Re: [asa] Creation Care

I'm actually a fan of Smolin and don't like string theory either. I do think, however, that you may be applying Smolin's comments in slightly the wrong way. String theory is not consensus in the sense of being tested experimentally and found to be consistent. He's talking about the relative distribution of funds in fields where there is no consensus of proven models. He's talking about the tendency to fund research in new areas according to the fad of string theory. The issue of what work to fund long before there's consensus is actually the more interesting part of scientific research and I've spent much of my career doing that.

Once a field has an appreciable degree of success in explaining data the research in that field moves to digging deeper and refining the big picture as well as understanding the next layer of the onion. You say "it's irresponsible to ingore contrarian views". I would ask, on what basis do you decide which contrarian views to reject and which ones to value? Who is the arbiter? Are you the arbiter and we must convince you? Is the general public? Is it the freerepublic bloggers? Is it the amateur scientists sitting on the sidelines throwing potshots? Is it those of us on this list with just enough knowledge to be dangerous? You say "if the contrarian view is clearly wrong, that should be demonstrable..." but who will demonstrate that? Who is responsible for deciding whether Glassman's paper on CO2 in the ocean is correct or not? Who will decide if John Baumgartner is right in his C-14 assertions? Who will decide if Russell Humphreys is right in his cosmological cooling? Do we vote to see if we have a majority? Do we give equal weighting to every commentator?

The solution has actually evolved over a few hundred years in the scientific methodology. Imperfect as it is, it has been shown over and over to work. That certainly does NOT mean that all peer-reviewed publications are correct. Far from it. In the past I've opined that as many as 80% of published papers might have errors. The beauty of the system is that over time, the fraudulent work gets exposed and the right ideas are independently corroborated and confirmed. Cynics like Janice who think the system is so thoroughly corrupt that nothing can be trusted have no evidence to back up their conspiracy theories and have a tremendous amount of counterexamples to explain away. As far as I know, virtually all known frauds in science have been ferreted out and corrected from within the scientific community, not from the outside.

I really don't buy this "precautionary" stuff. Once a technical community has reached the level of consensus like that which the climatologists have shown, then it becomes irresponsible for us not to act accordingly. Granted, there could be the unusual occurrence of two consecutive volcanos greater than Mt. Pinatuba only 2 years apart and all bets are off. But we don't hold off action because such a rare event might occur. We are responsible before God to act on the basis of the understanding he has given us. Allowing the shrill voices of critics who have no competing models, who have no in-depth understanding of the field, to prevent action is also unacceptable.

Jonah was reluctant to go to Ninevah because he feared his dire predictions wouldn't come true and he would be shown a fool. God straightened him out, he went, preached God's word and, sure enough, the people repented, God didn't judge Ninevah, and Jonah's fears came true. The city was spared. We can and should pray that we will be spared as well but that shouldn't stop our actions.

Randy
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: David Opderbeck
  To: Randy Isaac
  Cc: asa@calvin.edu
  Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2007 10:30 PM
  Subject: Re: [asa] Creation Care

  ... who are the final arbiters of controversies in scientific debates? I think we need to educate the public about scientific methodology and the need to rely on the scientific publication process as part of authoritative opinion. Without that, there's no resolution.
   
  Randy, let me push back and play the contrarian a bit here. I hope everyone will forgive a long response, but I find this fascinating, and important.

  [snip]

  So I would say this: yes, we must take seriously the consensus of working scientists in any given field as reflected in the peer reviewed literature. However, we must also retain the rational and political freedom to evaluate consensus claims on the merits, being always mindful that the authority of all human communities, including communities of science, is necessarily limited by social dynamics and sin. Because of this, it's irresponsible to ignore contrarian views, even if they are not a significant part of the peer reviewed literature. This is particularly true where the science in question is critical to public policy and democratic debate. If the contrarian view is clearly wrong, that should be demonstrable based on the rational strength of the consensus view, without resort to arguments from authority.
   

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Jan 25 20:22:23 2007