A few responses.

1) I always try to make nuanced and subtle arguments, but nuance and subtlety tend not to survive in the blog format … I think you can find many of these “surprising” statements on my previous posts. (e.g., I’ve said several times that WGII and III are much less amenable to separation of normative/positive questions than WGI). As I think I said on this post, where you and I probably disagree is on degree …

In writing the book, we recognized that not everyone agrees with our views of science/politics and tried to present some balance (e.g., see “Aside: Is this how science really works” on p. 29). As part of this, we felt it was important to include a wide range of views in the additional readings.

2) I don’t have a problem w/ Sheila J. … I just thought her quote in that NYT article was arrogant and unhelpful, and worthy of criticism. But that doesn’t mean she hasn’t done good work.

3) We say several times (e.g., end of last paragraph on p. 17, end of first paragraph on p. 127) that the 2nd half of chapter 5 (section 5.4) is our personal opinion about what should be done … so, yes, it clearly includes our personal values. We tried to make that clear, so I’ll be very disappointed if readers do not pick up on that. Maybe in the next edition we can put in big red letters “WARNING! Personal Opinion Ahead!!!”

I also thought you’d be really pleased to see academics presenting their policy suggestions. We spent quite a bit of time trying to decide whether we wanted to give our personal opinion, but in the end decided that it was a statement we wanted to make.

Regards.

I have taken a closer look at your new book, which for others FYI we will be profiling here on Prometheus over the next few weeks, so we will have a chance to discuss in some depth.

I now have a better understanding of your views. You write at p. 42:

“One essential key to such improvement [of science in politics] lies in disentangling the policy debate into separate, precisely posed questions and noting which of these are positive questions of scientific knowledge about the world, and which are normative questions of our values, desires, and political principles.”

This is also called the “fact-values distinction” which is a highly contested concept:

Brief intro here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact-value_distinction

In-depth critique here:

http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog/PUTCOL.html

You follow up the above statement by observing “”It is not always possible to draw these distinctions [positive-normative] perfectly cleanly, but trying to do so to the extent feasible can bring large benefits.”

Very Jasanoffian, if I do say so. You assert that there are benefits to such a distinction, Jasanoff says that there can be some real problems. You two are not so far off after all. I also note with some surprise that on p. 45 you cite for further reading Sheila Jasanoff! And you accurately describe how her book The Fifth Branch “examines the processes by which the boundaries between scientific and political domains were negotiated in several regulatory controversies …[ leading to] a more or less constructive relationship between scientific advice and regulatory decision making in each case.” If they are negotiated case-by-case then they are not clear and distinct are they?

You closet social constructivist you!

(You also cite Weinberg’s “Science and Trans-science” which makes a compelling case against the fact-value distinction in practice!)

Finally, a question: Are you not committing the very naturalistic fallacy that you complain about throughout this book when on pp. 175-176 you write:

“Our conclusion is that scientific knowledge about present and likely climate changes calls for an urgent, high-priority response – principally by not exclusively through international negotiation of coordinated national policies – to reduce future emissions and to prepare for a much more uncertain and potentially less benign climate than we have been fortunate to live in for the past century.”

Can you explain to me how it is that “scientific knowledge” calls for such a response? I thought a response was based on values? Are you conflating the fact-values dichotomy here?

I think we may have to agree to disagree. While I agree that there is much overlap in definitions on this thread, I still see more than just a slight difference in semantics.

Sure, the scientific method, peer review, and the “crucible of science” all fit neatly under the heading of the systematic pursuit of knowledge. However, from my perspective, there is plenty that falls under the systematic pursuit of knowledge that does not necessarily follow the scientific method, peer review, and the “crucible of science.”

One alternative method is a practice-based approach. Unlike a controlled experiment testing a hypothesis, a practiced-based approach starts with a particular goal in mind but leaves flexibility to innovate as unexpected challenges and opportunities arise. This can be though of as a continual process of innovation, diffusion, and adaptation. Does a practiced-based approach need to follow the scientific method? No. Does it need to be peer reviewed? No. Does it need to be replicated? No. Is it a systematic pursuit of knowledge? Yes. There are plenty of people who would consider a practiced-based approach legitimate science, particularly in the social sciences.

And no, I don’t have a substantially different definition of science than Roger’s. However, because I agree with Jasanoff (which I know makes you cringe!), I consider this definition a tool to practically move forward in understanding how useful knowledge is produced, perceived, and utilized in policy.

Best,
Dave

You argue that:
… there are a number of different legitimate definitions of what science is.
However, I contend that all the definitions provided on this thread are the same as mine, although slight semantic differences might exist.

Given that, I continue to argue that Shiela J’s argument that science is too difficult to grasp is wrong — while slight (semantic) differences might exist, they are so minor that one can still give policymakers a legitimate and useful definition of science.

Like many arguments on this blog, this one seems to me to be more complicated than need be.

Regards.

PS: If you do have a materially different definition of science, then I’d be very interested in hearing it.

“… science is the ’systematic pursuit of knowledge.”

Terry said:

“Science is the attempt to understand the world.”

Sounds like we agree. (And others agree as well.)

So then, the real debate is about “good science” versus “bad science.” That seems to be just a practical question (or an engineering question if you will). For instance, the question of peer-reviewed versus non-peer reviewed is a question about which system works best.

Since the world is a complicated place, I would expect that different scientific systems would have different strengths and weaknesses and that the “best” system would differ depending on the discipline and the era.

From my perspective, the issue is not whether your and Roger’s definitions are at odds with each other. Rather, it is that there are a number of different legitimate definitions of what science is. Although your definition may not be at odds with Roger’s, surely you must admit that they are different…and that they are both legitimate.

As you point out, if we “all sat down at the same table, we could come up with a definition of science that suits all of us.” However, at a national or international scale this conversation is near impossible; hence, Roger’s challenge for you to publish “the definition” of science. With a multitude of different legitimate definitions at a national level, the boundary between what is and what isn’t science becomes blurry (where the definitions differ).

My interpretation why Jasanoff is “tired that they are going to do this again” is in the blur between what is and is not science – the blur referring to the fact there is “no easily graspable definition” – we find ourselves in a situation where policy preferences are scientized. In other words, that policy preferences are promoted as objective authoritative knowledge when in fact they are value laden…which is an ongoing theme on this Blog.

Best,
David

Of course, another explanation was that you actually agree with me, but were very upset that I had the temerity to criticize Sheila J. for her idiotic quote.

As far as your other statements go, I think that I can agree with most. I suppose it’s likely that we would disagree on the extent, however, with you arguing that politics has a dominant influence on science, while I would argue that the influence is negligible. I guess that’ll have to wait for another thread!

Regards.