Evaporating Science At OSTP
Science division of White House office no longer staffed: report, The Hill
“While the science division had no staff members as of Friday, a White House official told CBS News that the science and technology office was still functioning with 35 staffers. Still, that compares to the more than 100 employees who worked in the office under Obama.”
How Jonathan Dimock Auditioned To Be NASA White House Liaison
“My preference in positions are as follows: Office of Science and Technology Policy – This topic is a natural fit for me. A lot of narratives can be driven or disproven with scientific evidence as long as there are no preconceived ideas walking into it. The mind sees what it wants to see and science is a theory and a means of communicating with other people in the same field, not a fact.”
This is much more insidious than simply objecting to scientific findings. And it is consistent with the “teach the controversy” approach, harnessing most people’s notions that there are “always two sides”.
But that is demonstrably untrue. We see it as well in news reports that, while reporting for instance that the US Congress simply stalled because Mr. Obama might get some credit, insisted on finding “the other side”. None exists.
And now comes the idea that ‘science is a theory’, a direct result of poor education in a country where education was once the High Priest.
Facts is facts, as they say.
It insidious, and part of the problem is that it is half-true. Science is about theories which can never be absolutely proved, and which are often replaced or modified as we learn more facts. It is also a means of communication between people working in the field. That ranges from things like explain a phenomenon based on forces and acceleration rather than conservation of energy and momentum, to using B in an equation, for the magnetic field, instead of H.
The problem is that science is all about an underlying reality, and the existence of such a reality is a fundamental principal of science. We can describe it in different ways, using different terms, and different conventions about what units to use or what letters to use in an equation. But those are all different ways of describing the same underlying reality.
Nor is dropping one theory for another a matter of proving the prior theory was wrong. It’s usually a matter of proving it was incomplete and shifting to a more complete one. Einstein’s special relativity didn’t really show that Newton was wrong. It shows that it’s off by an unmeasurably small amount if the speeds involved are small compared to the speed of light, and we needs something more general for really large speeds. In that respect, science is a process of expanding and improving our theories.
But, unfortunately, that means science is not fixed, absolute and written in stone. It means we do use different formalisms to describe the same phenomenon. So someone can come in and say it is all just a matter of opinion and his opinion is as good as anyone else’s. That’s bogus, unless his opinion can explain all the facts equally well. But it does give a rhetorically strong opening for someone who wants to replace facts with personal opinions and wishes.
The rigor of a science is measured by its ability to predict. Unfortunately this is a philosophical statement, and there is no field that has been so systematically destroyed in modern America as philosophy, which means the love of wisdom.
Different rules apply in law, politics, and business, where power is measured by one’s ability to convince others, and truth is whatever the authority decides.
OSTP without science? Of course it is irrational. But so many things are, today, that it seems perfectly normal.
Definitely. In science, going back to Galileo, there is a philosophical assumption that what we observe is true. Religiously minded people (a Pope, in Galileo’s case) can say God could have made things look different if He wanted to. Science rejects arguments of that sort, but some scientists (myself included) understand that this is a philosophical assumption, not an absolute fact.
But in practical matters, that assumption works. Laws of physics based on that assumption can, demonstrably, let us land astronauts land on the Moon and build nuclear bombs.
I also think there is some underlying reality in things like law, politics and business. I know someone who is very good at writing successful grant proposals. A colleague once said he could “sell a ketchup flavored ice cream cone to a nun in a white habit.” I wouldn’t be surprised if he could. But it still won’t taste good and it would stain the habit. No matter how convincing the sales pitch, some ideas just aren’t going to work.
>Religiously minded people (a Pope, in Galileo’s case)
It seems to me the conflict was many things The Church would say (or interpret) is The Truth. Along comes Galileo (and others) saying no, the earth is not the center of the universe. So if someone finds fault in what the church says, they may doubt other things and this is a threat to their power base like keeping people in line or they will be excommunicated.
Getting back to “providing equal time” to those in disagreement, it seems they let whoever screams really loud get equal time (actually they get more as we see science being reduced).
My understanding of the situation between Galileo and the Church is somewhat different. The Church, or at least a significant part of it, really didn’t care if the Earth moved around the Sun or the Sun around the Earth. Galileo, however, not only said the Earth orbited the Sun, but suggested ways that could explain certain, biblical miracles. That gets beyond physics and into theology, something the Church considered forbidden territory for laymen. Then, to make matters worse, Galileo wrote his supposedly balanced Dialogue. Where the character defending the geocentric theory was not only portrayed as an idiot, but also gave a lame expression of the Pope’s personal opinion. That, no matter what the observations are, God could have made it look that way regardless of how things actually are.
I’ve no doubt that Galileo was right, or that the Church was defending their power base. But it seems like Galileo almost went out of his was to threaten the Church’s core interests and to get people mad at him. (In an unrelated publication, he described the Dominican order as the Domini Canis, or God’s dogs. If I remember the lecture correctly, the Pope thought that was hilarious, but it didn’t exactly win Galileo many friends.)
I always thought it was about Copernican science and Aristotelian science. The Church and christian philosophy was tied to Aristotle and Gallieo was trying to ram Copernicas down their throat.
Galileo was almost certainly trying to ram an “you’re wrong” down the Church’s throat. But Jesuit priests like Clavius could have been convinced, and some may have privately supported the heliocentric theory. Galileo made it a major issue, by pushing the theory in a very “shove it down the throat” manner. When it comes to physics, or science in general, the Catholic Church has been pretty adaptable. But when a change in physics challenges their theology, or is presented in a “down your throat” manner, they really get their backs up.
Hasn’t the development of science been limited by the state of the art of our measuring devices? I get the impression that leading edge science pushes against the limits of our detection devices. Doesn’t good experimental technique involve a lot of hard work by the experimenters? Many of the blockbuster scientific discoveries are preceded by months of data analysis and cross checking to control for statistical artifacts in the data analysis. I wonder if science popularizers make science sound easier than it actually is?
Well, yes and yes.
Advancements in science usually come from new data, and often that means new and better instruments. It can also happen form new and better ways to analyze old data. (A friend got her PhD thesis on analysis of Apollo measurements; in 1972, computers weren’t up to the full job, so the initial results were a bit of a rough approximation.) Or new numerical models (made possible by better computers) which let us combine and really understand existing data.
And you are right to say this sort of work doesn’t get much attention. A fantastic, new image of Jupiter gets lots of coverage. The grunt work of analyzing it to get wind speeds and circulation just isn’t “sexy” enough to get the coverage it deserves.
Dunno. I would say that Dr. Porco is on the cusp of being famous 🙂
I usually try to avoid commenting on people (other than politicians) by name, but I can’t pass this up. It’s too good an example.
Dr. Porco is good at a number of things, but the grunt work of data analysis isn’t something she personally spends much time on. That’s largely done by a number of graduate students and post-docs. Their names are on all of the papers, but I doubt you’ve heard of any of them. That was my point: The detail work and the people who actually do it don’t get a whole lot of media coverage.
I think I heard about that. Was it from the Apollo seismic measurements?
“science is all about an underlying reality, and the existence of such a reality is a fundamental principal of science”
A lovely phrase.
*********************************
As to the “half-true” notion: this is another huge issue. Science marches forward, inexorably; but when a new explanation for observation is clearer and more consistent with previous explanations and observations, folks will say that scientists cannot make up their mind. Or always changing. Or not sure.
“Just wait, there will be something new”. I’ve heard that countless times.
And in fairness, how are unlettered folks to have confidence in scientific findings, particularly when they see contradicting results? You know – I know – the nature of scientific investigation. It’s a messy business for sure. It’s fits and starts.
Example: What should blood pressure be? When should women get breast Xray examinations? How often should I have colorectal exams? The data on these are all over the place. It’s no wonder that there is a lack of confidence.
And that’s just the easy stuff. Have a look at physics and cosmology for a really confusing bowl of spaghetti! Branes!
Science is NOT a theory, it is not a thing, it is not a noun. Science is a process used to test theories.
You may have misunderstood my comment.
A slight grammatical correction. You wrote, “[Science] is not a noun. Science is a process…” The second sentence uses “science” as the subject. That makes it a noun, in contradiction to the first sentence. A process can be a noun, even it is not a physical object.
It kind of amazes me that the same people who use their cell phones (including turn-by-turn navigational mapping) without thinking about it dismiss as “theoretical” the science that made their cell phones possible. If that science is “theory” what are you holding in your hand?
I fully intend on stealing this post . But I will give the source . 😉
Most everyone in this country confuse and do not understand the difference between technology and science. Technology is a thing, Science is a process. And until people start getting this concept correct they will be as ignorant as ever.
Amen
Unfortunately, science is generally taught as a thing. The existing theories and ideas are explained, memorized and repeated back (or used) in exams. If a student is lucky, that starts to change in high school, and generally does in college (but mainly for students majoring in sciences.) Most people get very little exposure to the process of science as opposed to the results. Worse, in many cases, the material is presented in an authoritarian, “this is the truth,” manned, which is actually contrary to the process.
Why wouldn’t that process be appropriate, at least through middle levels? I’m not qualified for instance to challenge Guth’s inflation but I want to know about it and how it’s explanatory.
When I finish my PhD in cosmology I’ll have a better response :-). As if.
That simply wasn’t my experience. From high school forward we were exposed to lecture and lab. Sure young students need to know about moles and such. But even as a non-science major the shifting nature of inquiry was always stressed.
Technology is better described as a history of the development of ‘things’, not as a thing. Science is a process which generates a fluid and hopefully cumulatively more accurate understanding of the workings of Nature (and make no mistake, each of these terms in such a brief definition are ‘loaded’ with complex meaning themselves).
This subject matter is so much deeper, so much more complex, and so much more important that this medium really can’t properly contain an adequate discussion of it. Some of the oversimplifications from history offered already highlight this.
Mr. Woodward hints at part of the reason why. If y’all haven’t read it, I suggest Stephen Jay Gould’s final book (or one of his final; he passed before the final editing work) The Hedgehog, the Fox, and the Magister’s Pox. It is a good launching point for delving into the matter and offers (as usual) thoughtful considerations.
https://www.amazon.com/Hedg…
I am probably in the minority, but as a taxpayer I am glad their are 65 less bureaucrats to support. In private industry using fewer folks to do a job, in this case just advise the president, is considered an increase in productivity and a goal to strive for. Only in the mindset of the swamp is it viewed as something bad 🙂
BTW – do you have any historical charts showing the number of staffers under different presidents so the number for President Obama could be put in context? i.e did President Obama have about as many as President Clinton or President Bush? or were there more or less under the Obama Administration?
The problem is not the number of scientists at the Office of Science and Technology Policy. The problem is that there are no scientists. As a result we can expect science policy to be based on political whim rather than factual data. The difficulty is that this misconstrues the very nature of science. The world is what it is, not what we might believe or wish it to be.
An across the board staffing cut would be a different matter, and I might agree with you about that. A shift in staffing from the “science” to the “technology” side of OSTP might also be reasonable, or at least defendable. But getting rid of everyone on the science side means OSTP is now OTP. Congress originally created OSTP after President Nixon dropped the position of a presidential science advisor. So I don’t think a deletion of the “science” part is something the President should do on his own hook, and it’s a bit more than a staffing and administrative efficiency issue.
My daughter marched in the Science Day demonstration in Chicago. She initially was going to carry a siign saying “I could be wrong” but decided few would understand the importance of the idea of critical thinking, so she switched to “Truth is discovered, not decided.”
I think your daughter made a good choice, but I like her original slogan. “I might be wrong, you might be wrong, let’s find out” would have been perfect. Except for the fact that it is too long to fit on a sign at a political demonstratin. Her final text lacks some of the intent, but makes the point in more suscenc manner.