Science as Sorcery

The left increasingly claims that the policies they desire are supported by "science," as if making such a claim settles any argument in their favor.  It does not; science is fallible, and getting more so, and the thinking behind the claim is an example of magical thinking.  The appeal to science becomes a form of sorcery as it seeks to call upon the supernatural to control others or objects; but those who invoke science do not understand science itself or its limits.  Lest one think that I am some uneducated Luddite, I have a bachelor's degree in physics and a MS in systems management that require coursework in radio-frequency engineering.  I believe that technical progress based on sound science is important to society's health, but I see so much wrong with the appeals to science that I am compelled to complain.

First, too much science is shoddy and unable to be duplicated, especially in the social sciences.  For an excellent critique of the state of current research, see "Trouble at the Lab," from last week's The Economist.  Some troubling quotes:

• In 2005 John Ioannidis, an epidemiologist from Stanford University, caused a stir with a paper showing why, as a matter of statistical logic, the idea that only one such paper in 20 gives a false-positive result was hugely optimistic. Instead, he argued, “most published research findings are probably false.”   
• Victoria Stodden, a statistician at Columbia, speaks for many in her trade when she says that scientists’ grasp of statistics has not kept pace with the development of complex mathematical techniques for crunching data. [Important because almost all inferences in modern science are drawn from statistical data.]
• Another experiment at the BMJ showed that reviewers did no better when more clearly instructed on the problems they might encounter. They also seem to get worse with experience. [So much for the vaunted "peer-review."]

Second, the market for scientific research is skewing the types of results we are seeing.  With government funding so much research, conclusions that show the need for further research and more government action are rewarded.  With the innate human desire to show some accomplishment, is it any wonder that research skews to topics that seem tailor made to support government programs.  

Finally, science cannot define our values for us.  Even if science shows that some fact is true, there are value judgements and also economic factors to take into account regarding the outcome.  For instance, I do not accept the arguments made regarding global warming, see the quote about statistics above.  But even if I did, it is still not clear what government policy should be.  For example, in order to preserve the benefits of a free society, we might choose to do nothing because we value freedom more than the economic change that may or may not accrue.  Further, we might argue that a society dedicated to the principles of liberty would cope with the changes best.  This argument goes to how I value freedom, which cannot be answered by science.

Another example would be abstinence only sex-education.  I have read that such education is "not effective."  I presume that it means that the rate of unwed pregnancy is as high or higher when compared to other forms of sex-education.  But I question the relevance of the finding in the larger context of societal values.  How is it a surprise that abstinence only education in a society saturated with sex in all forms of entertainment and laissez-faire attitudes towards extra- and pre-marital sex is not effective?  In the context of our beliefs, sex education delivered without moral context erodes values.  So the objection is to the wider sexual permissiveness of the culture, but the left makes the argument about the "science" when that isn't relevant to the underlying malaise.

Given the track record of scientific social movements, our freedom and prosperity will be preserved by conservative adherence to the principles on which the nation was founded.  Those principles hue to values for which science is not a substitute.

Climate Conspiracy Explained by Iowahawk with Mathy Stuff

Ace, of Ace of Spades, has liberated a comment from Iowahawk who normally provides hysterical satire for our amusement (see link in this morning's post). Iowahawk explains the shenanigans behind the climate research scandal in East Anglia, complete with mathy explanations of linear regression. It is a bit of a tough read, but I recommend anyone who can follow read the article. Some highlights:

2. Next, Mann et al. regressed the 100 years or so of observed temperatures against the proxy variable principle components:

y = b0 + b1*PC1 + b2*PC2 + ... + bp*PCp + error

the regression coefficients (b's) estimated from recent data were then applied to the older proxy PCs to obtain retrospective "backcasts" or "hindcasts" of the temperatures in 1015, 1016,... 1850.

Voila! The Mann et al. statistical model resulted in the now infamous hockey stick, showing a radical increase in global temperatures in recent years versus the relatively flat milenial variation. This was in large part the basis for the IPCC report.

...

Now, if you've been following this, Mann's entire temperature reconstruction method rests on knowing (observing) recent periodic global temperatures, y. Quibbling about principle components aside, that's the dependent variable in the backcasts. But as is now becoming increasingly plain, y was constructed from an undocumented process that took raw ground station data and ran it through a black box that included smoothing, filtering, inference, manipulation, baling wire, glue and the juice of one whole lemon. This is what the CRU people are calling "valued added homogenized data." Or what normal people call "made up horseshit." It's also the temperature data that dozens, if not hundreds of AGW studies are based on.

This is in fact scandalous to good scientific process and the real scandal is not that some emails were compromised.



We should ask ourselves why we came to this end. I believe it is because we asked science to perform a task it will never be up to. Future predictions based on scientific method will always be imprecise and will necessarily not answer the question of what to do about the situation posed. Even if it were proved that man's carbon emissions are causing temperatures to rise, it is not clear what the best policy would be to deal with it. Our values, our ideology, economics, and yes, politics, all come into play in determining a way ahead. By putting all of the pressure on SCIENCE to answer the question of what to do about increased carbon dioxide in the air, we have shifted the political fight to the realm of science, where it does not belong. The result is science that is conducted like politics. As someone else said, science may be objective, but scientists clearly are not. Given the pressure to produce an answer that would result in more grant money, one can see the economic incentives that tempted climate researchers to fudge their data. This does not excuse their ethical lapses, but in fact shows that ethics matter most when the stakes are so high. Given the defensive nature of the "researchers," the skeptics necessarily became more aggressive and unapologetic in their criticisms, which provoked an even greater "circle the wagons response." In the compromised emails, we see the East Anglia team ever more fearful that the raw data would fall into the wrong hands.

Finally and most tragically I must state that AGW is not proved, nor is it disproved; and we may never know the truth because so much raw data has been lost. And that is a real crime, because, while science may not be able to answer policy questions, it should certainly be called upon to intelligently and dispassionately inform the debate.

I would like to end on a lighter note, so here is a nice youtube video explaining it all, to music. H/T again, to Ace.

Climate Research Scientists - Before They Were Famous

I found this rare footage from the 80's that sheds some light on climate research scientists and their methods. Here they are, when they were in a previous line of work, before they were famous.

The Triumph of Hope n Change Over Reason

Dean's article about faith based science sent me on this little rant.

The head of GM is a former telecomms guy who admitted knowing nothing about cars.

The Obama climate czar, Carol Browner, has zero scientific background (degrees in English and Law).

Math curriculum development teams have no actual mathematicians on them.

And it turns out that the scientists, like Phil Jones of the CRU, advising the UN on climate change, have written some emails that reveal them to be more like this guy below than you might have thought.




Say goodbye to the Age of Reason; welcome to the Age of Politics.