by Judith Curry

Two recent essays on skepticism stimulate reflections on both the scientific consensus and the high level of public skepticism.

A recent study from the George Mason group in the Climate Change in the American Mind Series explores the public understanding versus the scientific consensus on climate change. The study finds that one in four think global warming isn’t happening. Further, only one in ten Americans (12%) know that 90% or more scientists have concluded human- caused global warming is happening. More than twice as many Americans – about three in ten (28%) – think fewer than half of climate scientists have reached this conclusion.

How to explain the discrepancy? Are Americans flat out ignorant? Or are they simply more skeptical than the scientists? If the latter, is the media to blame? Or have their BS detectors been triggered? Chris Mooney blames it on the media in an article in the Rolling Stone entitled STUDY: US Reporters Use More Weasel Words in Covering Climate Change (particularly the NYTimes). Andy Revkin tweets in response: Hey @chriscmooney, I’d be happy to discuss climate science coverage any time. “Weasel words” or accurate qualifiers? +1000 to Andy Revkin.

Two recent essays on skepticism stimulate reflections on both the scientific consensus and the high level of public skepticism.

Context

First some context on ‘skepticism’:

When I use the word ‘skepticism’, I use it strictly in context of the Mertonian norms of science: Skepticism means that scientific claims must be exposed to critical scrutiny before being accepted.

Carl Sagan appears to have coined the phrase ‘scientific skepticism.’ Scientific skepticism has been defined as [Wikipedia]:

“A skeptic is one who prefers beliefs and conclusions that are reliable and valid to ones that are comforting or convenient, and therefore rigorously and openly applies the methods of science and reason to all empirical claims, especially their own. A skeptic provisionally proportions acceptance of any claim to valid logic and a fair and thorough assessment of available evidence, and studies the pitfalls of human reason and the mechanisms of deception so as to avoid being deceived by others or themselves. Skepticism values method over any particular conclusion.”

“Skepticism is a provisional approach to claims. It is the application of reason to any and all ideas — no sacred cows allowed. In other words, skepticism is a method, not a position.”

“Skepticism is a method of examining claims about the world. The skeptical “toolbox” includes a reliance upon reason, critical thinking, and a desire for verifiable, testable evidence about particular claims (especially extraordinary ones). Usually, the “skeptical way of thinking” is embodied in the scientific method.”

I also find the following to be inspiring:

Michael Shermer

Michael Shermer is editor of Skeptic magazine. Shermer’s TED talk and an accompanying essay is provided by an article in the Huffington Post entitled What is skepticism, anyways? Excerpts:

Skepticism is not “seek and ye shall find,” but “seek and keep an open mind.” But what does it mean to have an open mind? It is to find the essential balance between orthodoxy and heresy, between a total commitment to the status quo and the blind pursuit of new ideas, between being open-minded enough to accept radical new ideas and so open-minded that your brains fall out. Skepticism is about finding that balance.

It is not always easy to evaluate claims, and so we skeptics have developed what the astronomer Carl Sagan called “the fine art of baloney detection.” Inspired by Sagan, at Skeptic magazine we produced what we call the Baloney Detection Kit, which consists of a list of questions to ask when encountering any claim. Here are a few:

• Does the source of a claim often make similar claims? Pseudoscientists have a habit of going well beyond the facts. JC comment: Assessment of a claim should be about the argument, not about the source.

• Have the claims been verified by another source? We must ask who is checking the claims, and even who is checking the checkers?

• Has anyone gone out of the way to disprove the claim, or has only confirmatory evidence been sought? JC comment: Seeking only confirmatory evidence is the biggest problem with the IPCC’s negotiated consensus.

• Has the claimant provided a different explanation for the observed phenomena, or is it strictly a process of denying the existing explanation? This is a classic debate strategy — criticize your opponent and never affirm what you believe in order to avoid criticism. But this stratagem is unacceptable in science. JC comment: I really disagree with this one. It implies that someone who is unconvinced by a proponent’s explanation needs to have their own better explanation. The alternative is ‘we don’t know, your explanation is unconvincing.’ In climate science, the alternative explanation is the null hypothesis of natural variability, which in itself its highly complex and not well understood.

• Do the claimants’ personal beliefs and biases drive the conclusions, or vice versa? JC comment: BINGO. This is the problem with scientists as advocates.

JC comments: Some comments on the ‘baloney kit.’ This seems to be targeted mostly at the public, rather than at practicing scientists. I find this statement to be particularly interesting in Shermer’s essay, I’m still thinking about it:

It is to find the essential balance between orthodoxy and heresy, between a total commitment to the status quo and the blind pursuit of new ideas, between being open-minded enough to accept radical new ideas and so open-minded that your brains fall out. Skepticism is about finding that balance.

Skeptical Science

I have long thought that the name of the blog Skeptical Science is a joke – in my view, SkS knocks down naive and irrelevant arguments and shills for the consensus. Collin Maessen explains in a new post entitled The Skepticism in Skeptical Science. Excerpts:

Real skepticism is something very different from doubt, it’s about curiosity and a willingness to learn. This type of skepticism asks questions, asks for evidence, and judges arguments and used evidence on their merits. It doesn’t matter if what you learn proves your original stance or idea wrong, this is the entire point of this way of thinking. What matters is getting a right answer and basing how you view your world on information that is as accurate as possible. A skeptic knows that they can have personal biases and preconceived notions, but they are aware of it and don’t let this make them reject valid evidence.

Skeptics often have spirited discussions on subjects or might ask experts difficult questions. But this isn’t because they are approaching a subject with a distrust of results or experts, it’s part of a process to learn more about the wonders that science has found. Skeptics do not fear saying “I do not know” or referring to experts to help someone understand a subject. As Carl Sagan so eloquently once put about scientific research, it’s the journey of discovery that matters:

The truth may be puzzling. It may take some work to grapple with. It may be counterintuitive. It may contradict deeply held prejudices. It may not be consonant with what we desperately want to be true. But our preferences do not determine what’s true. We have a method, and that method helps us to reach not absolute truth, only asymptotic approaches to the truth—never there, just closer and closer, always finding vast new oceans of undiscovered possibilities. Cleverly designed experiments are the key.

Real skeptics avoid premature conclusions, recognize uncertainty, search for real data, and change their minds. Sure, sometimes it starts with doubting if a claim is true, but a skeptic then investigates if this doubt was warranted.

JC comment: I like the above text, well done. Then he loses me . . .

There are basically two types of climate skeptics: those that I call the so-called skeptics and the pseudo-skeptics. Neither hold themselves to the rigorous thinking that scientific skepticism asks of them. But one is just doubtful about claims or has been given incorrect information. Which means rational discussions are possible, you just have to break through preconceptions and/or misinformation. With the second group you can’t have a rational exchange most of the time. [JC note: see original post for further discussion of these two types of skeptics.]

Skepticism is an incredible tool that can help you understand the world. It can truly give you an appreciation of the hard work and dedication scientists put into their work and is the basis for the incredible discoveries they find. Skeptics are often the greatest allies of scientists as we help spread scientific knowledge and counter pseudoscience. The skeptic community has a proud tradition of working together with scientists to weed out bad science and translate what scientists and experts say into accessible information.

This is what makes Skeptical Science and what we do so important, our goal is “to explain what peer reviewed science has to say about global warming.” To us it matters what the peer reviewed literature has to say. We also examine the peer reviewed literature with a critical eye while asking tough questions. We do this because we enjoy learning new things and want to accurately represent scientific findings. It’s also why we are so skeptical about the claims of climate ‘skeptics’, simply because they don’t display any of those characteristics.

JC comment: Uh, there’s a third category of skeptics – scientists (like me) doing their job to provide critical scrutiny to consensus scientific claims. Here is a litmus test for SkS skepticism: can you find any critical statements on SkS about Michael Mann’s research?

JC reflections

The term ‘skepticism’ as used in climate science gets muddled by confusing scientific skepticism with more general skepticism associated with generic doubt or those who are prejudiced against science. Debunking of climate science skepticism (by SkS and others) is focused on slaying imaginary dragons, rather on considering serious challenges in the published literature or on technical blogs to consensus climate science.

Richard Feynmann puts it this way: “Science is the organized skepticism in the reliability of expert opinion.”

I anticipate that the unfolding of future decades will reveal the harm done to science by agenda-driven scientists working to enforce a manufactured consensus on anthropogenic global warming and its dangers.

In the meantime, the BS detectors of the public seem to have been triggered. The failure of the climate science establishment to convince the public can be chalked up to communication strategies that come across like propaganda, the intolerance of disagreement (calling opponents deniers), advocacy by scientists, the Climategate shenanigans, Peter Gleick and the Heartland affair, etc.