7 ms·

As a former chemist, I think there's always a role for a gadfly in science (or in any profession). But part of being a gadfly is acknowledging you're probably w

As a former chemist, I think there's always a role for a gadfly in science (or in any profession). But part of being a gadfly is acknowledging you're probably wrong and the majority is probably right, and not trying to intentionally sabotage others' efforts. For a good example of what it doesn't look like, take a read at Scott Adams (Dilbert) blog, where he argues that the mainstream climate science community isn't just factually wrong, but they're actively deluding themselves. That sort of statement doesn't contribute anything to the situation since the only way they can stop 'deluding' themselves is to accept the opposing view. There's nothing wrong with criticizing the status quo, so long as it's done honestly, with the humility to say: "I 'm probably wrong," and that's where these guys seem to go wrong. They're sure the majority is wrong to begin with.

jessaustin 10y ago
Does a cartoonist have a duty to contribute constructively to a scientific discussion? If so, does he also have a duty to contribute in any particular way to a discussion that may once have been scientific but has long since been completely politicized? If I'm blessed with a long life, a special joy of old age will be the various attempts to explain how Scott Adams and a bunch of conservative blowhards got it right while entire university departments got it wrong...
- drewbuschhorn 10y ago
  Anyone can try to be a gadfly to the consensus side of science, science is open to anyone. But, if you choose to throw your hat into that ring then you open yourself to criticism of your methods and behavior. You don't get to shout 'free speech' and walk away.
- the_cat_kittles 10y ago
  why would you listen to him on climate change? what are his credentials? doesn't the fact that you listen to him over people with more experience and knowledge in the field indicate that you are looking for people who support for a viewpoint, and not for people who are knowledgable? also, scott adams guaranteed herman cain would be the presidential nominee in 2012. he is a bullshit artist who makes a million claims then picks out the ones that turned out to be right later. why even listen to him at all?
  - jessaustin 10y ago
    It has been years since I read anything by Adams, or indeed since I've looked at a Dilbert cartoon. "The Truth" isn't really that important to me. I'm not in a position such that it actually matters what I think of global warming, but I'm happy that most people who are in such a position seem mostly to agree with me. That is, we haven't yet made many human lives much worse in an attempt to curb emissions of CO₂. That would be monstrous and inhumane. Of course I have no problem with benign and even beneficial actions like encouraging solar energy production.
- parenthephobia 10y ago
  > Does a cartoonist have a duty to contribute constructively to a scientific discussion? No, but neither does he have the right to not be called out when he contributes destructively to a scientific discussion.
013a 10y ago
I fail to see how Scott Adam's stance "intentionally sabotages" others efforts. Are you suggesting that freedom of speech is a form of sabotage?
- drewbuschhorn 10y ago
  He suggests strongly that they are delusional (as are basically everyone who disagrees with him). That's a big claim to make under the banner of 'free speech' while not having to defend it.
  - Gargoyle 10y ago
    Can you link to where he says climate scientists are delusional? I've only recently looked at his blog, but what I've seen him say on the topic has been this- 1. He doesn't have the training to evaluate climate science, so he gives climate scientists the benefit of the doubt in that climate change is happening and is driven by humans. 2. However, his personal experience with complex models is that they're never very good at predicting the future, and so he doesn't trust that complex climate models are either. 3. Climate scientists suck at using persuasive techniques to win people over to their beliefs. This seems to be his main thing as he is attempting to brand himself as a guru of persuasion.
    - drewbuschhorn 10y ago
      "On the question of trusting experts, my frame of reference is the field of influence and persuasion. From my point of view – and given the examples of mass delusion that I have personally witnessed (including Trump’s election), I see experts as far less credible than most people assume." http://blog.dilbert.com/post/154082416051/the-non-expert-problem-and-climate-change-science http://blog.dilbert.com/post/154082416051/the-non-expert-pro...
      - Gargoyle 10y ago
        That same article starts with "Before I start, let me say as clearly as possible that I agree with the scientific consensus on climate change. If science says something is true – according to most scientists, and consistent with the scientific method – I accept their verdict."
epistasis 10y ago
There are people like Richard Lindzen, who even extends his gadflyism to smoking and lung cancer (and as somebody who sees the DNA damage in whole genome sequencing of lung cancers from smokers, boy is he ever stupidly wrong there.) Then there are the gadflys that are not in climate research that, when they actually do some science, realize that the field is on the right track: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_Earth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_Earth I'm not sure how much these people have done to help the field become more rigorous. But then I'm not in it so I can't judge personally.
- nonbel 10y ago
  >"There are people like Richard Lindzen, who even extends his gadflyism to smoking and lung cancer (and as somebody who sees the DNA damage in whole genome sequencing of lung cancers from smokers, boy is he ever stupidly wrong there.)" Is this true or fake news? The closest I could find is this: http://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2011/05/lindzen-dismisses-hansens-defamations/ http://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2011/05/lindzen-dismis... Also, seeing "DNA damage in whole genome sequencing of lung cancers from smokers" is irrelevant to the smoking-cancer link since you are sampling from the cancers... That only supports a link between cancer and "DNA damage".
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- hutzlibu 10y ago
  "and as somebody who sees the DNA damage in whole genome sequencing of lung cancers from smokers, boy is he ever stupidly wrong there" Hm, but does the dna in those lungs look much different, than the lungs of nonsmoking people with lungcancer? (Seriously asking)
  - epistasis 10y ago
    Yes, the differences are massive. There's a huge signature of "bulky adduct" repair in smokers' samples. This looks different than, say, UV damage. See, for example, signature #4 from this paper: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v500/n7463/full/nature12477.html http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v500/n7463/full/nature1...
qohen 10y ago
take a read at Scott Adams (Dilbert) blog, where he argues that the mainstream climate science community isn't just factually wrong, but they're actively deluding themselves. I don't think that's an accurate description of what he's saying -- he's made a point several times (e.g. [0][1]) of challenging the models, not the underlying science, comparing them to economic models, which he feels, having majored in economics (and having studied and built his own [1]) are not reliable. One may disagree with him about models and modeling, but I think it's helpful to understand what he's actually saying. I'm putting an excerpt here from a recent blog post [0] he did which I think demonstrates my summary above to be a truer understanding of where he's coming from: I’m not a scientist, but it seems to me that the chemistry and physics parts of climate science are probably pretty locked down. I give that stuff full credibility. The measurements of temperature, ice, and sea levels over time are probably fairly good, but I observe disagreements among scientists on how best to measure. I’ll give the measurements an 85% credibility. When it comes to the complex climate models, I’ve never seen a complex, iterative model – of the type that includes human assumptions and human measurements – reliably predict the future multiple years out. I don’t think it has ever been done, and perhaps it never will be. I give the complex climate models a 10% credibility rating. And I am only that generous because perhaps this is the exception to the pattern I observe that says complexity always hides the future, as opposed to predicting it. BTW, I think the next paragraph, where he describes the psychological aspects of how people evaluate things when they don't have deep expertise or knowledge is interesting and possibly useful for understanding how to get through to people (Adams' blogs a lot about persuasion/psychology and how so often that is more important than facts in shaping people's views of things): This is a good time to remind you that I have neither the qualifications nor the time to evaluate the climate science models on my own. So I’m stuck with using pattern recognition – which is not science, and it is not reason. And my pattern recognizer says humans use complexity of this sort to hide the truth, not to reveal it. If scientists want to change my mind, they need to show me historical examples in which things “like this” did a good job of predicting the future. You have to work on my pattern memory to change my mind, not my knowledge of climate science. Again, you may disagree with him about models and modelling, but he's identified why some intelligent people, who are not science-deniers, may have issues with some aspects of climate-science. [0] http://blog.dilbert.com/post/158778029326/how-to-change-my-biases-on-climate-science http://blog.dilbert.com/post/158778029326/how-to-change-my-b... [1] http://blog.dilbert.com/post/158549646496/how-leonardo-dicaprio-can-persuade-me-on-climate http://blog.dilbert.com/post/158549646496/how-leonardo-dicap...
mangodrunk 10y ago
Perhaps a better example would be Freeman Dyson. Here's a video of him talking about questioning the status quo: Freeman Dyson: Heretical Thoughts About Science and Society. [1] In which, he also questions global warming, or at least to the degree in which it will affect us. [1] https://youtu.be/8xFLjUt2leM https://youtu.be/8xFLjUt2leM

jessaustin 10y ago

Does a cartoonist have a duty to contribute constructively to a scientific discussion? If so, does he also have a duty to contribute in any particular way to a discussion that may once have been scientific but has long since been completely politicized? If I'm blessed with a long life, a special joy of old age will be the various attempts to explain how Scott Adams and a bunch of conservative blowhards got it right while entire university departments got it wrong...

drewbuschhorn 10y ago
Anyone can try to be a gadfly to the consensus side of science, science is open to anyone. But, if you choose to throw your hat into that ring then you open yourself to criticism of your methods and behavior. You don't get to shout 'free speech' and walk away.
the_cat_kittles 10y ago
why would you listen to him on climate change? what are his credentials? doesn't the fact that you listen to him over people with more experience and knowledge in the field indicate that you are looking for people who support for a viewpoint, and not for people who are knowledgable? also, scott adams guaranteed herman cain would be the presidential nominee in 2012. he is a bullshit artist who makes a million claims then picks out the ones that turned out to be right later. why even listen to him at all?
- jessaustin 10y ago
  It has been years since I read anything by Adams, or indeed since I've looked at a Dilbert cartoon. "The Truth" isn't really that important to me. I'm not in a position such that it actually matters what I think of global warming, but I'm happy that most people who are in such a position seem mostly to agree with me. That is, we haven't yet made many human lives much worse in an attempt to curb emissions of CO₂. That would be monstrous and inhumane. Of course I have no problem with benign and even beneficial actions like encouraging solar energy production.
parenthephobia 10y ago
> Does a cartoonist have a duty to contribute constructively to a scientific discussion? No, but neither does he have the right to not be called out when he contributes destructively to a scientific discussion.

013a 10y ago

I fail to see how Scott Adam's stance "intentionally sabotages" others efforts. Are you suggesting that freedom of speech is a form of sabotage?

drewbuschhorn 10y ago
He suggests strongly that they are delusional (as are basically everyone who disagrees with him). That's a big claim to make under the banner of 'free speech' while not having to defend it.
- Gargoyle 10y ago
  Can you link to where he says climate scientists are delusional? I've only recently looked at his blog, but what I've seen him say on the topic has been this- 1. He doesn't have the training to evaluate climate science, so he gives climate scientists the benefit of the doubt in that climate change is happening and is driven by humans. 2. However, his personal experience with complex models is that they're never very good at predicting the future, and so he doesn't trust that complex climate models are either. 3. Climate scientists suck at using persuasive techniques to win people over to their beliefs. This seems to be his main thing as he is attempting to brand himself as a guru of persuasion.
  - drewbuschhorn 10y ago
    "On the question of trusting experts, my frame of reference is the field of influence and persuasion. From my point of view – and given the examples of mass delusion that I have personally witnessed (including Trump’s election), I see experts as far less credible than most people assume." http://blog.dilbert.com/post/154082416051/the-non-expert-problem-and-climate-change-science http://blog.dilbert.com/post/154082416051/the-non-expert-pro...
    - Gargoyle 10y ago
      That same article starts with "Before I start, let me say as clearly as possible that I agree with the scientific consensus on climate change. If science says something is true – according to most scientists, and consistent with the scientific method – I accept their verdict."

epistasis 10y ago

There are people like Richard Lindzen, who even extends his gadflyism to smoking and lung cancer (and as somebody who sees the DNA damage in whole genome sequencing of lung cancers from smokers, boy is he ever stupidly wrong there.) Then there are the gadflys that are not in climate research that, when they actually do some science, realize that the field is on the right track: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_Earth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_Earth I'm not sure how much these people have done to help the field become more rigorous. But then I'm not in it so I can't judge personally.

nonbel 10y ago
>"There are people like Richard Lindzen, who even extends his gadflyism to smoking and lung cancer (and as somebody who sees the DNA damage in whole genome sequencing of lung cancers from smokers, boy is he ever stupidly wrong there.)" Is this true or fake news? The closest I could find is this: http://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2011/05/lindzen-dismisses-hansens-defamations/ http://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2011/05/lindzen-dismis... Also, seeing "DNA damage in whole genome sequencing of lung cancers from smokers" is irrelevant to the smoking-cancer link since you are sampling from the cancers... That only supports a link between cancer and "DNA damage".
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
hutzlibu 10y ago
"and as somebody who sees the DNA damage in whole genome sequencing of lung cancers from smokers, boy is he ever stupidly wrong there" Hm, but does the dna in those lungs look much different, than the lungs of nonsmoking people with lungcancer? (Seriously asking)
- epistasis 10y ago
  Yes, the differences are massive. There's a huge signature of "bulky adduct" repair in smokers' samples. This looks different than, say, UV damage. See, for example, signature #4 from this paper: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v500/n7463/full/nature12477.html http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v500/n7463/full/nature1...

qohen 10y ago

take a read at Scott Adams (Dilbert) blog, where he argues that the mainstream climate science community isn't just factually wrong, but they're actively deluding themselves. I don't think that's an accurate description of what he's saying -- he's made a point several times (e.g. [0][1]) of challenging the models, not the underlying science, comparing them to economic models, which he feels, having majored in economics (and having studied and built his own [1]) are not reliable. One may disagree with him about models and modeling, but I think it's helpful to understand what he's actually saying. I'm putting an excerpt here from a recent blog post [0] he did which I think demonstrates my summary above to be a truer understanding of where he's coming from: I’m not a scientist, but it seems to me that the chemistry and physics parts of climate science are probably pretty locked down. I give that stuff full credibility. The measurements of temperature, ice, and sea levels over time are probably fairly good, but I observe disagreements among scientists on how best to measure. I’ll give the measurements an 85% credibility. When it comes to the complex climate models, I’ve never seen a complex, iterative model – of the type that includes human assumptions and human measurements – reliably predict the future multiple years out. I don’t think it has ever been done, and perhaps it never will be. I give the complex climate models a 10% credibility rating. And I am only that generous because perhaps this is the exception to the pattern I observe that says complexity always hides the future, as opposed to predicting it. BTW, I think the next paragraph, where he describes the psychological aspects of how people evaluate things when they don't have deep expertise or knowledge is interesting and possibly useful for understanding how to get through to people (Adams' blogs a lot about persuasion/psychology and how so often that is more important than facts in shaping people's views of things): This is a good time to remind you that I have neither the qualifications nor the time to evaluate the climate science models on my own. So I’m stuck with using pattern recognition – which is not science, and it is not reason. And my pattern recognizer says humans use complexity of this sort to hide the truth, not to reveal it. If scientists want to change my mind, they need to show me historical examples in which things “like this” did a good job of predicting the future. You have to work on my pattern memory to change my mind, not my knowledge of climate science. Again, you may disagree with him about models and modelling, but he's identified why some intelligent people, who are not science-deniers, may have issues with some aspects of climate-science. [0] http://blog.dilbert.com/post/158778029326/how-to-change-my-biases-on-climate-science http://blog.dilbert.com/post/158778029326/how-to-change-my-b... [1] http://blog.dilbert.com/post/158549646496/how-leonardo-dicaprio-can-persuade-me-on-climate http://blog.dilbert.com/post/158549646496/how-leonardo-dicap...

mangodrunk 10y ago

Perhaps a better example would be Freeman Dyson. Here's a video of him talking about questioning the status quo: Freeman Dyson: Heretical Thoughts About Science and Society. [1] In which, he also questions global warming, or at least to the degree in which it will affect us. [1] https://youtu.be/8xFLjUt2leM https://youtu.be/8xFLjUt2leM