The main stream media (MSM) often promote the idea of scientific controversies where none really exist. That is, the controversy may be within the media itself. Or within religion or politics. But it’s not within the scientific community. The creationism/evolution and global warming/climate change denial are two examples of such controversies.
On he other hand there are scientific controversies/debates raging within the scientific community which the public may be oblivious to. Evolutionary science is a lively dynamic area so of course their are scientific debates going on – there just not about creationism. Similarly, climate scientists will vigorously debate the meaning and significance of new evidence and the reliability of computer models – but those debates are not what the climate change deniers are talking about.
So how can the public check out these “controversies?” How can they assess if they are real debates within the scientific community or fictions of the main stream media? Or perhaps that the real debate is political or religious rather than scientific?
Gary Herstein, over at Science Blogging Philosophy & Ethics has a great article on the nature of scientific controversy (see What Does A Real Scientific Controversy Look Like?). He provides some rules people should use in judging claims of scientific controversy. Its well worth reading – but here are a few brief extracts:
Rule #1: The Media IS just a Circus:
“The contemporary MSM (at least) is generally driven by rhetoric and marketing; what gets attended to is that which puts on the best show. But this is not a standard by which any claim, argument, or piece of evidence ought to be evaluated. “Performance art” is not the same as cognitive content. Indeed, the noisier the rhetoric, the likelier it is funded by people who could care less about the facts, as these interfere with their profit margins. This leads to,”
Rule #2: Follow the Money:”
“There is seldom any real money in telling the truth. . . .However, nothing will so frequently overwhelm earnest commitment as a tsunami of “filthy lucre.” Well funded liars will readily garner much more media attention than determined investigators of genuine integrity, particularly in the earliest stages of the process of garnering public attention. So as in any good mystery, one of the best ways of getting the measure of a claimant is to look at such person’s funding.” Also “what kind of agenda is behind the money. . . .People will lie for power, but how many will dissemble for the facts?”
Rule #3: Follow the Publications:
“Here, of course, I mean the real publications, the peer-reviewed literature and not the popular dog-and-pony shows. . . .If a claim is so vapid and vacuous that it can not pass muster in the peer-reviewed literature, then this is particularly substantive evidence that the claim lacks any real scientific or logical merit. Whining about the profound nature of one’s “truth” is meaningless if one cannot support it with real scientific research.”
Rule #4: Whimpering about Conspiracies
“Any conspiracy that involves more than five people will generally fall apart of its own inoperable mass as soon as it is conspired; the idea of one that involves tens of thousands of people acting in unbreakable lock-step is pathetic infantilism.”
Rule #5: Consensus is a Clue
“It is only a clue, but it is a clue. Consensus does not make the facts, but for non-experts it is a powerful indicator of what the facts are, wherein they are to be found, and how they are to be interpreted. When substantive consensus has been formed, those who would presume to challenge that consensus are obliged to make their case rather than ostentatiously puling and whining about how unfair it all is.”
Rule #6: Is the Alternative Even Science?
“Any claim that is genuinely scientific will have some possible notion of falsification, some systematic research program in hand, some viable context of puzzle solving definable by its underlying theoretical claims, and so forth.”
An Example of a Real Controversy:
Herstein then goes on to discuss a real scientific controversy – over the Standard Model of cosmology. He shows how bis rules can be applied here. These show that it is perfectlyr easonable to accept this as a genuine scientific controversy.
(* Cartoon – Kevin Cannon , from Union of Concerned Scientists, Scientific Integrity, Cartoon Competition).