Self-evidently dangerous climate change will not emerge from a normal scientific process of truth seeking, although science will gain some insights into the question if it recognises the socially contingent dimensions of a post-normal science. But to proffer such insights, scientists - and politicians - must trade (normal) truth for influence. If scientists want to remain listened to, to bear influence on policy, they must recognise the social limits of their truth seeking and reveal fully the values and beliefs they bring to their scientific activity.In itself it is a stunning admission from someone from the other side of the issue that 'Self-evidently dangerous climate change will not emerge from a normal scientific process of truth seeking'. So, all those attempts at convincing us that man-made global climate change was scietifically definitively proven are, in fact, complete hogwash? That is as revealing as it is relieving.
Unfortunately, Mike Hulme suggests a cure that is even worse then the disease: 'post-normal' science. In other words: a 'science' that goes beyond (below) truth seeking and rational thought and aims for the results that the 'social limits' desire. As I wrote before:
Only the questions that the Green Machine wants answered will be answered. Other questions will not be asked for fear that the answers will break the 'narrative'. If they have their way we will witness the demise of science in any real sense. What we're left with will be nothing more then new generations of Lysenko's raised in the politically correct art of scientific sounding ideological drivel that serves no other purpose then the legitimization of a totalitarian systemColor me flabbergasted to see 'professor' Hulme (where on Earth did he buy his title?) arguing for actively turning (climate) science into another branch of lysenkoism.
Climate change is too important to be left to scientists - least of all the normal ones.(I kid you not)
Fortunately, Melanie Phillips does a good job skewering Hulmes semi-philosophical babbling.
So, says Hulme, let’s abolish the need to establish the facts and the truth and impose the theory on the basis of — what’s that again — ‘values and beliefs’. In other words, climate change science has got to be anti-science. It’s got to be anti-truth. It’s got to be nothing more than an ideology.Good thing we have people like mrs. Phillips around.
Post-modernism long ago deconstructed truth. Now in similar vein, ‘post-normal’ science deconstructs scientific empiricism and rationalism and detaches science from truth. In other words, where science fails to support an ideology, the absolute and overriding imperative of putting that ideology into practice means that science has to suspend its very essence as a truth-seeking activity and instead perpetrate lies. That is the inescapable implication of Hulme’s position. To support the bogus claim that we face the imminent collapse of civilisation from global warming, science itself has to be reconceptualised as an instrument of propaganda and justified by mendacious and obfuscatory post-modernist jargon.
(h/t Blue Crab Boulevard)
[UPDATE001] Wretchard takes a closer look at the definition of 'post-normal science' and doesn't like what he finds:
All in all, the notion of "post-normal science" seems like a complete contradiction in terms or a perversion of the standard definition of science as commonly understood. It appears to be an elaborate and dishonest attempt to pass off the preferences of a single group as some kind of pseudo-science. There's a much simpler term for this dishonest phrase: politics. Post-normal science is nothing but a cheap and lying term for a political diktat; for the rule of the self-appointed over everyone else.