I have often criticized politicized science here at SHS, that is, people who promote their ideology or beliefs in the guise of objective science. But I have high regard for science as a field and scientists as professionals. That is why it is very disheartening that the entirely reasonable tsunami warning issued after the gargantuan earthquake in Chile is being criticized because the actual event was relatively small. From the story:
But the devastating tidal surge predicted after Chile’s magnitude 8.8-earthquake for areas far from the epicenter never materialized and by Sunday, authorities had lifted the warning after waves half the predicted size tickled the shores of Hawaii and tourists once again jammed beaches and restaurants. Scientists acknowledged they overstated the threat, but defended their actions, saying they took the proper steps and learned the lessons of the 2004 Indonesian tsunami that killed thousands of people who didn’t get enough warning. “It’s a key point to remember that we cannot end the warnings. Failure to warn is not an option for us,” said Dai Lin Wang, an oceanographer at the Pacific Tsunami Warning Center in Hawaii. “We cannot have a situation that we thought was no problem and then it’s devastating. That just cannot happen.”
Good grief. A Chilean earthquake caused a terrible tsunami in Hawaii about 50 years ago. Moreover, imagine if they hadn’t issued the warning and someone had been swept out to sea. Oh, how the politicians would have held hearings pounding their chests!
Yet politicians in Japan are apologizing for taking the threat seriously! From the story:
As the country that literally coined the term “tsunami,” Japan’s government responded aggressively Sunday to the threat that seemed to emerge after the massive weekend quake in Chile, ordering more than 600,000 people evacuated and cancelling services throughout the nation. After the country in fact was hit by waves considerably more modest than anticipated — a maximum of 1.2 meters vs. the three meters feared — red-faced officials Monday apologized for their response. While the levels of tsunami alerts had been downgraded over time, they had been kept on until Monday morning in some areas.
We see this a lot today in Western society (and yes, Japan is a westernized country). Are we really so spoiled that we expect perfect protection from harm, but cry foul when inconvenienced by a false alarm?
But good for the tsunami alert system. In contrast to global warming hysteria–which as I have said, isn’t the same thing at all as climate science–the tsunami alert, based on a best estimate projection of an immediate event, was not intended to skew policy, promote ideology, or further an anti human agenda. In fact, it was the exact opposite, an example of scientists doing their best to save lives at a particular moment. Evacuations are minor inconveniences compared to the potential devastation that these forces of nature can cause.
March 1st, 2010 | 5:02 pm
If the bar is set so high that there is never a false alarm, then we will surely miss dangerous events. There have to be occasional false alarms if we have an adequate warning system. The officials who issued the warnings might explain that, but they have no need to apologize.
March 1st, 2010 | 5:08 pm
These scientist should be criticized if they failed to analyze their data properly and made an error in logic, rather than an error from ignorance (not all ignorance is equal).
We simply can’t have scientists making significant errors. If this becomes acceptable, science will have no more intellectual rigor than business, law, policy, or religion. That’s unacceptable. Modern science has emerged as the superior philosophy, it needs to be held to the highest standards.
When will Pat Robertson be unmuzzled, BTW?
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
March 1st, 2010 at 5:56 pm
Of course, that’s not what happened. But your Roberston jibe is interesting. I would say he and Al Gore are flip sides of the same unhinged coin.
March 1st, 2010 | 6:26 pm
I agree with you Wesley that there shouldn’t be criticism of scientists in cases like this, but I think the reason they do is that the scientific community has set themselves up for it.
They, as a community, like to give the impression that they’re perfect, that their theories are impeccable and explain everything and generally when they say something is so, there should be no questioning.
If they were a bit more humble, I think people would be more forgiving when their models are lacking.
March 1st, 2010 | 7:21 pm
I agree, it isn’t what appears to have happened; I never made a statement of happening – that scientists actually were criticized. But they should be; we can’t have errors. Criticizing them doesn’t mean punishing them.
Al Gore and Pat Robertson are not flip sides of a crazy coin. One does not invoke a supernatural-interventionist entity, under the punishment of hell, in the absence of any data to beguile poor people into giving him money to purchase race horses and palatial mansions; then claim to have the ability to heal sick people, defy age through through the awesome power of protein shakes promoted on his non-profit outlets, and posses (divine) strength to legitimately leg press 2000 lbs. Plus, I don’t know that Al Gore has 1000s to 10^6s of followers that do almost exactly what he says (maybe he does, but I doubt it)
One appears to over-stretch as a strategy to push some needed policy for future sustainability, the other is plain old bat shallopy crazy and probably has some form of psychological delusion. Maybe Albert has voices in his head, too, but he doesn’t seem to manifest it to this most casual of observers.
March 1st, 2010 | 8:47 pm
Regardless of the inconvenience to those who moved inland or to higher ground due to the warnings, it is far better for the alert system to err on the side of issuing a warning than not. According to news reports, the worst damage to some Chilean coastal villages was not from the earthquake itself but from a tsunami that hit about an hour later. There were apparently no official warnings issued to those villages about the possibility of a tsunami.
In almost every part of the world there exist the possibility of certain types of dangerous weather or geological events. Part of the cost of preparing for or protecting yourself from these events is going through the close calls or false alarms. In my part of the world we have tornadoes, and tornado warnings cause inconvenience and doubt as you debate whether to go to a basement or secure location right away or just wait it out. But, several years ago we had a tornado which caused a lot of damage, but did not kill anyone, in large part due to the warnings and metrological reports.
March 1st, 2010 | 10:26 pm
Woe to us, and woe to our generation that you even need to make this point, Wesley. But, sadly, you do.
March 2nd, 2010 | 10:08 am
It’s hard to tell from the news report. It sort of sounds like the apology was not for the alert, but for keeping in on longer than the data indicated.
Even though Japan is westernized, any apology there may have different connotations than in the US.
And are we perhaps overly sensitized against apologies as a sign of weakness? Traditionally in Japan, apology is a sign of courtesy and manners. We often forget humility.
March 2nd, 2010 | 9:59 pm
the difference between this and the warming thing is that we already have a log of cause and effect. An 8.8 mag earthquake is empirical. The unknown is whether there were underwater landslides which (as I understand) displace much more area. Subduction is also another factor. These variables may or may not present a substantial tsunami. The obvious similarities of the tsunami and the GW warnings is that there is not enough understanding of the data(based on the lack of information for said events) to give a warning that is accurate. However, I will accept a tsunami warning over a global warming warning. And if it does not happen then my taxes will not be increased and I can still buy some gas to get to work so I can feed my family!
March 3rd, 2010 | 2:21 pm
It is correct, proper, and right to criticize scientists over their tsunami warning. Not because they were ‘warning people’, but rather, because their warning was incorrect.
Science, unlike religion, cannot continue to wallow in error and ignorance and must correct when astray. Science ought to demand the highest intellectual standards as this is what provides its strength.
It is refreshing to see scientists to this – and they continue to do this in all fields, including climate science. Imagine if religions paused to verify the accuracy of their bogus mythological claims.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jA-ZPc0x0tcKBLa2amPCCl1P09vgD9E6BA2G0
wils,
I share your sentiment. This ought to be the great struggle with global warming. How can we address the problem in a manner timely enough, yet not injure working families? If we can afford tax cuts for the rich, Wall Street bailouts, and countless military operations, surely we can afford some investment in our own people. Or, maybe we can’t afford any of it. Unfortunately, for many people the struggle is to still to realize the fact of global warming.
March 3rd, 2010 | 5:01 pm
The tsunami warning was incorrect, but clearly warranted. These instructive sayings describe the situation well:
“Hope for the best, plan for the worst.”
“Better to be safe than sorry.”
I do not think the scientists should be criticized for exercising caution. The warning was prudent even if scientists miscalculated the precise wave height and velocity. The fact that giant waves did not annihilate Hawaii is beside the point.
March 3rd, 2010 | 5:34 pm
David,
In regards to “science [emerging] as the superior philosophy,” I’m curious as to your thoughts about Tomas Kuhn on the nature of scientific revolutions? Also, it is perfectly true that science is a very wonderful thing. But does it then follow that science is “superior” to other forms of logical inquiry such as philosophy? I personally think that there is no sharp distinction between philosophy and science, but rather that they are both part of the same gradient in thought.
March 4th, 2010 | 2:10 pm
Franklin,
The warning was incorrect but indeed warranted; and the scientists need to be criticized. (notice I probably have a different definition of ‘criticized’ here than what most would accept)
Science is a type of philosophy. This type of philosophy has emerged as superior as it is the philosophy that, so far, has discovered the truths of Nature with the highest confidence. Depends what your goal is. If superiority is measured by answers to questions, science wins. If superiority is measured by psychological soothing, religion probably wins.
Kuhn is/was correct with paradigm shifts and what not. In some ways, religion may be viewed as man’s earliest attempts at science. Science has emerged a long way from that. As these claims were disproved, they have become mythology; yet people still cling to mythology as fact. As such, if people begin to think creationism/ID and astrology are science, well, science losses if that becomes the paradigm shift.
This would be a shame because science has some real discoveries to make. Applied science and medical science have some real, serious issues to find solutions to.
Anyways, the Republicans in S.D., for example, seem to think that astrology is valid science and there is such a thing as “thermological” evidence. I wonder if Sarah Palin helped them ‘draftify’ the ‘resolunation’:
http://legis.state.sd.us/sessions/2010/Bill.aspx?File=HCR1009P.htm
BTW, the flat-earth, anti-vaccer, HIV rejecting, creationist, global warming deniers missed a big one last month to politically capitalize on. I find this odd because they are usually fairly adroit at marketing to the masses, perhaps because it was in a referred, peer-reviewed science journal that they missed it:
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v3/n2/full/ngeo737.html
(notice it doesn’t demonstrate a lack of global warming)
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
March 4th, 2010 at 3:24 pm
See, there’s your problem, David. Science isn’t a philosophy. It is a method for obtaining and applying knowledge. But it can’t establish values, decide meaning, differentiate right from wrong, etc. Naked science is amoral.
There is a subjective belief system known as scientism. But that isn’t science.
March 7th, 2010 | 8:08 pm
“The warning was incorrect but indeed warranted; and the scientists need to be criticized. (notice I probably have a different definition of ‘criticized’ here than what most would accept)”
Maybe I missed something, but who is arguing that science should not be held to high standards, or that the warning system should not be accurate? All I am saying is that anger seems a silly response when a catastrophe fails to happen.
“Science is a type of philosophy. This type of philosophy has emerged as superior as it is the philosophy that, so far, has discovered the truths of Nature with the highest confidence.”
As Wesley points out above, “science is a method for obtaining and applying knowledge.” As an aside, I would add that the method is undergirded by philosophical presuppositions, one being the idea that our senses are reliable. I have no reason to doubt that principle, but I imagine it would be more difficult for a materialist to accept. What reason would a materialist have to believe his senses and thoughts were shaped by selection to uncover truth, especially when materialists somehow manage to believe that the mind itself is an illusion?
“Depends what your goal is. If superiority is measured by answers to questions, science wins.”
But which questions? It seems to be that science attempts to answer the more or less trivial “what,” where religions attempt to answer the all important (at least to me) “why.” Surely you have not meant to say that oxygen’s negative charge is its own reason for being so?
“If superiority is measured by psychological soothing, religion probably wins.”
True, Richard Dawkins is very soothed indeed.
“In some ways, religion may be viewed as man’s earliest attempts at science.”
How so? Science is concerned with discovering concrete facts, religion with the reason for the existence of facts and the minds that discover them.
“the flat-earth, anti-vaccer, HIV rejecting, creationist, global warming deniers”
And who would they be? Also, what is a “vaccer?”
As for the rest of it: I’m always up for a good Sarah Palin joke. There are indeed oodles left for science to discover. If the resolution really is referencing astrology in the fortune telling sense, I raise my eyebrow at South Dakota.
Take care.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact