(living on the) Real-World reset.

hook062014a

Seven weeks have passed since the previous LOTRW post. For the world’s billions, life has gone on. LOTRW’s silence has prompted no notice, no public outcry. The sun has continued to rise in the east. Here in the United States, attention has instead been riveted on the presidential primaries, where the governing reality has been substantially different from the physical, social, and yes, spiritual realities imposed by the Earth, its atmosphere, and oceans. Nevertheless, it feels right to pick things back up. The pause has provided opportunity for reflection and renewal. World events continue to offer daily fodder for comment.

_________________________________________

An aside: LOTRW has been alive and active since August of 2010 – some 740 posts over that period of some 2000 days. That works out to a post every three days, on average, even including the seven-week hiatus.

_________________________________________

The governing truth seems to be something like this: When it comes down to Earth system realities versus human inclinations, the Earth system realities ultimately win any war. But in every battle until the last, those realities will be trumped (so to speak) by short-run political imperatives[1].

Intermittently though, and always sooner or later, politicians and publics return to the challenges posed by the limits to natural resources, the threats posed by natural hazards, and the vital but fragile nature of ecosystem services.

That prospect should strengthen your resolve and mine. The world’s peoples are counting on the small minority of us who make these matters our primary concern, who look to the temporal and global horizon for early signs of opportunity and developing societal risk, to do our jobs. The funding may not always be adequate (the world is in financially straitened circumstances if you haven’t noticed). We won’t always be listened to. And when we do get the world’s attention, it won’t usually shower us with thanks or approval. We are not immune to the dysfunction and frustrations of the society in which we’re embedded. (Truth be told, being humans ourselves we sometimes contribute to the larger malfunction.) But we still have to do our jobs. And our jobs matter.

Amid the fear and hope and aspiration and vexations of our lives we occasionally encounter moments of grace allowing us to experience some measure of satisfaction with our efforts. Not incidentally, for me, the experience is a daily sense of wonder that I get to work with all of you… and by extension to be part of a much larger community of equally special, dedicated people I have yet to know personally. Let’s keep it up.

Since we’re pressing the reset button, perhaps it’s appropriate to re-publish the very first LOTRW post, dated August 3, 2010. Given that you and I have trouble remembering bullet points from the conference talk we heard last week, or the plot of the book we finished in January, or the pastors’ sermon from two days ago, chances are good this will seem new. If you have time and inclination, ask yourself whether the overall focus of the blog remains (or ever was) salient, whether the blog has remained true to the early vision, whether the contributions have been positive or negative. You might go further and consider how it might be improved. For extra credit, you could share a comment one way or another along those lines. Please weigh in. If you do, I’ll be grateful. Maybe others would be as well.

With that, here’s the republished first post:

______________________________________

 “False facts are highly injurious to the progress of science, for they often endure long; but false views, if supported by some evidence, do little harm, for everyone takes a salutary pleasure in proving their falseness.”

Charles Darwin, The Origins of Man, Chapter 6

Darwin’s reflection introduces this blog for several reasons. First, the world has just celebrated the bicentennial of Darwin’s birth. He’s been on our minds. And in the process, we’ve been reminded that he was not just (stereotype alert!) a great scientist, but a complex, human figure, in many respects very much like you and me.

Second, and far more substantively, “the progress of science” is highly germane to our lives today, when science has shouldered a high-profile role in real-world affairs. We should care about the progress of science!

That hasn’t always been the case. Look to the past. For most of human experience – dating back a few hundred thousand years, give or take – science has been a mere sideline. The thought processes of scientists weren’t all that well publicized, and indeed weren’t all that rigorous.

Take the great physicians Hippocrates (ca. 460 BC – ca.370 BC) and Galen (ca 130 AD – ca 200 AD). Hippocrates saw disease as a product of environment, diet, and lifestyle (no germ theory there, but at least a germ of truth), while Galen supposed that the function of the heart was to heat the body (consistent with the cooling of bodies to room temperature after death but otherwise grossly misleading). The two of them, and others of ancient times, were developing the rudiments of “the scientific method” even as they tried to draw conclusions about the nature of the real world. Back then, and even up until the last century or so, science was largely privately supported. Science was the hobby of those rich enough to indulge, or those willing to live in poverty in order to “support their habit.” Darwin himself was apparently largely funded by his father, enjoying only intermittent support from other sources. His studies at Cambridge were aimed at preparing him to be an Anglican parson.

Private support had disadvantages, but one advantage it offered was that scientists of independent means were answerable largely to themselves alone, and were accordingly free to pursue their own interests, on their own schedule.

Increasingly, though, science (and its next-of-kin, technology) started to matter. Governments began funding research and development, first in an ad hoc manner, and then under a more formal policy framework. World War II is often cited as a milestone, although the United States and other nations certainly had prior policies toward science. But today, by any measure, science is big[1]. And because science is today pivotal in human affairs, it joins all those other salient things, and ideas, and ways of business; it becomes a subject for public debate and argument (as Darwin suggests). Today, science is contentious. Not just views but facts are in dispute. And scientists owe it to the public, who is footing the bill, to engage, and to favor certain topics over others, and to recognize that some research is rather urgent. We can’t remain aloof – or loaf along.

The third reason this quote leads off? Rather more personal. I first ran across this line back around 1970 when it introduced Palmen and Newton’s new book, Atmospheric Circulation Systems. Maybe Darwin’s observation didn’t change my life, but it has certainly sharpened my thought. Up to that time (and I already had earned my Ph.D. from the University of Chicago by then), I’d been inculcated with the idea that the greatest shame a scientist can bring on himself or herself is to be wrong, or mistaken, or errant, especially in print. Here was one of the greatest scientists who ever lived not exactly contradicting that idea, but at least making it more nuanced, loosening it up a bit.

Perhaps five years later, this notion was reinforced. I happened to be in the seminar room of NOAA’s Boulder research labs when Doug Lilly, one of the better scientists in our field, and today a member of the National Academy of Sciences, said, with a trademark grin, in the middle of a talk on his latest work, “…I’m not going to justify this next step, but I’m going to tell you what I did.”

!!! There I sat, still thinking everything a scientist ever could say in public or write in print had to be right, had to be unassailable – totally supported by both evidence and reason. But here was an intellect I greatly respected relaxing that constraint, saying that you could comingle fact and conjecture; you just had to label each for what it was. Doug was alerting us. On the one hand, he was saying: look, if you take this step at this point in the rationale, see what it allows you do. And at the same time he was saying listen up! What follows no longer has the same status or foundation as that which has come before. Here’s an opportunity for you to do your own thinking, your own research. Here’s a new problem to fret through! It was splendid, particularly when I realized everyone in the room thought the more of him for that – not less.

Of course by that time I was no longer doing science so much as managing or leading it. (Problem solved? In the cynical view of many bench scientists, and indeed many people of every profession and walk of life, bosses seem less troubled by distinctions between facts and views, matters of honesty and integrity, and so on. The reality as I experienced it for more than three decades is rather different. One of the greatest challenges managers and leaders face is that of distinguishing in their speech between facts and views, being clear on each, speaking truth to power…)

This quote has never left me over the years. I’ve repeated it hundreds of times to colleagues and friends as an introduction to whatever I would say next. It is both confession and encouragement.

What, then, is its connection to the blog?

Quite simply this…now that we’ve all had a decade of experience with blogs, we’ve seen that they can take a range of forms, but that at their best they provide a platform for putting forth views, as well as facts. They are also collaborative. Blogs and their embodied ideas create the opportunity for others to “take salutary pleasure in proving their falseness.” They’re better suited to incubating (often speculative) ideas than to archiving established truths.

So if you’ll read this blog from time to time, you will mostly find “views, supported by some evidence.” I’ll be trying my best to steer clear of false views, but I’ll admit at the outset that the views presented here, being views, are flawed, and can not just stand a little improvement, but cry out for it, and call for refinement, and on occasion outright rejection…these are the advances and contributions that only you can make, not just in any responses you may throw in here, though those are needed, but also in your broader work and discourse. On this blog, on these topics, it is more important to be stimulating than right.

Topics? Just what is the purview of this blog? To get a better feel, you might click on “About livingontherealworld.org.” The first few posts will also focus on purview and purpose. But in a few words, we human beings – all seven billion of us – have a destiny that is intertwined with that of the Earth itself, a planet (and its associated ocean, and atmosphere, and life). The real world is at one and the same time:

–         a resource,

–         a victim, and

–         a threat.

Given these realities, perhaps it would be to our advantage to think rather more, and rather more realistically, about this complicated and important relationship – and to be more deliberate in the way we translate thought into decision and action – as individuals, institutions, and nations.

This blog, and those of us who contribute to and read it, will explore these realities and their implications, and options for coping (which are providentially themselves very real, and accessible). Perhaps in this way we can help make a better (real) world, for ourselves and for those who follow.

___________________

[1] Jared Diamond’s 2005 book Collapse gives the flavor.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

17 Responses to (living on the) Real-World reset.

  1. Welcome back! Looking – and sounding – good!

  2. George Leopold says:

    LOTRW is precisely what a blog should be: thoughtful, reasoned, well-written, timely, informative. Bloggers, like conventional columnists and other observers of the human condition, must be committed, must do their homework. They mustn’t, as you, Bill, often remind us, “wing it!” It was my good fortune to contribute a few lines to LOTRW. I’m glad it’s back.

    • William Hooke says:

      Thanks, George… and prompts me to remind everyone that guest posts from all quarters are welcome.Bill

  3. Helen Wood says:

    Definitely still applicable. We need to keep the discussion going…now more than ever.
    Hugs. Helen

    • William Hooke says:

      Thanks, Helen!
      Just seeing your name always brings a smile to my face… hearing from you this way even better.
      Bill

  4. Judith Curry says:

    Bill, good to see LOTRW back in action. Presently, we seem to be in doldrums of weather/climate issues. We need to see some good reflective analysis!

  5. Bill Bua says:

    Dr. Hooke —

    Thanks for the reminder of what this blog (and all *good* blogs) should be about. I’ve only been an occasional reader with one or two comments, but believe you provide a good service for those of us engaged in this conversation (argument? war?) on climate change.

    This is the second time I’ve seen this Darwin quote in the last couple of weeks. Being one of those “older” guys, I don’t recall exactly where I saw it or the context, but it brings up a question, regardless. Some might think it’s a loaded question. Have you ever started a discussion on distinguishing between facts and views? To me it seems that it’s an important distinction, and not well understood by the general public.

    Thanks again for this forum!

    • William Hooke says:

      Thanks, Bill!

      The “Dr. Hooke” part makes me nervous. I only hear that from the University of Chicago when they’re asking for money from alumni.

      Your question is fantastic. Maybe it’ll start just such a discussion, which would be interesting. To keep the ball rolling…

      …partly because I’m getting older, and less secure in my own mind about “facts” that I was once so sure about, I have the sense that views greatly outnumber facts in ordinary conversation. If we were all more prone to see what we have to offer the world are views, not facts, we’d offer them in a spirit of humility which might make the following conversations go a lot better.

  6. Hi Bill
    This is the “HAVE YOU READ” guy.
    re: your comments on science. As you know in our work down here in Bayou land we pay a lot of attention to what is usually named TEK – traditional ecological knowledge.
    TEK is a complex science based on long years of shared experience. TEK is the ‘science’ of the majority world, as Esteva might say. TEK is often paired with SCI – science – read ‘western real science’ as in SCI/TEK. (note that TEK always comes second.) Most of the world has lived quality lives for thousands of years using TEK. My point is not that ‘western science’ has not contributed to quality life or is the root of our ecological crisis – which some argue. But that we need to pay greater attention to the science of the ancestors and majority world. And that the roots of their understand of human/world may be more productive for our common future. One example TEK folks down here say “the shrimp are GIVING.” that is very different talk than ‘shrimp as a resource talk’ and reflect a very different relation with creation
    Worth reading are—-
    Feyerabend (Feyerabend, Paul (1996, 2011). The Tyranny of Science. Cambridge; Polity Press) has some interesting critics science that are worth reading as does Husserl (Husserl, Edmund (1970). The Crisis of European Sciences and Transcendental Phenomenology. Evanston; Northwestern University Press)
    Esteva and Prakash (Esteva, Gustavo and Prakash, Madhu (2014), Grassroots Post-Modernism: Remaking the Soil of Cultures. London; Zed Books) are very important both for their insights and their hope.
    Smith (.Smith, Linda (2012). Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples. London: Zed) is a critical book
    As you know our educational backgrounds are as different as they could be – in all of my college and graduate work I have had only one ‘science’ course – at least it was physics. If I remember you were ‘light’ on the humanities. BUT WE MEET. (Buber says, by the way that “all real living is meeting”) We MEET – your blob helps us MEET. We need more meeting of people and places. KEEP meeting us.
    peace
    Dick
    enough is abundance

    Esteva, Gustavo and Prakash, Madhu (1998), Grassroots Post-Modernism: Remaking the Soil of Cultures. London; Zed Books.Romm, Joseph (2012). Language Intelligence: Lesson on Persuasion from Jesus, Shakespeare, Lincoln, and Lady Gaga. North Charleston; CreateSpace.

    • William Hooke says:

      🙂 Loved this, Dick. Thank you! The erudition is pretty amazing for someone who tries to downplay his scholarship. And the frame seems to dovetail nicely with the point Bill Bua was just making about facts versus views.

  7. Ed Gross says:

    Bill…welcome back . Your are still my reality check on all things worldly. Your perspective is brilliant. I will always remember our early times working together in the IDNDR and the slow but steady gains that have been made. Keep on truckin …

  8. Bill Romm has some VERY IMPORTANT things to say about ‘views’ – he would call them frames and frames DETERMINE to power of facts

    peace
    Dick
    enough is abundance

  9. Neil Stuart says:

    Bill,

    I routinely check this blog to see if you have any new posts. I always learn from you and I try to use everything I learned from this blog, the Summer Policy Colloquium and your book to shape my responses when my coworkers and colleagues ask for my perspectives on various issues. In terms of a sub forum on identifying views vs. facts, that to me could be quite a difficult task.

    What some may identify as facts are just perspectives to others because of sources of potential errors in data that are used to support these supposed “facts”, sources of error that could change the “facts” if new data or new interpretations of data supersedes older data. Some hold onto preconceived notions because they don’t want their beliefs to be challenged, even in the face of actual observations that oppose their preconceived notions.

    The bottom line is that your blog is very important and hopefully inspires increasing numbers of people to consciously contribute and help others to contribute to making the world a better place. Thankfully more in our profession are made aware of this blog when selections are published in the Bulletin of the AMS.

    Regards,

    Neil

  10. Donald Britton says:

    I certainly noticed that you had not posted recently and I’m happy to see you’re back. My colleagues and I strive to distinguish between facts and views. Those untrained in the scientific method, however, are not well-equipped to recognize such distinctions. As Neil alludes above, beliefs regularly trump facts and cognitive dissonance can be difficult to overcome, even for skilled scientists. Daniel Kahneman’s book “Thinking Fast and Slow,” provides an excellent overview of how significant is this problem. Thanks for such a great blog.

Leave a Reply to Judith Curry Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *