Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: [Phys-l] Scientists speaking outside their fields. Was... The Cause of Global Warming...



Michael opens up a lot of very difficult questions here. Let me comment on a few of them.

1) Most of us here have probably been trained as experimental physicists. I, like Michael, was trained as a nuclear physicist but have been away from the field for 25 years now. However, we probably feel that given the data, we should be able to follow, even do, the analyses for physical systems. Two problems there. a) Is the data really accurate? Experimental design across disciplines may not necessarily 'live up to' the standards of most experimental physicists. Certainly most of us have problems with many experiments as done in say psychology. Even physical data, say temperature data, can be problematic. Where is it taken---sufficiently distant from populated thermal islands? b) Is the analysis dependent on theories too complex for us to follow without considerable background work? All theory is basically modeling, but in the case of climate modeling, the process necessarily requires a bundling a lot of theory with lots of input parameters. It often becomes a question as to whether one has a usable model based on the science or has one 'fit the data with an n-th order polynomial.' I suspect we are not at the 'ab-initio' level of climate modeling (as some chemistry now attempts) where the models start from the basic physics. Such a model should have a minimum of adjustable input parameters and should be able to be run backwards to 'predict the past' and recreate major climatic features of that past. Failing that level of sophistication we seem to have relied more on the general agreement of different models.

2) We've been 99% certain in the past--and wrong!

3) Yes, I think it is a strong responsibility of the experts in a field to convince other scientists--and to do so before mounting major publicity campaigns aimed at the general populace (can anyone say Cold-Fusion). As expressed, it only takes a few scientists as 'nay-sayers' to produce a general feeling that the science is too uncertain upon which to base public policy. While there may be the odd hold out on relativity or quantum theory, the physics community has done a pretty good job showing these to be the most valid current explanations of phenomena such that other scientists don't question these areas. Of course neither area directly comes into conflict with religion, politics, or economics, any of which can lead to less than rational opposition. Now in global warming there seems to be a lot of scientists who are not convinced (at least not that humans are the basic cause). Is this for the irrational reasons above or because the evidence has not been presented to these scientists convincingly, or might the evidence be too uncertain at this point to convince the more critical amongst us?

4) I do think we all need to be careful when we speak 'publicly' on various scientific issues. Careful to qualify our statements with our qualifications--and limitations--for the subject at hand. We can be free in this kind of forum (Phys-L) to express opinions, ask stupid questions, make stupid mistakes, and otherwise explore issues without a lot of danger that we will mislead anyone into serious error--such will be quickly jumped on by others. However, when we speak to others on scientific issues, especially those who might use our words to form policies that will effect others, we need to either know what we are talking about or else be clear that we are talking from limited knowledge and/or experience. I can no longer speak authoritatively about what's going on in nuclear physics research today--but I can speak to basic nuclear physics concepts. My current 'expertise' is basically energy 'bookkeeping' as my software work has primarily been towards classroom aids that involve only basic intro physics and intro level laboratories. Only with the energy simulations have I had to get into the literature to find 'THE NUMBERS' and deal with those. So, if you want to know how many wind generators it would take to effectively run the U.S. energy system...... ;-)

5) So how does one answer someone who asks about global warming? Is the temperature rising--yes (but not uniformly). Have humans been increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere? Clearly yes. Can these CO2 concentrations cause temperature increase. Theoretically yes. Are they? Probably, but by how much--??

I think we can also comment on specific information--we can be critical (or supportive) of publicly presented info--such as "An Inconvenient Truth" or "The Great Global Warming Swindle"--most likely to point out that each have relevant information, each has errors, each has exaggerations, each has a 'point of view'. Now that may leave whoever you are talking to confused--I am too--but ultimately you can tell them your position on this (or any other) issue based on the information you have and your 'trained' understanding of it. However, what I think all of us need to stress with people with whom we talk, is the very nature of science---that whatever we hold today could be completely reversed by new information tomorrow--but we work with the current best scientific understanding of our world and have done so now for the past few centuries. That process has led to the technologically advanced world of today--and the parts that we cherish (whether that be medical technology or information technology or whatever) it basically comes as a package with anything we might have preferred to do without (nuclear weapons, cell-phones, nuclear waste, etc.)

Enough--

Rick

***************************
Richard W. Tarara
Professor of Physics
Saint Mary's College
Notre Dame, IN
rtarara@saintmarys.edu
******************************
Free Physics Software
PC & Mac
www.saintmarys.edu/~rtarara/software.html
*******************************


----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael Edmiston" <edmiston@bluffton.edu>
To: "Forum for Physics Educators" <phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu>
Sent: Monday, May 21, 2007 9:25 AM
Subject: [Phys-l] Scientists speaking outside their fields. Was... The Cause of Global Warming...


Mark Shapiro gave us a link to the streaming video of a forum presentation
at CSU-Pomona made by Naomi Oreskes. Although it took a bit of time, I
watched the full video. I thought her presentation was very good and
provided some worthwhile insight into how science works, as well as the
problems scientists face as we try to convince the general public of what we
consider as "fact." I recommend this video is worth watching. Here again
is the link...

http://video.csupomona.edu/CampusForum/NaomiOreskes-245.asx

At the end of the presentation, Oreskes criticizes non-climate-scientists,
particularly some physicists, for interpreting global warming data
differently than she and others interpret the data. She makes a general
claim that scientists who are not specialists in a particular field should
not speak publically about those fields. She implies that policy decisions
should be made only after consulting with scientists who are specialists and
have published in the particular field being examined.

This comment was especially interesting in her case because her background
is geology and she herself does not have formal training in climate science
nor in history of science nor philosophy of science (the field she now
claims to be doing research in).

Aside from the fact that her criticism of some scientists would seem
legitimately applied right back to her, what do we think about this idea in
general? I have certainly seen evidence that the public lumps all
scientists into one pot. The public does not even distinguish between
biologists, chemists, and physicists, let alone between a nuclear physicist
and a solid state physicist. Therefore it seems true that in the public eye
a biologist talking about nuclear power carries just as much weight as a
nuclear physicist talking about nuclear power. Or to take the reverse
example... the public would give as much weight to a physicist talking about
evolution as they would an evolutionary biologist talking about evolution.

On one hand this is a problem because I have certainly observed scientists
misunderstand and therefore misinterpret data because they are not in the
field being studied. On the other hand, scientists in the field can fall
prey to the proverbial "missing the forest due to all the trees" syndrome.
Scientists in the field can also fall prey to exaggerating the significance
of their data and their conclusions because it is their chance for 15
minutes of fame, and it also might enhance their ability to get more
funding, or more lab space, etc.

All scientists, no matter what field, should be trained to understand and
evaluate data. I believe it is a valid part of how science works for
scientists in one field to scrutinize and ask questions about data and
interpretations in other fields. Yes, the scientists in a particular
discipline need first to convince their colleagues of the validity and
interpretation of their data. But before they can convince the public, it
seems they first need to convince other scientists outside their specific
disciplines. Are we up to the challenge?

Although it is an impossible task, I should try to keep up to date on as
many things as possible. I need to be aware that non-scientists will tend
to view me as an expert (or at least more expert than they are) on all kinds
of science. I serve on an environmental committee in my county that was
appointed by the county health department. The health commissioner chairs
the committee and I am the secretary. I am the only traditional scientist
on the committee. Other members include people with specific training that
might peripherally be science. For example, the health commissioner has a
masters degree in public health and the sanitary engineer is a licensed
engineer.

It is clear the committee turns to me for answers or opinions on all types
of science. At the end of our meeting last month, the health commissioner
turned to me and said, "So what is your take on global warming? How serious
is it? Are people causing it? " The health commissioner knows me from
working with me for the past 20 years. He trusts me and values my judgment.
Even though I am not a climate specialist, I am sure he will trust my
interpretation more than a specialist that he does not know. So how should
I respond? So far, I have not given a response. I said, "give me a few
weeks and I'll get back to you."

My questions for this group are... what is the role of scientists with
respect to issues outside their area of expertise? What do we do about the
tendency for the public to lump all scientists together. What do we do when
journalists find one scientist at odds with 99 scientists and give
journalistic equal weight to the 1% view?

Some related questions... Even though my graduate degree was nuclear
physics, is that the only field in which I can offer expert testimony? Is a
scientist in one field trapped in that field forever, or does a good
scientist necessarily have the right tools to "self train" in other areas
and become an expert in an area outside the original PhD or master's thesis?
If I am going to speak about an area of science outside my specialty, what
would be the recommended preparation before doing so? Do I need to take
more course work? Do I need to publish a peer-reviewed paper or two?

Michael D. Edmiston, Ph.D.
Professor of Chemistry and Physics
Bluffton University
1 University Drive
Bluffton, OH 45817
419.358.3270
edmiston@bluffton.edu

_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l