When scientific consensus is wrong...
When the global warming people talk about consensus, they should be reminded that science is not done by consensus. Here's a New York Times article that examines scientific consensus...
In 1988, the surgeon general, C. Everett Koop, proclaimed ice cream to a be public-health menace right up there with cigarettes. Alluding to his office’s famous 1964 report on the perils of smoking, Dr. Koop announced that the American diet was a problem of “comparable” magnitude, chiefly because of the high-fat foods that were causing coronary heart disease and other deadly ailments.He introduced his report with these words: “The depth of the science base underlying its findings is even more impressive than that for tobacco and health in 1964.”
That was a ludicrous statement, as Gary Taubes demonstrates in his new book meticulously debunking diet myths, “Good Calories, Bad Calories” (Knopf, 2007). The notion that fatty foods shorten your life began as a hypothesis based on dubious assumptions and data; when scientists tried to confirm it they failed repeatedly. The evidence against Häagen-Dazs was nothing like the evidence against Marlboros.
It may seem bizarre that a surgeon general could go so wrong. After all, wasn’t it his job to express the scientific consensus? But that was the problem. Dr. Koop was expressing the consensus. He, like the architects of the federal “food pyramid” telling Americans what to eat, went wrong by listening to everyone else. He was caught in what social scientists call a cascade.
2 Comments:
Scientific consensus is not classic al "hard" scientific knowledge. But it is still an important part of science. For example, in deciding what directions to take in research. Since future knowledge is by definition unknown today, we cannot know with certainty what is the best of many possible research paths. But we can still make reasonable decisions about which research ventures are likely to be fruitful and which are not - these decisions are informed by the scientific consensus, and it often worls well, although not always.
With regard to policy we are confronted with decision-mkaing under uncertainty all the time. We don't know with certainty how much oil is left, or how the next avian flu or other pandemic will play out. But we have to make decisions relating to these and many other matters - and we can only do it based on the best available scientific knowledge and opinion. What is the alternative? Sit on our hands and wait until we have perfect knowledge?
There's a scientific consensus that bird flu, for example, is potentially dangerous. But that's all it is - a consensus. Should we therefore just ignore the issue until there is a major outbreak?
Dear RA: I'd just like some honesty from environmentalists. It's not sufficient to try and stifle debate by saying there is a consensus.
There is not a consensus and it wouldn't matter if there was. After all the environmental scares that didn't pan out (Limits to Growth, Populations explosion, Y2K and others), you'd think that environmentalists would be a bit more humble.
As for bird flu, yes, I am predicting here and now, that there won't be an epidemic. You heard it here first.
fred
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home