Science dogmatism in the face of "skeptics" wielding false logic

This wasn't meant to be a long entry, but it just sort of turned out that way. I was hoping that I would be able to shed some light on some points about why scientists are generally peeved about today's "skeptics", and why scientists don't worry about trying to cover up or hide gaps in scientific knowledge (like they are sometimes accused of doing). I have tried to keep the discussion (and examples) limited to the area of climate change - although similar things happen in many other "politicized" areas of science - to keep the frame of the argument consistent. I know it's long, and there are several links to articles, science blogs, and YouTube clips, but I hope it will clarify some things that aren't really so obvious, unless you are in the thick of it.

Starts:

Much of the sentiment of "verbal feeding on the soft flesh of climate change 'skeptic' articles" comes from not the quantity of skepticism, but the quality of it (the same is true in the case of evolution, stem cells, and any other politically/socially hot science topic). Many scientists are not true dogmatists, but have taken that stance with people who are not experts in their field, mostly due to the constant rhetorical attacks that are mounted on them by so-called skeptics. What started as a reasoned two-way conversation among scientists about said skepticism moved inexorably to hostility and a pseudo-dogmatic stance that many scientists feel is the only consistent way of diverting the rhetorical (read: non-evidence-based) skepticism.

Papers like those from OISM rehash old canards that have been refuted several times in the scientific literature (and some of these refutations have been multiply tested as well). Against these sorts of papers, scientists take a morbid relish of tearing it to shreds, possibly due to the ease of being able to do, or the catharsis they get from being able to whale away at a paper they (being some sub-group of scientists) feel encapsulates the sort of attacks against their profession that they feel are constantly being made. It is unlikely - based on previous experience with such "skeptical" authors or groups - to get a reasoned response to have a two-way conversation. Certain groups (like OISM, the Heritage Foundation, and others) have been shown to receive private funds for the sole purpose of casting doubt on scientific claims, without actually "proving" anything of their own (playing off a false-dichotomy fallacy); these groups tend not to seek "truth" or "understanding", but are set up to sow doubt (sometimes by using out-and-out lies). The annoying thing for the attacked scientists is that they are the ones the ones asked to try and prove the "skeptic" point wrong, as opposed to the skeptic proving that he is right (the burden of proof fallacy).

One of the biggest problems comes with the word "skeptic." Scientists, by their training, are expected to be skeptical. They are in the business of hypothesis testing, and a dogmatic scientist will not a good scientist make (one of the first things I was taught at university was, "Never believe anything you see, hear, or read without checking its validity - including this statement"). One of the bases of Western science is the ability to question (forming an assumption and a counter assumption) and, through a logical process of testing the question, arrive at a conclusion that answers whether the assumption is a false one or not. True, it does require a certain level of "buying in" with the dominant scientific theory governing the nature of question being asked (you wouldn't, for example, use the Theory of Gravity to form a question pertaining to Game Theory), but an implicit part of the nature of hypothesis testing is to test the groundwork theory (i.e., if your result is something not predicted by theory, and you prove to yourself that it wasn't caused by user error, then you have just tested the theory). However, science tends to be a conservative business, because science is always concerned - due to the nature of only being able to prove a falsehood - of committing Type I and Type II errors. There cannot be multiple ways that physics operates, for example, and until a major flaw in the theories governing physics (and a proposed theory works to explain the flaw and everything else the previous theory explained), physics experiments will continue to build upon their highly tested (and quite robust) theories. This is the same for all other sciences. Sometimes this means that a field will continuously hit itself on the head with logical errors (such as with phlogiston theory and caloric theory) until such time as a workable theory comes about (theory of thermodynamics).

Counter to this concept of scientific skepticism is that of the modern-day, think-tank funded skeptic. These "skeptics" seem to decide on a desired outcome, and then find evidence (aka "cherry pick" their evidence) that seems to fit that desired outcome. These arguments are therefore based on a logical fallacy of begging the question (aka petitio principii), as opposed to trying to fit an ever-increasing amount of evidence into a single unified theory to explain everything (which is what science tends to do). Another tactic these "skeptics" employ is an argument by authority (argumentum ad verecundiam), where they state that "X number of scientists have serious reservations about Y Theory." When one goes and looks at this evidence, it is quite often (and unsurprising by now) that the numbers have been inflated by a variety of means (such as including people who aren't experts in the field, including experts in the field based on misconstrued statements he/she has made, including dead people, etc.). A final major tactic used by global warming skeptics is to use non-standard avenues of dissent. One of the most powerful global warming deniers was Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK), who is [in]famous for stating, that "much of the debate over global warming is predicated on fear, rather than science," is also [in]famous for stalling any forward action on global climate change in the senate when he was chairman of the Committee of the Environment and Public Works (which is the committee through which all environmental legislation must pass) by filling the docket with global warming deniers (who had no irrefutable evidence of a lack of global warming) and hostilely questioning scientists (and Al Gore) who were proponents of the theory of global warming (even when he wasn't the head of the committee). In addition to the road blocks created by Inhofe (who was listed as the worst environmental senator by the League of Conservation Voters and likes to use language hearkening back to the Nixonian "silent majority" vs. "elitist minority" false dichotomy, especially when talking about global warming) and other climate change legislation road-blockers, another avenue for attack that skeptics use is an appeal to the public (another form of an argument by authority, since such arguments are generally - although usually falsely - couched in terms that the public in general feels they are expert enough in judging; conflating "weather" with "climate" for example), instead of going through a rigorous scientific peer review prior to public press announcement.

And the "skepticism" does not have a small voice, but is helped along by private funds and - sometimes - governmental stalling (or punitive actions). Due to this rather daunting wall of false skepticism, it isn't surprising that climate scientists have become dogmatic in their responses to claims they have already refuted or people representing private interest groups that have a history of antagonistic relationships with the science of climate change (and sometimes the scientists themselves).

I could go into all the problems with the bases of the arguments made in favor of the "skeptics", but they are generally based on only disproving a facet of climate change science, and not the whole thing (Sen. Inhofe is still in that minority that continues to purport his view that the whole thing is a major hoax). Many try and make the argument that since they are able to show that there is not absolute certainty with topic X, then the entirety of climate change science is wrong (which is what the OISM paper tries to do on several fronts). This is like saying that since Newton's laws of motion do not explain E=mc^2, then Newtonian physics is wrong (with the added implication that the assumption of the Newtonian-physics denier is automatically correct - the false dichotomy). In fact, many scientists are working on filling in those gaps of knowledge, and many actively admit to finding gaps, for it is in these gaps that funding and research interest lie. The thing is, though, that scientists do not generally go to the popular press to report a gap in knowledge, since it is not really the proper forum in which to do so. These gaps get reported in the scientific journals, usually in the discussion or conclusion section of scientific papers. Sometimes, major discussions (via experimental results) take place because of these reported gaps, and when it is solved to the satisfaction of peer review scientists, then it gets reported publicly. Scientists are generally not worried (in the sense of losing legitimacy as a scientist) about gaps in knowledge. In fact, it isn't surprising to go to a science conference and have several people from different universities (who have never contacted each other) give presentations on effectively the same gap in knowledge, but taken from different starting points. In other words, scientists make their reputation on filling gaps, and if anything, they will endeavor to ensure that other scientists don't know that they are working on filling a gap, in case others fill it in faster.

If you want to read a generally good further discussion of this topic, I will refer you to: The Republican War on Science, or to the ScienceBlog The Intersection. Chris Mooney is a journalist (I believe) that does research on the topic of why it seems that the Republican party is hostile to the traditional process of science, and he often writes about the anti-science stance of government on his blog (which is co-written with Sheril Kirshenbaum - who writes about a different set of topics - so make sure to check out the "by" line at the bottom of each entry snippet). If you are going to get the book (either at the library or at the store), I recommend reading the paperback version, since Mooney expands and updates the topics from when the hardcover was published.