The Blip on the Screen
The art and science of panic
POSTED ON 25 FEB 23
BY JOHN RIDGWAYIN UNCATEGORIZED
For the most part, the argument against climate change sceptics fails to aspire to anything greater than insult and contempt. However, every now and then, the debate takes on a more nuanced form of condescension, since it revolves around whether or not the average sceptic can tell the difference between science and what scientists get up to in their free time. Such debate often gets dressed up using philosophical talking points such as the difference between normal and Post-Normal Science (PNS). Sceptics cite climate science as a classic case of PNS and their critics usually respond by deriding the very concept. Lengthy and often tedious discussions follow, peppered with references to the likes of Kuhn, Popper, Funtowicz and Ravetz. It’s a recipe for unresolvable dispute and, quite frankly, it leaves me cold.
So, today I want to steer clear of the philosophy of science and, instead, present a distinction that I feel is far more to the point. It really doesn’t matter whether or not one sees a difference between a normal and post-normal version of science, all one really needs to see is that the climate change issue is not actually about science and a search for the truth. It’s about decision-making under uncertainty and the search for a rational decision. As such, the relevant distinction is the one existing between hypothesis testing, Signal Detection Theory (SDT) and decision theory.
Searching for truth
I won’t dwell too long on hypothesis testing because I suspect most readers will already be familiar with the concept. However, the following points need emphasising.
Hypothesis testing seeks to ascertain the statistical significance of the data, and for that purpose a so-called p-value is determined and compared against an agreed threshold. Here is a classic representation of the hypothesis testing problem:
https://cliscep.com/2023/02/25/the-blip-on-the-screen/
