Capitol Hill Blue Forums Science and Technology Health, Medicine & the healing Sciences doctrine of acceptable disingenuity

The notion that disingenuous responses from officials and scientists, are acceptable, in some circumstances, offers troubling implications.

When is dishonesty OK from those whom are trusted with issues important to the public?
When national security is involved ?
when promises of secrecy or anonymity have been made ?
When financial gain or loss is possible ?
A recent issue that arose, regarding disingenuous responses by climate scientists (reference: Eric Steig vs. the "blog scientists", O'Donnell et al ). This brings the subject in general.

How much of this goes on ? We are probably all aware of the untruths told to us by politicians...but how widespread is the practice ?
Are we too trusting of experts ?

We expect politicians to lie to us. But for some reason we believe them when they say things we like.

The president that promised, a new era in government transp[arency has delivered. All the little pack asses are falling into line toting the latest load of government bumpf. Climate, energy, military readiness, military expeditions, environment, security and finance issues are being mis-represented by Obama minions abetted by a sycophantic media.

America is in the throes of a crisis of disharmony far worse than experienced in the Civil War. Every day brings news of civil unrest and mob crime. Every day brings news of further insults to American citizens; putatively in order to "increase our security". Have you heard of VIPR ? You will, eventually.

All of this and far more are the (IMO planned) consequences of a pogrom of disinformation and the "Big Lie", being instituted by the Obama Administration. >Mech

I think the issue of "disingenuity" is a different between scientists and officials.

An official is in the public employ and would have some responsibility to convey truthful information. Of course what constitutes the "truth" is often comprised of interpretations of a selective range of facts... and so is open to significant latitude of judgment

The scientific method recognizes all sorts of bias can skew final results... and so is structured to try as best as possible to eliminate bias. Which is why there are things like double blind studies. IN addition, a research studie is usually submitted to peer review before publication so that the methodology can be examined and validated. In addition, thre are lots of competitive scientists out there who are doing their own independent research. And.... since people have some natural inclinations... a competitive scientist would often love to disprove research of another scientist and show why that other scientist got the incorrect result.

But, in all of that, there is still a separate area that is somewhat beyond explicit science.... that is to synthesize and combine various different studied and try to determine significance from this . This effort is again subject to distortion of pee-concived biases of various sorts.


From my own efforts to try to follow along on our discussion regarding climate science and it's significance....

It seems to me that there are some disagreements about certain things.... but broadly and in general, the people who have gone back and re-examined the data,,, trying to eliminate problems that were identified.... these people have by in large came back with very similar conclusions as the conclusions that some have represented as lies.

I specifically refer the the independent panel of experts that was set up by the senate I think to review all of this and re-review the conclusions and methodologies.

So, in the case where a new independent panel of experts has looked at all of this and reached similar conclusion.... I feel the scientific method has been adhered too.,,... IE peer review

But, what seems to be an unwarranted expectation is that science will produce answers that eliminate all controversy. There ongoing scientific controversy on an incredible range of issues. Andf it seems to me that the existence of such controversy does not intrinsically indicate venal corruption and bad faith on the part of anyone.

Hi Ardy !

Many scientists are working on the taxpayer dime. The climate scientists are often funded by public monies. FOI's are now flowing better, as it's being decided that the excuses for refusals given, were not supportable, ever.

True, but we do have guides. The legal system may arrive at a "truth", e.g. Did the fellow rob the bank or not ?

With the case of Steig vs. O'Donnell et al, it's not about interpretation - it's about statements and representations made which are not connected to the actual science. It was about if he was a referee on the O'Donnell paper, or not, and if he said "X" or "Y".



Some may call "lie" , but the question is not about what some may call it. Some instances were called fraud, even by top climate scientists in private, but in fact, "fraud" is a poor word choice, because it has specific legal meaning. If the specific legal meaning does not encompass what was done, the charge is a failure. However, there may be impropriety involved that is not fraud, and it gets swept away when the "fraud" claim is found not warranted.
The independent panels have been a farce, with undeclared interests in green industry, undeclared ties to the university, undeclared prior support for the university and the scientists, etc. etc etc. Not independent at all, in any way.

If you refer to the NAS panel, it is a mistake to judge only by if other related studies, non truly independent, done by close colleagues, came up with "similar" results.
The findings were that unsuitable methods were used, and what was not handled was the main problem; Mann's non-disclosure of adverse results of the statistical validation tests.

All that is difficult going, but with Steig we have pretty easy stuff to follow, it's just English sentences spoken and written.

I'm not really looking to get stuck in climate discussion, those items can be looked at in the appropriate folder.

Here I'll give an example from Steig vs O'Donnell et al: A claim is made, and the scientist answers, saying something like "That is ridiculous. It's baseless.", when in fact the claim was true.

I'm looking for more general input on disingenuity from people
who the public needs to trust, and under what circumstances are, say, "bold lies", or lie by omission, false representation, allowable ?

Ardy,

"Controversy" is the heart of good science. It motivates discussion, research and re-examination of known/accepted facts and methodology, if only to prove them at fault. >Mech

John Nielsen-Gammon writes about disingenuity after some of Steig's antics broke out:
He addresses only one item of the disingenuity involved in that tango, but this is the real "doctrine",showing, as opposed to opportunistic lying for "whatever reason"

As well, his notions seem to have a weakness; isn't it possible to just be silent, or to have a policy of never answering such questions...instead of being disingenuous ? Is the disingenuity really an unavoidable necessity ?

"no go": they want to find fault with it

As a case in point, lets consider the private security contractors in Iraq... are they government employees? Well, the money that pays them comes from the government, but they are not government employees.

I have a simple test to determine if someone is a public employee.... do they receive a payroll check from the government.
?????
Or did Oj kill his wife, or did DSK rape the hotel maid?, or did Al Capone ever commit murder?, or did Casey Anthony kill her daughter? It seems to me that the justice system has significant problems determining truths that are much more clear than issues related to climate change.
NY times I am not familiar with the allegations. But it does seem like there are two sides to the story... and that this dispute is on the far edges of the over all debate on climate change.

But consider any large debate composed of numerous people and organizations. It seems not unexpected that there will be cases where some of the great diversity of people will shade the truth, or even lie in some way. Is that discovery so VERY remarkable?


OK, here let me thought this right back at you in a slightly different form.

SOme time before you started participating in this forum, I started a thread on Geore Will.s comments on climate change.

OK, I grant you that Mr will is not a government employee.... but certainly... but he is certainly a widely respected media figure.... when he says something, people take it seriously... and, as far as I am concerned, that position of public trust carries with it responsibility. I can assure you that an enormously larger portion of the public are aware of and respect Mr Wills opinions than would be the case concerning the people and circumstances you have brought to light. In fact, although I follow the climate change debate to some degree.,. I had never heard of these people before you brought them up!

So.... on one side, you have people that few people have ever heard of debating issues that are inconsequential to 99% of the ordinary people.

On the other side, you have Mr. Will... who is very widely known and respected... and for many people, if Will says something is true, they more or less assume that he knows what he is talking about because he is a person of known integrity.

So on this thread that I am referring to, I disectred Will's article on climate change and showed that it was disingenuous, misunderstood, nonrepresentational... and frankly a bit of an embarrassment.

I have to say I was a little surprised by the general response.... Ah you know Mr Will is a great writer, and such a nice guy, has written lots of wonderful columns about baseball and such.... and and how very rude it is of Ardy to show that in this single circumstance Mr Will knows virtually nothing about what he is saying.

I would be happy to reprise the exercise for your benefit... in case you have some doubts.


But, lets assume that what I am saying for the moment is true... what responsibility do trusted public figures have to no misrepresent the truth? Because I can assure yhou the Mr Will had an enormously greater impact on this debate than the people that you are now calling to our attention. And frankly, the article that he published on this topic was shockingly shoddy. And really, only forgivable if you say that Mr Will is primarily a writer of warm fuzzy baseball narratives who should not be expected to be accurate in any discussion he presents about climate change.

'

Ardy, I would appreciate a link to you posting on Wills.