Comments on: Notes in the Houston Chronicle http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4068 Wed, 29 Jul 2009 22:36:51 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: Mark Hadfield http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4068&cpage=1#comment-7764 Mark Hadfield Wed, 24 Jan 2007 19:59:57 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=4068#comment-7764 "As we know, There are known knowns. There are things we know we know. We also know There are known unknowns. That is to say We know there are some things We do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns, The ones we don't know We don't know." "Uncertainties are facts." “As we know,
There are known knowns.
There are things we know we know.
We also know
There are known unknowns.
That is to say
We know there are some things
We do not know.
But there are also unknown unknowns,
The ones we don’t know
We don’t know.”

“Uncertainties are facts.”

]]> By: Russell Seitz http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4068&cpage=1#comment-7763 Russell Seitz Wed, 24 Jan 2007 06:06:49 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=4068#comment-7763 It seems the Cognitive Miser meme may apply to some science jouralists. Witness Science Guy Eric Berger's ecomium in the Houston newsBlog Roger refers to -- "I'm beginning to feel some sympathy for any scientist who publishes material that contradicts the prevailing theory of anthropogenic global warming. From the sagacious readers: Tom writes: No joke, you should get a Pulitzer for this piece. It is the single most balanced and intelligent coverage of this issue that I've read." Could this be the same Eric Berger who declines to read IPCC 200 on line, lest posessing himself of its contents online tempt him to transgress its confidentility? My excuse for only having waded through half to date is that the half is thus far about 2,000 pages. It seems the Cognitive Miser meme may apply to some science jouralists. Witness Science Guy Eric Berger’s ecomium in the Houston newsBlog Roger refers to –

“I’m beginning to feel some sympathy for any scientist who publishes material that contradicts the prevailing theory of anthropogenic global warming.

From the sagacious readers:

Tom writes: No joke, you should get a Pulitzer for this piece. It is the single most balanced and intelligent coverage of this issue that I’ve read.”

Could this be the same Eric Berger who declines to read IPCC 200 on line, lest posessing himself of its contents online tempt him to transgress its confidentility?

My excuse for only having waded through half to date is that the half is thus far about 2,000 pages.

]]> By: Daniel Collins http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4068&cpage=1#comment-7762 Daniel Collins Wed, 24 Jan 2007 05:03:14 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=4068#comment-7762 Considering a standard engineering problem, I would not design a culvert to pass the average runoff that has come down a river over recorded history, but instead add some capacity to account for interannual variability, look for possible trends in discarge, and assess the costs of a full culvert. I would also not wait until I know with 'certainty' how much water will come down nor even the 'exact' costs before I build a culvert, knowing full well a culvert is needed and I can build a new one later. This is also how I see appropriate climate change policy. Considering a standard engineering problem, I would not design a culvert to pass the average runoff that has come down a river over recorded history, but instead add some capacity to account for interannual variability, look for possible trends in discarge, and assess the costs of a full culvert. I would also not wait until I know with ‘certainty’ how much water will come down nor even the ‘exact’ costs before I build a culvert, knowing full well a culvert is needed and I can build a new one later. This is also how I see appropriate climate change policy.

]]> By: Mark Hadfield http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4068&cpage=1#comment-7761 Mark Hadfield Tue, 23 Jan 2007 19:18:53 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=4068#comment-7761 "IMO, uncertainties are facts, so'd prefer not to gloss over them anyhow." Well said, sir! I recently heard (literally heard, so can't link to it) the statement that communication between politicians and scientists was problematic because scientists deal with (in?) uncertainties and politicians need certainties. This statement troubled me when I heard it. Politicians may need certainties, but they can't have them! What they seem to need are provisional certainties, that is certainties that aren't actually certainties at all, but that they can pretend to be certainties. Like Sarewitz's Florida-voting example: we don't know the right answer, but we have to pretend there is a right answer (and furthermore pretend that it is *really* the right answer) to move forward. Weird. “IMO, uncertainties are facts, so’d prefer not to gloss over them anyhow.”

Well said, sir!

I recently heard (literally heard, so can’t link to it) the statement that communication between politicians and scientists was problematic because scientists deal with (in?) uncertainties and politicians need certainties. This statement troubled me when I heard it. Politicians may need certainties, but they can’t have them! What they seem to need are provisional certainties, that is certainties that aren’t actually certainties at all, but that they can pretend to be certainties. Like Sarewitz’s Florida-voting example: we don’t know the right answer, but we have to pretend there is a right answer (and furthermore pretend that it is *really* the right answer) to move forward.

Weird.

]]> By: Daniel Collins http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4068&cpage=1#comment-7760 Daniel Collins Mon, 22 Jan 2007 21:46:46 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=4068#comment-7760 IMO, uncertainties are facts, so'd prefer not to gloss over them anyhow. IMO, uncertainties are facts, so’d prefer not to gloss over them anyhow.

]]> By: kevin v http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4068&cpage=1#comment-7759 kevin v Mon, 22 Jan 2007 20:45:03 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=4068#comment-7759 John, I've been thinking about welding too. really. Daniel -- it's a good question. I'm not arguing that policy makers and/or the public need to have journal-level articles explained in minute detail. I am suggesting that scientists might be taking "general discussion of what’s going on and what it means" as "the facts and their consequences but leave out the uncertainties b/c those are technical details that we don't need." And I don't think that's what Rep. Boehlert meant. John, I’ve been thinking about welding too. really.

Daniel — it’s a good question. I’m not arguing that policy makers and/or the public need to have journal-level articles explained in minute detail. I am suggesting that scientists might be taking “general discussion of what’s going on and what it means” as “the facts and their consequences but leave out the uncertainties b/c those are technical details that we don’t need.” And I don’t think that’s what Rep. Boehlert meant.

]]> By: Daniel Collins http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4068&cpage=1#comment-7758 Daniel Collins Mon, 22 Jan 2007 19:33:00 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=4068#comment-7758 Kevin, how do you reconcile your call for more details with Sherwood Boehlert's advice that scientists invite congressmen "not to a technical presentation that they probably can’t understand, but to a general discussion of what’s going on and what it means" (Science, 314:1228-1229, 2006). The level no doubt varies from politician to politician, as with supreme court justices (Science, 313:1019, 2006; Massachusetts vs. EPA, 05-1120). John, I highly recommend welding, economic downturn or not. Kevin, how do you reconcile your call for more details with Sherwood Boehlert’s advice that scientists invite congressmen “not to a technical presentation that they probably can’t understand, but to a general discussion of what’s going on and what it means” (Science, 314:1228-1229, 2006). The level no doubt varies from politician to politician, as with supreme court justices (Science, 313:1019, 2006; Massachusetts vs. EPA, 05-1120).

John, I highly recommend welding, economic downturn or not.

]]> By: jfleck http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4068&cpage=1#comment-7757 jfleck Mon, 22 Jan 2007 18:08:54 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=4068#comment-7757 If one buys Matthew Nisbet's argument that members of the public are "cognitive misers" (and it seems to me a pretty reasonable argument that I'm at least willing to seriously entertain), then there is little point to giving the public the details. This is of course a problem for me, as I have no other marketable skills. I'm thinking of learning to weld. If one buys Matthew Nisbet’s argument that members of the public are “cognitive misers” (and it seems to me a pretty reasonable argument that I’m at least willing to seriously entertain), then there is little point to giving the public the details.

This is of course a problem for me, as I have no other marketable skills. I’m thinking of learning to weld.

]]>