Cricton’s evidence for the threat of “political correctness” is evident in the speech, if you’ve read it. He may not have named it “political correctness” because that label in itself sets off all kinds of crazy alarm bells in all directions these days.
The use of “political correctness” in my statement meant: policy stances that are popular among a powerful liberal establishment, and which are particularly guarded by an attack team at the ready.
I personally (if you are at all interested in my personal views) remain on the side of environmentalism – that is, when in doubt, err on the side of environmental conservation.
However, I don’t embrace the idea that we should promote dogma over debate (or dissent) to promote environmentalism.
In short: science ought not be influenced by what’s popular. And I think that’s Crichton’s point.
beau: *However, I don’t embrace the idea that we should promote dogma over debate (or dissent) to promote environmentalism.
In short: science ought not be influenced by what’s popular. And I think that’s Crichton’s point.*
I really doubt that you’ll find many serious scientists suggesting that we should promote dogma over debate, for any reason whatsoever. However, I think it’s uselessly idealistic to suggest that science can or should remain totally uninfluenced by the pressure of consensus or majority opinion in scientific communities.
Scientific research tends to proceed by “paradigms”: that is, the most plausible-looking model for some currently unexplained or ill-explained natural phenomenon becomes the “bandwagon” that many researchers jump on. It’s not really possible to do cutting-edge scientific research without provisionally adopting a theory that’s not yet fully confirmed by evidence. (After all, if it were fully confirmed, it wouldn’t be cutting-edge anymore.) And people inevitably tend to be influenced by majority or consensus views in their fields. So it doesn’t seem possible that science can ever totally avoid being somewhat “influenced by what’s popular”.
And that means that sometimes, inevitably, the consensus or majority view is going to be wrong: the model that seems to most researchers most plausible is sometimes going to be a bad choice. You can’t avoid it; there is no magic formula for always picking the right model first crack out of the box.
That doesn’t automatically imply that dissenting or skeptical views will be drowned out or that alternative theories will be suppressed. If that’s what “climate skeptics” are really worried about, their best strategy would be to treat the proponents of the consensus view with respect, while producing non-polemical, high-quality, peer-reviewed research that supports their opposing view.
The more they resort to polemical rhetoric that accuses consensus scientists of being dishonest eco-activists, or mindless PC sheep, the more the scientific community in general will mistrust their arguments. After all, those who complain the loudest that the scientific community is an elite cabal that squelches unorthodox brilliant discoveries are usually not the originators of unorthodox brilliant discoveries. They’re usually just cranks, or people with an axe to grind.
First, let me say that I have nothing to add to kimstu’s nice summary in regards to dogma and all that.
I just don’t find Crichton’s “evidence” of this problem to be very compelling. Take, for example, the case of nuclear winter. Let’s for the moment even accept Chrichton’s full account of the events (which, as I have pointed out, is probably not completely wise given his track record on other examples, but I am in a generous mood). What exactly went wrong here in the scientific community? I can’t even figure out what his complaint is? I would have thought it would have been that other scientists dogmatically tried to defend the science of this for political reasons even though it was wrong. Yet, he did not quote one scientist who did this. The best he can do is quote a couple of scientists who said things like what Freeman Dyson said or Victor Weisskopf said…which is expressing some sympathy for the idea that nuclear war is a very bad thing and who wants to say otherwise, but saying that the science here is “terrible” or “atrocious”. He also notes how the editor of Nature criticized its claims.
In fact, the entire freakin’ argument that this is a piece of “consensus science” rests on one quote from one of the authors of the paper claiming that it represented a consensus.
So, what do we learn from this? Assuming we can trust Crichton’s summary of events, I think we learn that one should be distrustful if a few individual scientists tell you that their paper represents the consensus view. And, I would definitely agree with him on this. [In fact, I have an amusing personal anecdote in that regard: When I was looking for postdocs, I decided to see if any consensus was emerging in regards to a theoretical understanding of high temperature (“high Tc”) superconductors. So when I went for a job interview at Argonne National Labs, I asked them there and they told me that indeed there was a consensus emerging and they proceeded to explain how it was now obvious that the basic mechanism for normal (low Tc) superconductors applied to these new high Tc superconductors. I then went out to UCLA and asked the same question. I was again told that indeed there was a consensus emerging since it was now obvious that the basic mechanism for low Tc superconductors could not possibly apply and that more exotic electron-electron interactions were responsible. When I got back home, I told friends that there was seemed to be unanimous agreement that a consensus was emerging in the theory of high Tc superconductivity. The only problem was that noone could agree on what the consensus actually was!]
However, the nuclear winter example does not tell us that we should be distrustful if the National Academy of Sciences, the IPCC (a process designed to involve a whole lot of scientists and review the entire peer-reviewed literature), the AMS, the AGU, the editors of Science and Nature all tell us there is a scientific consensus on some matter. In fact, if anything it gives us more confidence that scientists will still criticize the science of a work even when they are sympathetic with the political or psychological viewpoints that underlie it.
Basically, I find that all of Crichton’s writings on this subject are a sort of bait-and-switch routine like this. He presents one example of something and then uses it to claim something else which his example is in fact woefully inadequate of demonstrating.