[asa] Kuhn Project

I received the following communication today -- originator unidentified.

I was unable to find the "Kuhn Project" via Google.

Dear Corespondent,

If you have received this, you belong in one of the following categories:

-professional working in earth sciences
-teacher
-minister
-other professional involved in disseminating info
-a wise person

I would appreciate receiving any constructive feedback you could offer us.
Your input will aid us in fine tuning our initial contact letter for our
first mailing. Please point out any factual errors or faulty terminology!

If you would like to join or know anyone who might be interested, contact us
soonest. Feel free to pass this text onto to colleagues who might be
interested, too.

At present, we do not know what form the Kuhn Project will finally take. A
website might result but we feel that a more aggressive mode of action is
also called for. We want to help professionals with knowledge and informed
opinions on the dangers of global warming and climate change to bridge the
gap that separates them from the public. Again, any suggestions you might
have along these lines would be deeply appreciated.

___________________________________________________________

The Kuhn Project:

abbreviations: GW - global warming, GHG - greenhouse gases

Overall objective: show that GW denial "science" is the real "junk science"
in the debate over the existence of GW and the risks it poses.

- Why? To provide the professional community with weapons to counter the
propaganda campaign of the anti-GW lobby. Time is running out, the climate
seems headed south fast! We need to organize now for the coming "information
wars" in the media and legislatures.

- How? Use Dr. Thomas Kuhn's model of "normal science" to debunk the pseudo
scientific argumentation employed by the anti-GW lobby.

Target audience: climate and earth science professionals, teachers,
journalists, student organizations, religious groups/faith communities,
professionals dealing with public information

Taking the GHG/GW model as the dominant paradigm for atmospheric
thermodynamics today, what exactly are the anomalies we are asked to
explain by the deniers ?? "Bad phasing" of global temperature variations and
GHG levels observed in fossil records (ice, sediment cores). Solar constant
variation? Extrasolar dust clouds? Other? One of the major problems in
attempting to address GW deniers is the surprising lack of coherence between
denial "schools". In effect, they claim to "debunk" dominant paradigm GW
science by proposing an extraordinarily heterogeneous group of potential
factors - often speculative in the extreme - held to influence global
temperature and climate. One is often reminded of a piranha attack: no
attacker constitutes a serious threat but the frenzied swarm disorients and
leaves the prey weakened and flailing hopelessly.

We propose to "reframe" the current "debate", revealing the vacuity of the
GW denial schools' arguments by returning to an accepted definition of
scientific research proposed by historian and philosopher of science, Thomas
Kuhn, in his seminal text, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.

In Kuhn's model, "normal science" tests predictions, derived from
hypotheses ("paradigms"), against organized observation (experiments).
Anomalies - discrepancies from predicted values - signal (potentially) fatal
flaws in the paradigm. A "scientific revolution" occurs when a new
"dominant paradigm" overthrows an older paradigm. The crucial issue is the
inability of the old paradigm to explain observational anomalies. The
successful contender must explain (incorporate) the observed anomalies and
ALL the old observations the former dominant model could explain: the new
dominant paradigm is thus MORE GENERAL than the old.

At this point we must ask, "are GW deniers interested in serious public
scientific debate whose issues affect public policy?" Where, one asks, are
their contending paradigms (models, hypotheses, theories) which should,
according to Kuhn, stand as potential challengers of the dominant -
presumably erroneous - GHG\GW paradigm ???

Below, I present a classical example where a dominant paradigm - Newtonian
mechanics - was replaced by a more general paradigm, more successful in
explanatory power, Einsteinean relativistic mechanics.

EXAMPLE: If a particle with a mass of m0 is accelerated to a velocity, V,
compare the momentum, P, according to the two paradigms.

For V<<c the two give essentially equal results, within error of
measurement, as they must according to Kuhn's scheme. In the following table
V is expressed as a fraction of the speed of light, c. P is expressed in
units of m0 X c.

velocity P, classical P, relativistic / classical

<<c ... 1.000..
.20 .20 1.021
.40 .40 1.091
.60 .60 1.250
.75 .80 1.667
.90 .90 2.294
.95 .95 3.203
.975 .975 4.500
.99 .99 7.089
.995 .995 10.01
.999 .999 22.37

We note that Einstein's model conforms to Kuhn's criteria for a newly
emergent dominant paradigm (victory of a "scientific revolution").

1- it explains new observations which the old model could not: the
observable momentum vs. velocity curve for accelerated particles conforms,
in fact, to the relativistic values (right hand tabulated column above)

2- at low (non-relativistic) velocities, the relativistic equations "reduce"
to the Newtonian mechanical equations within limits of experimental error.

Thus the victorious paradigm explains BOTH old (conforming) observations and
new, "anomalous" observations which violate classical Newtonian predictions.
It has greater generality than the defeated paradigm.

It is important to note the salient divergences between the defeated old and
victorious new dominant paradigms' predictions. In the case of the
Einsteinean and Newtonian paradigms:

1- radically non-linear nature of P at relativistic velocities, V > 10% c.

2- vertical asymptote at V=c in the relativistic P (V) curve. The Newtonian
model has no such asymptote. In physical terms c is a limiting value in the
Einsteinean model (confirmed by experimental observation). Newton's model
has no limiting value, thus does not conform to reality.

3. speed of light same for all observers regardless of their relative motion
- in flagrant contradiction to the Newtonian ("common sense") model and our
everyday experience of macro-objects moving at non-relativistic velocities.

However, we see none of these essential properties of scientific
investigation in the GW deniers' critiques. The "serious" problems they
raise are never incorporated in a mathematical model of sufficient rigor to
produce testable counter-hypotheses to challenge the dominant GHG warming
model - yet quantification is the very touchstone of modern scientific
methodology and progress, according to Kuhn's historical analysis of Western
scientific progress!

Generality is either absent or poorly defined in GW denier junk "science".

- Falling temperature trends in isolated geographical points are touted as
serious "falsifications" of general, observed GW temperature trend lines.
(The fact that the GHG/GW paradigm itself postulates localized cooling
trends on a generally warming earth is ignored, of course..)

- Observed rising global temperature trends, increased frequency of extreme
weather events, glacial and arctic pack ice meltdown.. are routinely
dismissed as "normal fluctuations" in the chaotic climate system (standard
statistical validation of such claims are either not provided or generally
prove faulty in methodology, data set selection, interpretation or initial
assumptions employed..).

- Various ad hoc mechanisms, often of extremely speculative nature, are
periodically paraded forth as debunk-of-the-month: urban heat island effect,
natural variations in solar output or magnetic field strength, passage of
solar system through galactic dust/gas clouds.. (Parametric ranges of
validity of the proposed mechanisms are never provided, alas..)

In sum, GW deniers offer no new "road map of reality", they pose no
surprising, revolutionary or constructive insights into the way the world
works. They do not solve problems, they do not contribute to the
understanding of climate systems. Their "work" is purely negative and
reactionary, propping up and justifying vested economic, political, and
social agendas. These agendas seek to paralyze sustainable development
efforts and to prevent the public from confronting the very serious long
terms risks posed by current unsustainable techno-economic growth
(particularly in rapidly industrializing societies like China and India).

The goal of the Kuhn project is to provide concerned professionals,
particularly those dealing with public information and those working in
climate related fields, with weapons capable of withstanding the
unscientific, faulty and biased (pseudo) "arguments" presented by many GW
deniers in public forums of late.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Jun 13 13:04:51 2008