Soaring on the Hindenburg
A few links, via Coturnix that address topics often commented on here at PNT. First, he brought my attention to another science and policy blog that I have just added to the blogroll (Bee Policy, by Jessica Henig). A few posts ago, I made a comment about the Green GOP, and then also wondered if it was just the caffeine – and about the wisdom of using this particular blog to overtly discuss party politics. But these are post-normal times – and, as far as I’m concerned, you either have a grip on reality or you are soaring – and rearranging deck chairs on the Hindenburg – as Steven Colbert so eloquently put it. Anyway, Jessica makes a similar observation about non-fundamentalist conservatives, in Caffeine or righteous indignance:
I am glad — thrilled — that there are non-fundamentalist conservatives, because hopefully they’ll eventually notice and get disgusted with the fact that “their” government is run by a cadre of zealots engaging in a holy war on all fronts. (The numbers would suggest that this realization has already happened, but see the link.) But for non-fundamentalist conservatives to support this administration and to vote for Republicans now really does negate any rationality or love of science they profess. It’s becoming increasingly clear that you must make a choice: Bush or science. If you accept one, you throw the other away.
Then, see this article in BBC news about The battle over certainty, in which historian, Lisa Jardine discusses “how odd it is that non-scientists think of science as being about certainties and absolute truth.” To illustrate this, she presents a historical example she came across in which, Holmes, the captain of a ship who had agreed to test a clock that was developed to enable mariners to find their longitude at sea, “thought that by tampering with his evidence he would please the scientists at the Royal Society. Instead, the too-precise nature of the match between his data and the results they wanted alerted them to the fact that his testimony was unreliable.”
She goes on to conclude: “We cannot afford ourselves the luxury of waiting for evidence which clinches the theory. We are going to have to learn how to participate in debates which are not about certainties.” Which is why, as I stated in the one of the first posts on this blog, if the climate and reality denialists want to talk about uncertainty, bring it on…. They haven’t taken me up on it yet. What I still want them to tell me is, whether all obtainable scientific information would actually make any difference in policy decisions and actual practices of this administration. This is a major area of uncertainty, and, as we move beyond known ranges of climate variability, business-as-usual is certain to create more of it.
Lastly, another update to the blogroll is the InSCights lab, the site of the Science and Society Virtual Network now converted to a blog format, frequently updated with annotated links to important papers on Interfaces between Science and Society. Like this blog, it also came about after discussions that took place at a symposium on Interfaces between Science and Society that took place in Milan in December 2003, which gathered together all of the usual suspects.
Hm, the flip side of “any publicity is good publicity as long as they spell your name right” — it’s Henig (and, I think, Jardine). But enough nomenclature nitpicking. Thanks for the link. We should start giving caffeine the benefit of the doubt, I guess… clearly it’s the status of the status quo that’s getting us riled, not a poor beleaguered alkaloid.
[fixed it - thanks! I really should have finished my coffee before hitting the "post" button]
“… To illustrate this, she presents a historical example she came across in which, Holmes, the captain of a ship who had agreed to test a clock that was developed to enable mariners to find their longitude at sea, “thought that by tampering with his evidence he would please the scientists at the Royal Society. Instead, the too-precise nature of the match between his data and the results they wanted alerted them to the fact that his testimony was unreliable.”
Love it.
Even people in their daily lives, adjust facts and or data to justify their actions or inaction.
I just bought a car $20,000 dollars costing me $100 dollars a week over four years. So I must justify that expense by use of the car…
I just got internet or e.mail for $19.99 a month so I must justify that expense by spamming friends & unknowns (not a wise example, perhaps)
I just got satellite tv for whatever many US$ dollars, but have I got time to watch 999 channels of junk tv.
Is this the REAL Tower of Bable (psicho-babble) where there are more tv stations than viewers.
I think some blogs have higher ratings than some tv channels (or stations) – ans some x-rated websites more hits than late night tv.
PS – Sylvia, I´m not sure if I prefer to come inder your category of “civilized” or stay in the category of “pagan” and even barbarian, in the battle against “agnostic” Capitalism.
The error in Capitalism is that money is king (or god) – where as Capita (head) and per Capita, should be about people, and money but a tool with which to do a job (means to an end).
The Greater Wealth or the Wealth of the Many and power in the hands of many , has always been “better” than the wealth (and power) in the hands of a few ((whether chosen/elect (or not)).
“We cannot afford ourselves the luxury of waiting for evidence which clinches the theory. We are going to have to learn how to participate in debates which are not about certainties.”
QUESTION: Have the biggest diamonds been found. I mean 500 carats and over.
QUESTION: Is Kuwait a province of Iraq, or just an independent Oil Well.
QUESTION: Are the Falkland Isles just another independent Oil Well.
QUESTION: How much Reserves have Alaskan, Artic & Antartic Oil Surveys revealed
QUESTION: The US consumes 20 million barrels day. How long will supplies (known reserves) last when Global consumption reaches 100 million barrels day.
QUESTION: Will it get hotter or colder geo-politically
QUESTION: which country would be prepared to go Nuclear to protect “its” Oil reserves.
Q