Values and norms do and must guide what questions we ask, but they cannot be allowed to influence our scientific answers.
Scientific papers should contain empirical statements and not value-based judgments. On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 4:44 PM, Jerome Whitington < [email protected]> wrote: > Hi All - > > Forgive me for joining in - I am a newcomer on this list. > > Georges Canguilhem, who analyzed the French medical sciences, argued that > the objectivity of medicine in fact requires its normative component. > Research is not only motivated by goals like curing disease, but is > organized toward those aims in all its detail. He shows that the positive > agenda of a non-normative physiology, which sought to build up an > understanding of normal functions in their totality, remained an allusive > dream. But for Canguilhem this normative dimension hardly undermines > medicine's claim to objectivity - on the contrary. The science of the normal > body needs pathology in order to exist. > > It strikes me that ecological sciences also have an undeniable clinical > aspect, at least in a great many research contexts. It is not only that we > are motivated by goals of repairing the earth - or even just making > policy-relevant conclusions - but that the research is actually organized in > such a way. The normative dimension is inescapable, but this doesn't mean > the methodological basis of research isn't robust. Like medicine, climate > science implies intervention, and our understanding of climate would be > hardly as developed were it not so. > > Incidentally, Canguilhem attributed this polarized condition of normative > judgment as an essential element of life itself. Living bodies inherently > are involved in polarized judgments - inside versus outside, up versus down, > pain versus pleasure. If life is this normative activity, it means that > disease is not a strictly objective condition (say, loss of funtionality), > but also a 'subjective' judgment about that condition (that the loss of > function is bad). This also helps clarify why people use medical sciences to > manipulate their bodies in unconventional ways (augmentation, performance > enhancing drugs). And of course these sciences are also organized around > normative goals. > > Regards, > Jerome Whitington > Dartmouth College / NUS > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 6:08 PM, John Nissen <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Hi Ken, >> >> You take a fundamentally different view of the Earth System and >> geoengineering. I see the Earth System as in an extremely precarious state >> and geoengineering as absolutely necessary to nudge the system back into a >> state that allows continued habitation of the planet by ourselves and our >> offspring. Do you really think that we can survive the century simply by >> reducing carbon emissions? If we wait for some dramatic event, like >> disappearance of Arctic sea ice, as an "emergency" sufficient to justify >> geoengineering, don't we risk leaving geoengineering too late? >> >> For me, geoengineering is like chemotherapy when a vital organ has cancer, >> or like fire-fighting when parts of the burning building contain >> explosives. You start tackling the problem as quickly as you possibly can, >> concentrating on the critical parts. >> >> John >> >> --- >> >> >> On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 4:02 PM, Ken Caldeira <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> Two points: >>> >>> I am not opposed to scientists making prescriptive statements in their >>> roles as citizens. >>> >>> However, I am opposed to prescriptive statements (statements about what >>> we should do) in peer-reviewed scientific papers. >>> >>> I think science is about establishing objective facts about the world. As >>> citizens, we take these facts and our values and make judgments about what >>> we should do. >>> >>> I am 100% in favor of Jim Hansen making prescriptive statements. I would >>> just prefer that he not do it in the context of a peer-reviewed scientific >>> paper. >>> >>> Science cannot tell us what to do. It can give us information which we >>> can use to make decisions. >>> >>> If the science gets mixed up with politics in peer-reviewed scientific >>> publications, I think it ends up weakening the credibility of the entire >>> scientific publication process (since statements whose truth value cannot be >>> empirically established are obviously getting past reviewers). >>> >>> I should say that the worst in this respect are the economists, who >>> insist that they should be regarded as a science while simultaneously trying >>> to tell us what we should be doing. >>> >>> --- >>> >>> On deployment of some sort of solar reflection system: all of our model >>> results indicate that a high co2 world with deflection of some sunlight >>> would be more similar to a low co2 world than is a high co2 world without >>> deflection of sunlight. >>> >>> So, do I think that direct environmental damage from greenhouse gases >>> could be diminished by deploying such a system? Yes, probably although I am >>> not 100% certain of this. >>> >>> Do I think near-term deployment will reduce overall risk and improve >>> long-term well-being? Of this I am less certain, as it is hard to predict >>> the various sociopolitical, as well as environmental, repercussions that >>> might occur. >>> >>> Ken Caldeira >>> [email protected] >>> +1 650 704 7212 >>> http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab >>> >>> Sent from a limited-typing keyboard >>> >>> On Jul 22, 2011, at 16:38, John Nissen <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> Dear Ken, >>> >>> I've already looked at this interesting paper [1], from Jim Hansen and >>> Mikiko Sato - but I'd not read before of his conjecture about rate of ice >>> mass loss doubling per decade, producing many metres of sea level rise this >>> century. But the implication is that the situation can be saved simply by >>> reducing fossil fuel emissions! Is that the prescription that you are >>> complaining about? Wouldn't a well-considered prescription be welcome from >>> somebody as eminent as Prof Hansen? Geoengineering for example! I don't >>> see a way out of our predicament without it. Do you, Ken? >>> >>> Does Hansen accept that 90% sea ice could be gone as soon as at end >>> summer 2016? (BTW, I've another reference to this date we've been arguing >>> about [2].) >>> >>> Hansen seems to dismiss methane as always producing less forcing than >>> CO2: >>> >>> "*This sensitivity has the merit that CO2 is the principal GHG forcing >>> and perhaps the only one with good prospects for quantification of its >>> long-term changes.*" (page 15) >>> >>> However the paper is relevant to the methane issue in several ways. One >>> argument, which I've heard from Jeff Ridley, is that there is no sign of a >>> methane excursion at previous interglacials* such as end-Eemian, when it was >>> hotter, so we don't need to worry about having an excursion now. Hansen >>> shows that it was never hotter than it is now (in Holocene) by more than one >>> degree. >>> >>> Elsewhere Hansen points out that the current rate of global warming is >>> much higher than it has been for millions of years. Andrew Lockley suggests >>> it's higher than even it was at the PETM some 55.8 million years ago, when >>> temperatures rose about 6 C [3]. That rate of change is important, because >>> of methane's short lifetime. The increasing speed of change implied by >>> Hansen's climate sensitivity is thus relevant to methane. >>> >>> A further way that the paper is relevant to methane is because of climate >>> sensitivity to radiative forcing. The paper suggests various alternative >>> values that could be taken - see [1] table 1. If we get over 2 W/m-2 from >>> methane, then that certainly takes us over the danger line of 2 degrees >>> global warming, using his argument. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> John >>> >>> * During the past 800,000 years, methane never rose much above 700 ppb >>> until recently, see [1] figure 2 >>> >>> [1] Full paper <http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1105/1105.0968.pdf> >>> http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1105/1105.0968.pdf >>> >>> Abstract here: >>> <http://arxiv.org/abs/1105.0968v3>http://arxiv.org/abs/1105.0968v3 >>> >>> [2] <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13002706> >>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13002706 >>> >>> [3] >>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene%E2%80%93Eocene_Thermal_Maximum> >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene%E2%80%93Eocene_Thermal_Maximum >>> >>> --- >>> >>> On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 11:07 PM, Emily < <[email protected]> >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> here is a recent paper from Jim Hansen,including some figures I've read >>>> before, which stunned me: >>>> >>>> "In the early Pliocene global temperature was no more than 1-2°C warmer >>>> than today, yet sea level was 15-25 meters (50-80 feet) higher." >>>> >>>> best wishes, >>>> >>>> Emily. >>>> >>>> >>>> *Paleoclimate Implications: Accepted Paper and 'Popular Science'* >>>> >>>> >>>> "Paleoclimate Implications for Human-Made Climate Change" has been >>>> reviewed, revised in response to the referee's suggestions, and accepted >>>> for publication in "Climate Change at the Eve of the Second Decade of >>>> the Century: Inferences from Paleoclimate and Regional Aspects: >>>> Proceedings of Milutin Milankovitch 130th Anniversary Symposium" (Eds. >>>> A. Berger, F. Mesinger and D Šijački), Springer. >>>> >>>> This final version has also been published in arXiv:1105.0968v3 >>>> [physics.ao-ph] >>>> <<http://columbia.us1.list-manage.com/track/click?u=0ebaeb14fdbf5dc65289113c1&id=fbefcc8464&e=60a7483168> >>>> http://columbia.us1.list-manage.com/track/click?u=0ebaeb14fdbf5dc65289113c1&id=fbefcc8464&e=60a7483168 >>>> > >>>> >>>> A__'popular science' summary >>>> <<http://columbia.us1.list-manage.com/track/click?u=0ebaeb14fdbf5dc65289113c1&id=d3b93e0894&e=60a7483168> >>>> http://columbia.us1.list-manage.com/track/click?u=0ebaeb14fdbf5dc65289113c1&id=d3b93e0894&e=60a7483168 >>>> > >>>> of the paper, intended for lay audience, is available. >>>> >>>> Thanks especially to reviewer Dana Royer for helpful comments, >>>> foundations and NASA program managers for research support, and a number >>>> of people for comments on an early draft of the paper, as delineated in >>>> the acknowledgements. >>>> >>>> Jim Hansen >>>> >>>> -- >>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>> Groups "geoengineering" group. >>>> To post to this group, send email to <[email protected]> >>>> [email protected]. >>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >>>> <geoengineering%[email protected]> >>>> [email protected]. >>>> For more options, visit this group at >>>> <http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en> >>>> http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. >>>> >>>> >>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >>> "geoengineering" group. >>> To post to this group, send email to <[email protected]> >>> [email protected]. >>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >>> <geoengineering%[email protected]> >>> [email protected]. >>> For more options, visit this group at >>> <http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en> >>> http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. >>> >>> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "geoengineering" group. >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> [email protected]. >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. >> > > > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
