“As a result, the Drake equation can have any value from “billions and billions” to zero. An expression that can mean anything means nothing. Speaking precisely, the Drake equation is literally meaningless, and has nothing to do with science.”

I don’t agree at all. Now Paul Ehrlich’s I=PAT…*that* has nothing to do with science. But the Drake equation merely provides a logical framework for assessing the probability of extraterrestrial intelligence. The fact that most of the factors weren’t known at the time Drake developed the equation doesn’t make it unscientific.

I think the entire speech is worth a read- in no small part to the description of the historical development of science from testable hypotheses to untestable outputs of models. Also his suggestion for independent verification of models. I have also suggested some form of independent evaluation or verification in this blog as a good idea for government funded work. Perhaps in the new administration…

Equally well, Imbalanced Polemics when applied to works purported to be non-fiction, especially in Climate Crisis subject areas, are designed to mislead and inflame.

We should abandon Imbalanced Polemics all together.

*literature in the form of prose, esp. short stories and novels, that describes imaginary events and people.

Is a “balanced polemic” something like a “jumbo shrimp”?

FWIW, while I have not read Next, I disliked “Rising Sun” and “States of Fear” as obviously imbalanced polemics that were designed to inflame and mislead.

The definition Crichton advances appears to consider judgment foreign to science (he certainly considers politics foreign to science). Given what we know and understand of scientific practice, it would seem Crichton had a relatively idealized conception of what science is, or should be. Not having read more than Jurassic Park, I don’t know if he ever speaks about the replacement of old theories with new ones, and what that says about one scientist with reproducible results.

====================

Some of Crichton’s most important words:

“I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.
Let’s be clear: The work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period. . . .

I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way. . . .

To an outsider, the most significant innovation in the global warming controversy is the overt reliance that is being placed on models. Back in the days of nuclear winter, computer models were invoked to add weight to a conclusion: “These results are derived with the help of a computer model.” But now large-scale computer models are seen as generating data in themselves. No longer are models judged by how well they reproduce data from the real world — increasingly, models provide the data. As if they were themselves a reality. And indeed they are, when we are projecting forward. There can be no observational data about the year 2100. There are only model runs.

This fascination with computer models is something I understand very well. Richard Feynman called it a disease. I fear he is right. Because only if you spend a lot of time looking at a computer screen can you arrive at the complex point where the global warming debate now stands.

Nobody believes a weather prediction twelve hours ahead. Now we’re asked to believe a prediction that goes out 100 years into the future? And make financial investments based on that prediction? Has everybody lost their minds?”

==================

I think that the NYT is a great newspaper. But that is why this column stands out as not up to the standards one might expect.