SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home Rick Perry, Science And Empiricism

JONATHAN CHAIT AUGUST 24, 2011

Rick Perry, Science And Empiricism

BY JONATHAN CHAIT

National Review's Kevin Williamson has a post, responding to me, entitled, "What Does Jonathan Chait Know about Science?":

Scientific disputes are highly specialized, and meaningful participation in them requires a great deal of non-generalist knowledge. I’m generally skeptical of argument from credential, but there’s a time for it. For instance, a great number of scientists have a particular view of global warming. Richard Lindzen has reservations about that view. Professor Lindzen is an atmospheric physicist a full-on professor at MIT. Your average politician is not packing the gear to get in the middle of that fight. I’m not. Chait isn’t, either. Is Lindzen not a real scientist? Is he a kook? Is Jonathan Chait going to make that case? Given two scientists with different opinions about climate forecasting, why exactly ought I to consult Jonathan Chait, or Jon Huntsman? Chait ought to think about seizing one of the many occasions for humility that come his way.

I don't know a ton about science, but I obviously know more than Rick Perry does. This, however, is not the point.

If you read my original post, you'll recall that I argued that Perry's climate science denial and skepticism toward evolution suggested a non-empiricist style of thought that I find uncongenial. Williamson ignores both my broader point and the specific question about evolution. Instead he pretends we're only debating climate science, and he clings to his contention that experts disagree and laymen have no way to know who's right.

If Williamson is right that climate change is an open question among climate scientists, then he would be correct that I have no basis other than my ideology to believe climate change exists. But Williamson is, in fact, completely wrong about this. Brad Plumer sums up the point:

In 2010, the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences published a survey of 1,372 climate researchers, finding that 97 to 98 percent of those publishing in the field said they believe humans are causing global warming. Dissenters did exist, the study found, but “the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced … are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.”

What's more, the disturbing thing here is not just the fact of Perry's opposition to climate science, it's the basis for it. He subscribes to the paranoid notion that "there are a substantial number of scientists who have manipulated data so that they will have dollars rolling into their projects." This is pure tinfoil hat thinking. Granted, it's a kind of tinfoil hat thinking that holds enormous sway within the Republican Party, but it is tinfoil hat thinking nonetheless.

If a Democratic presidential front runner started insisted that the sun orbits the Earth, or even began spouting anti-vaccine conspiracies, I would be disturbed.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 14 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

14 comments

So basically Williamson's take is "Everything is fungible." Hey, remember "fuzzy math"? Ah, those were the days. My favorite of Perry's latest tinfoilers is: "Abstinence works." When confronted with the mountain of data proving otherwise, Bush's HHS Secretary said "Well, values trump data." I think that pretty much sums up Republican "thinking" on anything scientific or requiring critical thinking skills - too scary, too pointy-headed, facts are just too yucky.

- WandreyCer

August 24, 2011 at 11:26am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

How many "full-on professors" at Texas colleges and universities are running around with their hair on fire insisting that we replace fossil fuels because they are warming the planet? If I was one of those "full-on professors" and liked my job, I wouldn't say anything either.

- rayward

August 24, 2011 at 11:53am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Williamson demonstrates a common misconception about how science is approached. Science is consensus driven. One scientist or one study does not immediately change the views of the scientific community. Peer review is one process a hypothesis and supporting data must pass, but so is repeatability. This is why so many scientists from around the world will repeat a study that's already been done: to verify. I cannot stress this point enough: This is the greatest problem with science reporting today. Lack of understanding on how a hypothesis gradually becomes accepted science. This is why I made my point before about the need for a CSO (congressional science office) that would evaluate policy to the latest view of scientific consensus and "score" a bill. Because a CSO would be able to sort out what exactly is accepted science and what is cutting edge and yet to be verified. Good science does not use argument from credential, which is why peer review and repeatability exist. How should the media and politicians deal with science? It's pretty simple actually, follow the consensus established by major and credible scientific organizations. You're far less likely to go wrong there.

- ChrisEB

August 24, 2011 at 12:02pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Terrific post and idea WB.

- WandreyCer

August 24, 2011 at 12:29pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

sorry for the typo, I meant EB.

- WandreyCer

August 24, 2011 at 12:30pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Is it me, or is the sun getting hotter?

- Nusholtz

August 24, 2011 at 12:36pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It continues to amaze me how post-modern the GOP is anymore.

- miceelf

August 24, 2011 at 1:20pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

you know who *would make an excellent GOP candidate? Gaddafi! He has all the things Republicans love! He’s insane, he’s for small government (really… a government of 1), he’s won every election he’s ever been in by a landslide (in fact, I believe they were unanimous), he’s had 40+ years of experience running a country, and he’s looking for something new to do now! Plus he has terrific name recognition and limitless resources to fund his campaign. He’s also much more likable than any of the current candidates. yeah, good post EB As to "Richard Lindzen has reservations about that view." Hell, even that means nothing. There have been Nobel Prize winners who have been dead wrong about things. A general debunking of Lindzen’s popular disinformation tracts can be found on RealClimate.

- blackton

August 24, 2011 at 1:41pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Let me get this straight... 97% of the climate change researchers who publish in the field of climate change believe in climate change In other news.. 98% of the researchers who publish in the field of Keynesian economics believe in efficacy of Keynesian stimulus Chait -- pretty funny stuff.

- mr_rationale

August 24, 2011 at 2:30pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

So, let me get this straight... On climate change, 97% of the researchers involved disagree with you. On economics, 98% of the researchers involved disagree with you. And you trumpet these points as support for the peculiar idea that you're right and they're wrong? Pretty funny stuff.

- janus

August 24, 2011 at 2:42pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Ref Mr. Rat, the man said climate researchers, not climate change researchers.

- brokensq

August 24, 2011 at 2:52pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

And to follow ChrisEB, it's remarkable easy to weaken or even disprove a theory. Just find some evidence that it can't support or explain. This happens all the time. Careers are made or broken by this stuff, so there are strong incentives at play here. And yes, even ivory tower, liberal, government suckling academics respond to incentives. Now for example, were we to find say bunny rabbit in the same strata as say a Brontosaurus, then there would have to be some serious rethinking. Ideally the bunny would have stuck to the foot of the Bronto (having failed to get out from underfoot), just prior to Bronto keeling over in a convenient peat bog, perfect for fossilization. Of course the fossil record is inconveniently incomplete due to the required preconditions, but this problem has never bothered creationists too much. Instead we typically see a lot of numbers being thrown around which simply demonstrate that people don't understand evolutionary theory or probability theory (or both). As for AGW, all one has to do is demonstrate that CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas, or that all of the previously fossilized (captured) C02 that we are liberating into the atmosphere is being broken down or otherwise recaptured, or is insufficient in magnitude to be a problem. Or that there is some other source of heat that can explain the temperature rises. Would seem fairly simple to me. And if anyone thinks that there's money in Climate research, I cannot imagine that it would compare to the money that would be available to someone who can disprove it.

- Nari224

August 24, 2011 at 4:25pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Mr Rat: the equivalent statement to "97% of climate researchers who publish ..." in economics would be "98% of macroeconomists who publish ..." that is no qualification of how they stand on the issue. The response to Williamson should be that yes, we should not delve into choosing who is right between two scientists. However, with 20 scientists, 19 who think one way and 1 who thinks another, we should not go with the minority with a solid understanding of the reasons to do so.

- sighthnd

August 24, 2011 at 5:43pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

wow ratman, this is stupid even for you...lets see how this plays out in other fields 97% of anthropoligists who publish in the field of anthropology believe in natural selection. 97% of physics researchers who publish in the field of physics believe in the theory of relativity. and 100% of TNR readers believe that Ratman is a silly man (I include the ratman himself who I think it just putting on a longrunning gag)

- blackton

August 24, 2011 at 6:05pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close