Okay, I'm guilty of using the phrase "the science is settled" but in my case, I think context matters a lot.
I spent most of the 1990s calibrating some of the Earth remote sensing satellites that measure global surface temperature. As I have regularly told people who are actually interested in listening: "the Earth's temperature is going up. That's almost impossible to debate looking at the satellite measurements alone. What's very debatable is why it's increasing and how much it will go up."
Unfortunately, a significant portion of my listeners were not actually interested in listening. As soon as they heard me talk about "climate change," they would start throwing their "facts" cherry picked from their favorite political TV channel or website at me in an attempt to browbeat me into conceding I was wrong. The argument that global warming couldn't be occurring because of the temperature on Uranus was a particularly memorable one. I haver at least one family member (an uncle) I have cut out of my life because he sent me pages and pages of half-assed arguments from political sites that all ignored *the measurements I was involved in making.* Well, if you think your political sites are more trustworthy than me, I don't need you around.
So, yeah, I've said, "the science is settled" in an attempt to end discussions with political axe grinders who aren't actually interested in the science. Guilty as charged.
The challenge is that a true scientific mindset can't exist when beliefs are ossified. Anyone engaged in the debate needs to become the "38 Special" of analytical thinking, having a perspective, but "holding on loosely." When conclusions come first, and data is selected to support and defend them, we're using the process backward. In such situations, I turn to Adam Grant's concept from Think Again, asking whether there's any data I could present that would cause you to change your perspective. If not, then there is no discussion to be had.
That hit on an argument I've had in that space as well. On the once side, nothing is changing, on the other, nothing is allowed to change. But earth is dynamic and history is repleate with dramatic temp and environment changes. The end of the last ice age, just 12k years ago was catastrophic with oceans rising 450 feet in decades.
Like I said, I think “why” the climate is changing is an open question. The fact that is “is” is pretty clear.
Besides the tendency to lock into the extremes you mention, the other one that drives me crazy is the tendency to lock into “solutions.” Many people argue about the problem because they don’t like the solution that’s on the table (like carbon caps) instead of looking at alternatives (like putting nuclear power back on the table).
I’ve been arguing for twenty-five years that, regardless of climate change, being less dependent on fossil fuels was a good idea. The Iran War is proving me right.
Exactly right, and based on this topic, I'm not sure if you've ever read this one from way back in the day, but it's my contextualization of the topic. I tease that I'm a Climate Change Advocate because I'm trying to have a conversation and not be shut down as a 'denier' merely because I get a level deeper than most. And to your point, my goal is to figure out how we adapt to it because the ideas they have to 'stop' climate change are horrific IMO.
I had not read that until just now. It's an interesting take, most of which I agree with (and the disagreements aren't worth a serious argument). The area we have most agreement on is that the major issue is that our current political system doesn't want the migration that climate change is likely to trigger.
For example, the climate change models show that my home state of Colorado is going to look more like New Mexico. That doesn't make it uninhabitable. It does mean that perhaps buying stock in ski resorts is a bad idea. It also means that some current cities that depend on the Colorado River are going to have to either shrink, adapt, or go thirsty (or go to war with each other).
What I'm most on the side of the climate advocates is simply that humans should probably pump less crap into the atmosphere. We're adding variables to a complex system we struggle to understand to begin with. Maybe... don't do that?
Agree. I'm all for conservation. Ironically, stopping climate change typically involves polluting the atmosphere with reflective materials. The hubris is not lost on me!
Cool premise for a series. Appreciated the read. It seems to me that those of us who work in and around the scientific enterprise, particularly in metascience, have a good grasp on these problems. What really interested me is connecting these insights to implementation frameworks that let us incentivize going around or through the Planck problem. It’s not just intellectual ossification, or going further like you do, the three factors. It’s also incumbency, org structure, investment (ideological or monetary) etc. looking forward to reading more.
Exactly right. The entire Keys to Innovation series mentioned in the article are different frameworks to help unlock innovation. There’s no ‘one way’ because, to your point, different organizations put different locks on innovation, but each key can be explored for where it works!
Sorry, one more, I just love this topic. When people used to tell me to Trust The Science! a few years ago, I liked to remind them of something Antonie van Leeuwenhoek used to say:
"Uh...hey there. I have a special machine I made that can see all the invisible monsters that live on your skin and even inside your body! They cause diseases, even though you can't see them. It's down in my basement; would you like to come over and have a look? Don't cost nuthin..."
And don't get me started on what happened to Ignaz Semmelweis! That's a cautionary tale for those who blindly trust the Fauci types. Most scientists I've met are actually pretty humble and open-minded; but that doesn't change the fact that the egotistical Machiavellians among them still tend to rise to the top of their org charts. The Fauci types just put more effort into politics than their peers care to.
It has also dawned on me in recent years that the false dichotomy between science and spiritual woo is a relatively recent invention in human history, no doubt driven by the long political rivalry between clergy Machiavellians and Fauci-style Machiavellians. Here’s a sample of woo from Max Planck hisself:
“I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.”
Christianity didn’t do itself any favors by creating a schism and viewing science as opposing. Had they embraced it without fear, it never would have become a false dichotomy.
Precisely. It’s worth asking why the Romans, who were not enthusiastic backers of the prophet of Christianity, decided to go full-tilt-boogie-orgasm on it shortly thereafter. The answer can be found in Mario Puzo’s last book, The Family. It was originally a patronage scheme, which explains why priests took a vow of celibacy. Aristocratic families would commit one or two of their scions to the church, including the son’s inheritance upon his death [which would go to his wife’s family if he had married]. But the church thus had to wait a few decades to collect the reward, which ensured a continuing relationship with the family. Back in the days when popes had the power of starting wars and arranging assassinations and diplomatic negotiations.
The only caveat with this sensible argument is that people yell about settled science for a variety of reasons, none of which they will ever admit, unless they are naturally the sort of mild-Aspies or low-on-agreeability-metric types who naturally found their way here of their own volition.
Your example of polio reminds me of a smarmy bumper sticker I saw that said "I don't have polio because I got vaccinated. Thanks, science!" I'm pretty sure the owner of that has never heard of the Cutter Incident; but it's not like that was even a one-off before they got the process perfect. A small percentage of rural Africans who get polio vax today get polio from it, because [as far as I can understand] of logistics: Where cold chains do not exist, cold injectables are not delivered, thus only the temperature tolerant oral vax is the only option. But that form involves a small risk of infection, similar to the original Cutter Incident. Some problems take decades or centuries to actually be settled.
As far as climate change, there are three major impediments to honest debate about solutions:
1. Scientists in the 20th century were afraid to publish papers that might offend the oil industry, because that was also the chemical industry, and they had a pretty cozy relationship with many branches of science and with grant funding. But nobody wants to admit that the polar opposite dynamic exists today with research funding. So it's very risky to question the narrative that has become the new gravy train. [Preaching to the choir here, obvs.]
2. Environmentalists are loath to acknowledge that nuclear has been humanity's best and safest option since its discovery. The very people who now moan and groan that WE shoulda started to deal with climate change 30-40 years ago don't wish to look in the mirror and recognize that the irrational fear engendered by the extremely unfortunate coincidence of Three Mile Island and the release of The China Syndrome [starring Hanoi Jane, to top it all off] spooked the boomers away from nuclear forever. And most of the Europeans, who somehow fail to notice that France has been selling them excess grid capacity for decades, with nary a Chernobyl to speak of.
3. Everyone really knows that there is an irreconcilable conflict between the short-term pressure of high-energy civilization and the long-term uncertainty about the consequences of failing to mitigate climate challenges. But they pretend not to know, hoping that politicians will engineer negative externalities into penalties which must be borne by the corporate villains who make all our nice stuff. Amazingly, it is always the voters who find themselves disadvantaged by attempts to shift the burden for their own consumption onto the moneyed classes. Ain't dat wicked pissa?
Another righteous banger from the epicenter of epistemology! BTW, did you know that George Box akshully invented boxing? True fact. I'm not even gonna discuss what Klaus Fuchs invented...
[...it was the trigger for the atomic bomb, you dirty dawg!]
I’ve heard one doctor remark that an attending physician addressed the new medical school class at orientation “50% of the material you’ll learn is wrong or outdated by the time you learn it…the only problem is ‘we don’t know which 50%’” 🤣 albeit all too rare in this dogmatic era, I enjoyed the transparency and humility. Loved your point about science advancing one funeral at a time. If people don’t ask questions, we’re stuck. It is a difficult needle to thread since the world (or known) is constantly evolving. Thank you for pushing the envelope and challenging us to “think different”. 🤜
That’s a great quote from the doctor. And it’s true. Medical especially keeps moving very quickly. 20 years ago, Pain was a think to eliminate and that was ‘settled’ now we realize we addicted tens of millions of people to opiods. Thankfully, we, largely learn and improve.
Oh, that’s funny! I worked in Artillery and now rocket science. The round earth conspiracy is so thick that when they developed the math, those coniving bastards worked in errors that we have to work back out. They call it the ‘Coriolis effect’ but that can’t occur with flat earth. They’re just trying to mess with us.
However, I’ve never had a good answer for why the sun moves up and over throughout the day vs. just straight across.
It’s a fun one to play/converse with and have them explain their logic rather than just say everything that’s been put out by NASA/anyone else who claims to have been in space is a lie. The firmament is another fun one.
Settled science is a nice and coward euphemism to keep-the-status-quo safe for the big, planetary grifters ...
ALWAYS follow the money-path, ending-up with humanity's worst vices: deception, greed, hatred.
Humans MUST face the simple fact, that they may be just one of the evolutionary paths with a dead end and should broadly embrace the fact that their very existence is inevitably a very fragile one ...
This discussion is so indicative in the field of medicine and healthcare in general. The technology of "medicine" is exploding in the corporate industrial pharmaceutical world. On the other hand there's an ever growing demand for trained medical professionals. I view this conundrum as an industry that provides for more technical services versus training for more professional services. All in the pursuit of profit versus patient care.
Excellent essay. There are many unknown unknowns yet to be discovered. I concur that “settled” science is a myth. There is only “good enough for now” science. Recognizing when it is no longer “good enough” is the hard part. Good science needs a healthy dose of skepticism. You should always know the limits and fragility of your models so they aren’t used to answer the wrong questions.
Settled science sits at the center of my inescapable LinkedIn controversy. I spent much of my career working in consumer products, a lot of that time focused on improving sustainability. Plastics remain among the most controversial materials, hitting both the settled and alarmist perspectives. There is a large contingent of individuals set on the naive, impractical idea of eliminating plastics, while there's a massive group of "defenders" set on maintaining the status quo.
The two sides talk past each other, and both are wrong in their single-minded perspective. Advancing technology needs to acknowledge that two things can be true simultaneously: plastics can be beneficial, yet also unsustainable. I see both sides, rather than yelling at each other across a chasm, actually standing on the same exact hill of progress, but looking in opposite directions. Settled science defenders are looking backward, claiming we've achieved advances that make today the most optimal solution ever discovered. True. Plastic alarmists look ahead, acknowledging that the current solution is not sustainable in the long term. Also true. They stand back-to-back, sharing common ground without recognizing that both can be correct.
As a scientist, I find the defenders of the plastic status quo more bothersome.
The greater problem is when the Settled Science crowd rejects any attempts to disrupt the status quo, rightly pointing out that attempts to improve will inevitably be worse in some dimension in the short term, which is the case for every innovation ever. When we leave a local maximum, all directions lead downward, requiring exploration and development to find a better local maximum. While alarmists create different problems, the greater risk to society comes from those who wield science as a cudgel to prevent that exploration, acting as incentivized spokespersons in lab coats rather than adopting a true scientific mindset.
I will come back to this later today to see some defensive gasps of unscientific people. Lol
Okay, I'm guilty of using the phrase "the science is settled" but in my case, I think context matters a lot.
I spent most of the 1990s calibrating some of the Earth remote sensing satellites that measure global surface temperature. As I have regularly told people who are actually interested in listening: "the Earth's temperature is going up. That's almost impossible to debate looking at the satellite measurements alone. What's very debatable is why it's increasing and how much it will go up."
Unfortunately, a significant portion of my listeners were not actually interested in listening. As soon as they heard me talk about "climate change," they would start throwing their "facts" cherry picked from their favorite political TV channel or website at me in an attempt to browbeat me into conceding I was wrong. The argument that global warming couldn't be occurring because of the temperature on Uranus was a particularly memorable one. I haver at least one family member (an uncle) I have cut out of my life because he sent me pages and pages of half-assed arguments from political sites that all ignored *the measurements I was involved in making.* Well, if you think your political sites are more trustworthy than me, I don't need you around.
So, yeah, I've said, "the science is settled" in an attempt to end discussions with political axe grinders who aren't actually interested in the science. Guilty as charged.
The challenge is that a true scientific mindset can't exist when beliefs are ossified. Anyone engaged in the debate needs to become the "38 Special" of analytical thinking, having a perspective, but "holding on loosely." When conclusions come first, and data is selected to support and defend them, we're using the process backward. In such situations, I turn to Adam Grant's concept from Think Again, asking whether there's any data I could present that would cause you to change your perspective. If not, then there is no discussion to be had.
I like that approach. It doesn't mean be wishy washy, but you do need to check zealotry!
That hit on an argument I've had in that space as well. On the once side, nothing is changing, on the other, nothing is allowed to change. But earth is dynamic and history is repleate with dramatic temp and environment changes. The end of the last ice age, just 12k years ago was catastrophic with oceans rising 450 feet in decades.
Like I said, I think “why” the climate is changing is an open question. The fact that is “is” is pretty clear.
Besides the tendency to lock into the extremes you mention, the other one that drives me crazy is the tendency to lock into “solutions.” Many people argue about the problem because they don’t like the solution that’s on the table (like carbon caps) instead of looking at alternatives (like putting nuclear power back on the table).
I’ve been arguing for twenty-five years that, regardless of climate change, being less dependent on fossil fuels was a good idea. The Iran War is proving me right.
Exactly right, and based on this topic, I'm not sure if you've ever read this one from way back in the day, but it's my contextualization of the topic. I tease that I'm a Climate Change Advocate because I'm trying to have a conversation and not be shut down as a 'denier' merely because I get a level deeper than most. And to your point, my goal is to figure out how we adapt to it because the ideas they have to 'stop' climate change are horrific IMO.
https://www.polymathicbeing.com/p/the-climate-is-changing
I had not read that until just now. It's an interesting take, most of which I agree with (and the disagreements aren't worth a serious argument). The area we have most agreement on is that the major issue is that our current political system doesn't want the migration that climate change is likely to trigger.
For example, the climate change models show that my home state of Colorado is going to look more like New Mexico. That doesn't make it uninhabitable. It does mean that perhaps buying stock in ski resorts is a bad idea. It also means that some current cities that depend on the Colorado River are going to have to either shrink, adapt, or go thirsty (or go to war with each other).
What I'm most on the side of the climate advocates is simply that humans should probably pump less crap into the atmosphere. We're adding variables to a complex system we struggle to understand to begin with. Maybe... don't do that?
Agree. I'm all for conservation. Ironically, stopping climate change typically involves polluting the atmosphere with reflective materials. The hubris is not lost on me!
Cool premise for a series. Appreciated the read. It seems to me that those of us who work in and around the scientific enterprise, particularly in metascience, have a good grasp on these problems. What really interested me is connecting these insights to implementation frameworks that let us incentivize going around or through the Planck problem. It’s not just intellectual ossification, or going further like you do, the three factors. It’s also incumbency, org structure, investment (ideological or monetary) etc. looking forward to reading more.
Exactly right. The entire Keys to Innovation series mentioned in the article are different frameworks to help unlock innovation. There’s no ‘one way’ because, to your point, different organizations put different locks on innovation, but each key can be explored for where it works!
So much to read, so little time! I’ll check the rest out then. Cool stuff.
Sorry, one more, I just love this topic. When people used to tell me to Trust The Science! a few years ago, I liked to remind them of something Antonie van Leeuwenhoek used to say:
"Uh...hey there. I have a special machine I made that can see all the invisible monsters that live on your skin and even inside your body! They cause diseases, even though you can't see them. It's down in my basement; would you like to come over and have a look? Don't cost nuthin..."
And don't get me started on what happened to Ignaz Semmelweis! That's a cautionary tale for those who blindly trust the Fauci types. Most scientists I've met are actually pretty humble and open-minded; but that doesn't change the fact that the egotistical Machiavellians among them still tend to rise to the top of their org charts. The Fauci types just put more effort into politics than their peers care to.
Insatiable Curiosity and Humility are two traits all scientists should have. Faucci has neither.
It has also dawned on me in recent years that the false dichotomy between science and spiritual woo is a relatively recent invention in human history, no doubt driven by the long political rivalry between clergy Machiavellians and Fauci-style Machiavellians. Here’s a sample of woo from Max Planck hisself:
“I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.”
Christianity didn’t do itself any favors by creating a schism and viewing science as opposing. Had they embraced it without fear, it never would have become a false dichotomy.
Precisely. It’s worth asking why the Romans, who were not enthusiastic backers of the prophet of Christianity, decided to go full-tilt-boogie-orgasm on it shortly thereafter. The answer can be found in Mario Puzo’s last book, The Family. It was originally a patronage scheme, which explains why priests took a vow of celibacy. Aristocratic families would commit one or two of their scions to the church, including the son’s inheritance upon his death [which would go to his wife’s family if he had married]. But the church thus had to wait a few decades to collect the reward, which ensured a continuing relationship with the family. Back in the days when popes had the power of starting wars and arranging assassinations and diplomatic negotiations.
The only caveat with this sensible argument is that people yell about settled science for a variety of reasons, none of which they will ever admit, unless they are naturally the sort of mild-Aspies or low-on-agreeability-metric types who naturally found their way here of their own volition.
Your example of polio reminds me of a smarmy bumper sticker I saw that said "I don't have polio because I got vaccinated. Thanks, science!" I'm pretty sure the owner of that has never heard of the Cutter Incident; but it's not like that was even a one-off before they got the process perfect. A small percentage of rural Africans who get polio vax today get polio from it, because [as far as I can understand] of logistics: Where cold chains do not exist, cold injectables are not delivered, thus only the temperature tolerant oral vax is the only option. But that form involves a small risk of infection, similar to the original Cutter Incident. Some problems take decades or centuries to actually be settled.
As far as climate change, there are three major impediments to honest debate about solutions:
1. Scientists in the 20th century were afraid to publish papers that might offend the oil industry, because that was also the chemical industry, and they had a pretty cozy relationship with many branches of science and with grant funding. But nobody wants to admit that the polar opposite dynamic exists today with research funding. So it's very risky to question the narrative that has become the new gravy train. [Preaching to the choir here, obvs.]
2. Environmentalists are loath to acknowledge that nuclear has been humanity's best and safest option since its discovery. The very people who now moan and groan that WE shoulda started to deal with climate change 30-40 years ago don't wish to look in the mirror and recognize that the irrational fear engendered by the extremely unfortunate coincidence of Three Mile Island and the release of The China Syndrome [starring Hanoi Jane, to top it all off] spooked the boomers away from nuclear forever. And most of the Europeans, who somehow fail to notice that France has been selling them excess grid capacity for decades, with nary a Chernobyl to speak of.
3. Everyone really knows that there is an irreconcilable conflict between the short-term pressure of high-energy civilization and the long-term uncertainty about the consequences of failing to mitigate climate challenges. But they pretend not to know, hoping that politicians will engineer negative externalities into penalties which must be borne by the corporate villains who make all our nice stuff. Amazingly, it is always the voters who find themselves disadvantaged by attempts to shift the burden for their own consumption onto the moneyed classes. Ain't dat wicked pissa?
You nailed it. It doesn’t matter where the ‘settled’ comes from, it just clogs up the works of actually science.
Another righteous banger from the epicenter of epistemology! BTW, did you know that George Box akshully invented boxing? True fact. I'm not even gonna discuss what Klaus Fuchs invented...
[...it was the trigger for the atomic bomb, you dirty dawg!]
I’ve heard one doctor remark that an attending physician addressed the new medical school class at orientation “50% of the material you’ll learn is wrong or outdated by the time you learn it…the only problem is ‘we don’t know which 50%’” 🤣 albeit all too rare in this dogmatic era, I enjoyed the transparency and humility. Loved your point about science advancing one funeral at a time. If people don’t ask questions, we’re stuck. It is a difficult needle to thread since the world (or known) is constantly evolving. Thank you for pushing the envelope and challenging us to “think different”. 🤜
That’s a great quote from the doctor. And it’s true. Medical especially keeps moving very quickly. 20 years ago, Pain was a think to eliminate and that was ‘settled’ now we realize we addicted tens of millions of people to opiods. Thankfully, we, largely learn and improve.
I’m guessing you liked that latest piece I sent you? :)
Yes! Been swept up with work so haven’t had a chance to do more than read it.
I’m going to send this to my brother-in-law who believes in flat earth. Hoping it will enable him further… haha. Another great one brother
Oh, that’s funny! I worked in Artillery and now rocket science. The round earth conspiracy is so thick that when they developed the math, those coniving bastards worked in errors that we have to work back out. They call it the ‘Coriolis effect’ but that can’t occur with flat earth. They’re just trying to mess with us.
However, I’ve never had a good answer for why the sun moves up and over throughout the day vs. just straight across.
It’s a fun one to play/converse with and have them explain their logic rather than just say everything that’s been put out by NASA/anyone else who claims to have been in space is a lie. The firmament is another fun one.
Settled science is a nice and coward euphemism to keep-the-status-quo safe for the big, planetary grifters ...
ALWAYS follow the money-path, ending-up with humanity's worst vices: deception, greed, hatred.
Humans MUST face the simple fact, that they may be just one of the evolutionary paths with a dead end and should broadly embrace the fact that their very existence is inevitably a very fragile one ...
Carpe diem ...
Exactly.
Strong recommendation for Beginning of Infinity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beginning_of_Infinity
I think required reading for people who actually want to be scientists and not just see a PhD as the side road to the PMC.
I've added it to my list.
Right on :) you have to let him be hair-pullingly pedantic in the first chapter or two to set up some reallly great big ideas in chaps 3 or 4.
He was a major player in quantum computing, so he has the credibility.
And he also has zero F’ing patience for climate slop.
This discussion is so indicative in the field of medicine and healthcare in general. The technology of "medicine" is exploding in the corporate industrial pharmaceutical world. On the other hand there's an ever growing demand for trained medical professionals. I view this conundrum as an industry that provides for more technical services versus training for more professional services. All in the pursuit of profit versus patient care.
Great connection and I agree. The profit incentive from pharma is crazy and needs to be viewed with the highest skepticism and not #science.
Excellent essay. There are many unknown unknowns yet to be discovered. I concur that “settled” science is a myth. There is only “good enough for now” science. Recognizing when it is no longer “good enough” is the hard part. Good science needs a healthy dose of skepticism. You should always know the limits and fragility of your models so they aren’t used to answer the wrong questions.
Exactly right.
Settled science sits at the center of my inescapable LinkedIn controversy. I spent much of my career working in consumer products, a lot of that time focused on improving sustainability. Plastics remain among the most controversial materials, hitting both the settled and alarmist perspectives. There is a large contingent of individuals set on the naive, impractical idea of eliminating plastics, while there's a massive group of "defenders" set on maintaining the status quo.
The two sides talk past each other, and both are wrong in their single-minded perspective. Advancing technology needs to acknowledge that two things can be true simultaneously: plastics can be beneficial, yet also unsustainable. I see both sides, rather than yelling at each other across a chasm, actually standing on the same exact hill of progress, but looking in opposite directions. Settled science defenders are looking backward, claiming we've achieved advances that make today the most optimal solution ever discovered. True. Plastic alarmists look ahead, acknowledging that the current solution is not sustainable in the long term. Also true. They stand back-to-back, sharing common ground without recognizing that both can be correct.
As a scientist, I find the defenders of the plastic status quo more bothersome.
The greater problem is when the Settled Science crowd rejects any attempts to disrupt the status quo, rightly pointing out that attempts to improve will inevitably be worse in some dimension in the short term, which is the case for every innovation ever. When we leave a local maximum, all directions lead downward, requiring exploration and development to find a better local maximum. While alarmists create different problems, the greater risk to society comes from those who wield science as a cudgel to prevent that exploration, acting as incentivized spokespersons in lab coats rather than adopting a true scientific mindset.