Re: [asa] Subglacial Water System Moving Faster Than Previously Thought

*The other group that seems to be especially prone to the I am not a -- fill
in the blank, lawyer, scientist, etc. -- but I will reject expert advise
without evidence is middle management.*

I love the middle management comparison! But of course, the world isn't as
simple as a Dilbert cartoon, in which the engineer / scientist is always
the downtrodden voice of reason and the pointy-haired boss is always the
buffoon. Even in big corporations, the engineers aren't always right --
though they might always think they know business better than the MBA's who
manage them (which group is really the one with the hubris?).

Anyway, notice that I never said a consensus like that reflected in the IPCC
report can safely be dismissed out of hand. Indeed, I've said before that I
accept the basic conclusion of anthropogenic warming. But responding to
your analogy to Paul on Mars Hill, all I suggested was that the comparison
of the authority of science in society to the authority of Paul's apostolic
teaching is misplaced -- indeed, a little scary if really taken seriously.

*My detailed study of the climate change issue shows that your question
about evaluating consensus as a layman is that you should take such
statements by the IPCC at face value and not play junior detective trying to
find hidden agendas.*

"Junior detective?" Where have I done that? It may be hubris to dismiss a
scientific report out of hand, but it seems equally hubristic to suggest
that a citizen in a democracy shouldn't inquire into the politics of the
formation of a consensus around a public policy question. Anyway, I've
suggested what I think is a moderate, innate skepticism of any statements by
anyone bearing on public policy, and in the past I've identified how some
key figures such as Jim Hansen clearly have strong political views; but I've
also said I don't buy the more extreme consipracy theories sometimes floated
about the IPCC.

Now, what if I, as a scholar of public policy and regulation, were to say to
you as a "layman" that you should agree with public choice theorists: the
acquisition of expert consensus is part of regulatory capture, which often
reflects little more than the influence of powerful interest groups, and
public policy formation can be analyzed entirely in terms of political
economy?

*The same would hold true for me if I hired you as my legal counsel. If I
have to constantly second guess you then I should hire someone else.*

Maybe so. But if you never second guess me, then you are a dumb client, and
you deserve whatever crummy service you get. A good lawyer working with a
smart client function together in many ways as a team. There is indeed a
large amount of trust the client often must place in the lawyer's judgment,
but the best lawyer-client relationships aren't in any sense authoritarian.

But none of the above has much to do with the recent paper on the water
flows under the Antarctic ice sheet. I don't see the IPCC suddenly saying
"uh-oh!" about this at all. From what I've seen, this sort of thing
justifies the IPCC's caution about making strong predictions relating to ice
melt. Curiously, it's the folks who like to natter on about the
independence of the IPCC and the authority of consensus who are now
suggesting the IPCC faced political pressure to dull its warnings!

On 2/16/07, Rich Blinne <rich.blinne@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 2/16/07, David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > I think you'd agree that the epistemic imperative must be different when
it comes to a scientific consensus -- right?
> >
>
>
> You miss my point. I am saying using uncertainty to avoid dealing with
some possibly very nasty consequences is as lame as the excuse recorded in
Acts 17. If you're acting as legal counsel and warn your client of a
potential but not certain consequence of an action, and your client rejects
it because of an anonymous comment to a blog is your client being wise?
People seem to easily reject expert counsel and conservative Christians seem
to be especially prone to this. The other group that seems to be especially
prone to the I am not a -- fill in the blank, lawyer, scientist, etc. -- but
I will reject expert advise without evidence is middle management. Pardon my
bluntness, but this attitude betrays a profound hubris. Note: I am not
saying you have this attitude but it is all-to-common amongst
evangelicals. Scientists and engineers are very up front when there is or is
not consensus. My detailed study of the climate change issue shows that your
question about evaluating consensus as a layman is that you should take such
statements by the IPCC at face value and not play junior detective trying to
find hidden agendas. The same would hold true for me if I hired you as my
legal counsel. If I have to constantly second guess you then I should hire
someone else. If the governments are not satisfied with the quality of
scientific advise, then they should have nominated other, more qualified,
scientists for the IPCC work when they were given that opportunity. The
truth is that the governments did nominate qualified individuals and when I
look at the results of their work I find that they were worthy of the trust
of the governments that nominated them.
>

-- 
David W. Opderbeck
Web:  http://www.davidopderbeck.com
Blog:  http://www.davidopderbeck.com/throughaglass.html
MySpace (Music):  http://www.myspace.com/davidbecke
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.