Theories, Facts, and Climategate

By Daniel H. Fernald

While a professor in the United States, I subscribed to a faculty and staff email ``listserv" intended for free and open discussion of virtually any subject. One of the more prolific contributors was a prominent scientist with a well-deserved international reputation.

Despite his obvious brilliance, I was troubled by his dismissive and elitist attitude toward laymen on the list who asked him to explain some scientific claims he made. His standard response was that they should simply take his word for it, since he was an expert and they weren't.

I was still young and naive enough to be surprised that a scientist of worldwide renown should adopt such a flippant view of discussion and debate. It struck me as a kind of intellectual bullying.

I was also taken aback by this fellow's insistence on referring to certain theories as ``facts." My admittedly layman's understanding of scientific method went something like this: Observed data are ``facts." The first attempt to explain an observed fact or datum is called a ``hypothesis." A hypothesis that fails both to explain and predict observed facts is discarded. Conversely, when a hypothesis is repeatedly confirmed over a significant period of time, the hypothesis is elevated to the level of a ``theory."

Until my exchanges with this colleague, it never occurred to me that there was anything controversial about any of this. Indeed, I would have been every bit as surprised to meet a mechanic who did not believe in cars as I was to encounter this noted scientist who rejected the foundational assumptions of scientific method.

The gentleman claimed, for instance, that gravity was a fact, not a theory. This struck me as fundamentally wrongheaded, and still does. It is of course a ``fact" that unsupported objects fall. What explains this observable fact is the theory of gravity. Gravity is the theory; the falling object is the fact. The theory ``explains" the fact, but the theory never ``becomes" a fact.

Facts and theories are as different as apples and oranges (falling or otherwise). By failing to distinguish the two, the esteemed professor committed the logical fallacy of ``petitio principii" ― circular reasoning ― because he confused the thing to be explained (fact) with the manner of its explanation (theory).

I wondered at the time how such a universally acclaimed scholar in the sciences could make an error so elementary that even my freshmen logic students could see it. The recent ``Climategate" scandal is instructive in this regard.

I have detected the same lack of openness and intellectual rigor in the arrogance, stonewalling, name-calling, and apparently deliberate obfuscation that have characterized the response of some global warming/climate change supporters to the legitimate questions that have been raised by scientists and laymen alike. Even those sympathetic to the claims of climate change scientists are ridiculed for asking honest questions. Such ``Climate Deniers" are implicitly compared to the unbalanced and ignorant few who claim that the Holocaust never happened, i.e. ``Holocaust Deniers." Wikipedia even has an entry on ``Denialism" (which has my vote for the silliest-sounding ad hominem attack ever).

The root of the problem is the same conflation of facts and theories in which my former colleague engaged. The climate is constantly changing. That is a fact. The notion that climate change is caused by human activities is a theory that seeks to explain the fact. By calling the theory a ``fact," climate change scientists have effectively foreclosed the possibility of further discussion. After all, only a fool argues about facts, right? This dishonest sleight of hand is intended to silence critics by shaming them, rather than answering critics by rebutting their objections rationally.

As a rhetorician, logician, and defender of classical liberal education, I am relieved that the trick is no longer working. The poisoning of public discourse via the demonizing of dissidents is deeply disturbing, as it undermines the requirements of both civil society and sound science.

A person who engages in needless and unjustified personal attacks won't last long at any social gathering; his presence is poisonous, and he is rightly shown the door.

Similarly, scientific method requires that facts be regarded and considered impartially. There is no place in genuine science for attacks on persons. Consequently, it is hard to call anything ``science" that defends itself by smearing those who ask honest, informed questions in a respectful manner.

Those who wish to persuade others of the truth of their beliefs must do so by focusing on the facts, not the personalities involved. It is the mark of a charlatan to make his case via condescension, abuse, and coercion ― rather than logic, reason, and respect. This is a lesson that many prominent climate scientists are only now learning, the hard way.

The writer is an associate professor at Hankuk University of Foreign Studies. He may be reached at professordhf@hotmail.com.