Horizon: Science under attack

[scooterscot]

Did anyone watch?

Particularly when one daily telegraph journalist James Delingpole (who it appears was given considerably notoriety for his views on how flawed and misplaced consensus is in science), then Sir Paul Nurse proposed an analogy. If James had cancer would he accept a course of treatment that is considered to be proven and the best available as the result of consensus amongst those at the top of their game or would he choose some other course of treatment.

I nearly fell on the floor watching that worm squirm.

[filthy1980]

Did anyone watch?

Particularly when one daily telegraph journalist James Delingpole (who it appears was given considerably notoriety for his views on how flawed and misplaced consensus is in science), then Sir Paul Nurse proposed an analogy. If James had cancer would he accept a course of treatment that is considered to be proven and the best available as the result of consensus amongst those at the top of their game or would he choose some other course of treatment.

I nearly fell on the floor watching that worm squirm.

during my sociology a level (ten years ago) we did a short module on methods of research or something, and how sociology claimed to be a science but "conventional" science argued that it wasn't

the sociologist response was to question whether science was actually "science"
can't remember all the arguments but they were along the lines of:

• science is restricted by the knowledge at the time, what is accepted as fact at a particular time in history doesn't necessarily make it so (the world is flat etc)
  
• science is influenced by too many external factors i.e. money, if as a scientist is commissioned to do research into a particular area are they likely to find results that their funder might not necessarily want
  
• there rarely exists a scientific consensus, example a few years ago mass media would have you believe that man made global warming was an irrifutable fact, ignoring over 1000 climatologists who were on record as saying it was a flawed theory

there were many others

i've heard JD on the radio quite a few times and to me he seems like one of the few mainstream journo's who actually looks at things from a different perspective

[scooterscot]

It was a point the program communicated numerous times, good science is argument based on fact not belief, experimentation not political or financial bias.

You're points are well taken, it is perhaps the premiss that supports such strong opinions that I read in blogs, or online papers. Of course the facts shall always be scrutinised as human knowledge grows with the passing of time. But I wonder how certain we could be that sociology would have contributed the same amount of progress that empirical science has in understanding the world around us?

Empirical science and approaches used in the early 20th century allowed the development of some of our best ideas ever. Sometimes I curse the internet when it comes research which result in my putting aside the mouse and reaching for pencil and paper.

[meridian]

• science is restricted by the knowledge at the time, what is accepted as fact at a particular time in history doesn't necessarily make it so (the world is flat etc)

Of course science is restricted by the knowledge at the time - that is what science does, explains what is explainable and attempts credible theories for the remainder.
By the way, whether the Earth was considered to be flat wasn't accepted as "fact" Myth of the Flat Earth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia except, perhaps, by sociology students.

• science is influenced by too many external factors i.e. money, if as a scientist is commissioned to do research into a particular area are they likely to find results that their funder might not necessarily want

There will always be a few discredited scientists (witness the debacle with the MMR jab). However, the beauty of science and scientific theories is that they are there to be discussed, disected, and proven wrong if possible by other scientists.

• there rarely exists a scientific consensus, example a few years ago mass media would have you believe that man made global warming was an irrifutable fact, ignoring over 1000 climatologists who were on record as saying it was a flawed theory

That tends to be a problem with the mass media rather than science. If 90% of scientists proffer "no position" on the global warming issue does it mean that there is no concensus, or does it simply mean that climatology is not their field and therefore their opinion is no more or less valid than any other? Mass media does more to damage people's perceptions of good and bad science (again, MMR) than anything else.

[Paddy]

Did anyone watch?

Particularly when one daily telegraph journalist James Delingpole (who it appears was given considerably notoriety for his views on how flawed and misplaced consensus is in science), then Sir Paul Nurse proposed an analogy. If James had cancer would he accept a course of treatment that is considered to be proven and the best available as the result of consensus amongst those at the top of their game or would he choose some other course of treatment.

I nearly fell on the floor watching that worm squirm.

Thalidomide was a course of treatment that is considered to be proven and the best available as the result of consensus amongst those at the top of their game.
Thalidomide - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[BlasterBates]

Well Einstein was in the minority, when he first proposed his theory. It definitely wasn't consensus. The predictions from the consensus look a bit weak to me now. What happened to the snow free winters?

Lets see what will happen in the next few years.

The alternative theory is basically solar variation. If it cools over the next few years, this would be the best fit of what is happening.

[BlasterBates]

I'm not wholly convinced that if a sceptic journalist stutters on a trick question that this is proof that solar variation isn't the main driver of the climate.

[dang65]

By the way, whether the Earth was considered to be flat wasn't accepted as "fact" Myth of the Flat Earth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia except, perhaps, by sociology students.

I think people routinely get the flat Earth thing mixed up with the Earth-goes-around-the-Sun thing, which did take a while to figure out and get everyone to agree with.

[Mich the Tester]

A little bit disappointing. I'm delighted that a scientist in Nurse's position wants to do something about the public perception of science, but I just felt he spent too much time on his own hobby horses instead of really investigating what is causing the public to choose quacktulip over science in matters like medicine and politics over science in terms of the environment. I'd like to have seen more investigation of what's going on in schools, where people should be getting a good grounding in critical thinking.

[sasguru]

Thalidomide was a course of treatment that is considered to be proven and the best available as the result of consensus amongst those at the top of their game.
Thalidomide - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

AFAIK Thalidomide wasn't tested in clinical trials, which is an accepted set of statistical procedures that allows scientists to reach consensus on whether a drug is safe.