A sociological model by which to orientate ethics, science and society

The BBC has published a report Safeguarding impartiality in the 21st century in which it sets out to ‘define a set of principles of impartiality in a forward-looking way’, and to ‘identify a list of broad implications for the BBC’. This makes mention of global warming.

"… the growth of inter-party agreement at Westminster and unofficial cross-party alliances – whether on the invasion of Iraq, the funding of higher education, the detention of terrorist suspects, or global warming – complicates the impartiality equation. There are many issues where to hear ‘both sides of the case’ is not enough: there are many more shades of opinion to consider. Indeed, the principal linkage of impartiality to ‘matters of party political or industrial controversy’ has a very dated feel to it: there are many other areas where controversy is now much fiercer" (page 34)

The relation of the science of global warming and the idea of impartiality, the latter at the very heart of public broadcasting has not only been vexing the BBC but commentators in other media outlets.

A lack of general knowledge in science is frequently bemoaned in the news. In this case, however, no-one appears to be pointing out that a lack of social scientific knowledge is hampering understanding and progress towards a more fruitful discussion about the role of the BBC (and others) in the debate about climate change.

Sociology offers us the following framework by which to orientate ethics, science and society (for a good introduction see Runciman 1999, The Social Animal).

1) A ‘Value-neutral explanation’ is an explanation of why the world is what it is that can be assessed as to its validity.
2) ‘Value judgements’ are evaluative statements as to whether the state of the world is a good or bad thing
3) The decision of what to explain -‘value relevant choices’ - is a function of the interests, values and circumstance of the commentator (journalist or otherwise).

The BBC clearly has to consider all 3 points as it goes about its business. It’s own reports and those of climate scientists must be assessed as to (1). Clearly the interests and values of the viewers, the corporation, and the members the BBC Trust etc., along with other factors such as the amount of resources available will feed into (3). The BBC has a set of values, as we all do (2).

In the storm of rhetoric and comment about impartiality, a key to clarity is not to deny having values, but to strive to be as clear as possible about what they are in articulating an explanation. For the sake of integrity, this should be done alongside a consideration of how value judgements and value relevant choices impact on the account offered.

Computers are never wrong?

Here's an interesting discussion that has taken place starting with the blog Real Climate (comment #193), which was then picked up by Dan Hughes on Prometheus, and then summarized and critiqued on Truth or Truthiness. The controversial statement is:

a computer model is nothing more than an embodiment of 200 years of independently tested pieces of the physical theory. If you're going do dismiss any result that requires a computer to help with the calculations, you're going to have to dismiss most of 20th/21st century science and technology.

The originator of this nonsense is Raymond T. Pierrehumbert, a lead author on the IPCC third assessment report, among other things. Margo's post on Truth or Truthiness picks up on the recently trendy discussion of overselling science that have reverberated through the blogosphere in the weeks since the American Geophysical Union annual meeting in December. She takes issue with the first half of the statement, but it is also worth pointing out, that, even if it were true, the second half of the statement is absolutely laughable.

Let's add a couple of critiques to what others have already pointed out.

1. Pierrehumbert's remark is in response to statements about IPCC third assessment findings. He suggests that they are not "viewpoints" as was asserted in the original comment, but instead the result of "a computer model." Well, no. Actually it's a whole bunch of computer models that don't always agree (thus the assertion that the results are more of a "viewpoint").

2. Even if this hypothetical "single computer model" existed and was absolutely correct in its representation of the causal mechanisms underlying atmospheric processes, we have no reason to accept its result as "right" in the sense Pierrehumbert is using. The result is only as "real" or "right" as the data (observations) that the model is based on. And these data do not necessarily have anything to do with "200 years of independently tested pieces of the physical theory."

3. And finally, Pierrehumbert seems to be invoking some mysterious additive property of facts, in which we can simply add a bunch of "facts" together, and what comes out the other end? More facts, of course!

It is this kind of foolishness that makes climate change advocates look less like scientists and more like fanatics.