a much more
dangerous beast, whose results are valid only in the context of
society's beliefs and where the very existence of scientific
truth can be denied. Postmodern science envisages a sort of political
nirvana in which scientific theory and results can be consciously and
legitimately manipulated to suit either the dictates of political
correctness or the policies of the government of the day.
Such postmodernist quasi-science was ridiculed in Alan Sokal's
"Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics
of Quantum Gravity". (q.g.)
It's long been an object of my curiosity how people in the upper
levels of traditional power structure can bear to live with science.
Traditionally, one is not guilty (liable, divorced, whatever) until
the judge pronounces. [1] In that moment, one becomes guilty (liable,
divorced, whatever). The word *is* the thing. Truth descends
unequivocally from authority. A promise, an oath, an absolution, an
acknowledgment of paternity -- all traditionally create truth &
reality when spoken. To the kind of individual steeped in the notions
of law and authority, to a whole class of such people, science is
anathema. Science rejects, for the most part, absolutely certain
truths but claims the right, in turn, to reject authoritarian
pronouncements on the grounds of contrary observational evidence.
What a happy day for authoritarian personalities, whether religious or
secular, when whole domains of science come to depend on uncertain
data and statistical concepts of dubious applicability. Next stop,
postmodern quasi-science, "valid only in the context of society's
beliefs and where the very existence of scientific truth can be
denied."
On a different, if parallel line,
From the social and economic side of things, one might take much
more notice of the global warming scare campaign if it were not so
obvious that many of its most vociferous supporters have other
agendas.
And that isn't even an *attempt* at science. It uses real science,
bogus science, history, bogus history, real or bogus what-have-you to
implement an agenda which, were it to be presented straightforwardly,
would meet with resistance, outrage or worse. The famous sentence
from the PNAC paper,
"Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings
revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some
catastrophic and catalyzing event -- like a new Pearl Harbor."
has become a byword for concealing an unsavory and unmarketable agenda
behind public fear. It appears that similar people are presently
tooling up to something similar, scare mongering the threat of
"cyberwar" to conceal the agenda of "total information awareness" and
surveillance.
- Mike
--
[1] Someone (I forget whether it was on this list or elsewhere) rather
condescendingly replied to my mention of truth conventionally
emerging, ab ova as it were, from the pronouncement of a judge, with
words to the effect that "We have juries in our country."
Obviously irrelevant to the concept. Truth from the word of a
jury is no different than truth from the word of a priest or
judge.
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
