...] While it is tempting for lefties like Margaret Simons and the LP crew to engage in some schadenfreude, and they’re probably entitled to their fun [...

...] any line of argument as long as it fits in with their particular paradigm or ideology.  Simons puts it like this: The sting of this hoax as I understand it is to establish that despite its attacks on post-modern [...

...] main shareholders are News Ltd and Fairfax. As Crikey’s Margaret Simons revealed less than a fortnight ago, the hoax is not the first one to hit Australian media this year. Quadrant [...

...] a comment » The story of the hoaxing of Quadrant magazine, which was broken by Crikey’s Margaret Simons, may have been embarrassing for the publication, but it’s been great for sales. Newsagents [...

...] and The Age newspapers without explicit condemnation and incredible that online news service Crikey has actually promoted the hoax as a public [...

...] Simons’ blog is interesting. On Tuesday Simons was boasting, “I had the lead story in Crikey today … Depending on how long the silly season is this [...

However the distinction you suggest between an (acceptable) hoax and an (evil) fraud seems a bit arbitrary, as ‘Sharon’ would surely not have bothered trying to make a mockery of Windschuttle via a ‘hoax’ unless ’she’ thought that ’she’ would gain some sort of personal benefit by doing so.

Moreover the biggest sting is that ‘Sharon’ (whether through a scientific hoax or a scientific fraud) has illustrated the very real philosophical problems which relate to post-modern theory and the credibility of science which, as I understand it, Windshuttle has been trying to highlight. ‘She’ has simply provided further evidence of a critical problem, which is presumably not at all what ’she’ intended to do.

The Credibility of Science

My earlier email regarding your Crikey article (which is reproduced below) referred to the damage scientific fraud does to the credibility of science – and I can’t see that scientific ‘hoaxes’ are less damaging.

Science is important to our ability to cope with humanity’s current challenges – through providing evidence-based understanding of the natural world that is critical (for example) in developing technologies that might provide alternative energy sources or prevent epidemics caused by antibiotic resistant bacteria.

However the process of science is imperfect. One of the failings long recognised in the philosophy of science is the ‘theory dependence of observations’ – in other words people usually see only what conforms with their preconceptions. ‘Sharon’ has provided a practical illustration of this through a hoax that trivialized the problem of preconceptions presumably without recognising that it has real-world importance. An example of its importance is that anthropogenic preconceptions have apparently dominated the IPCC in seeking to explain climate change – and thus left a dangerous uncertainty about whether current political proposals regarding greenhouse gas emissions are a ’storm in a teacup’ or a grossly inadequate reaction to pending disaster.

The inability of human beings to see past their preconceptions is not the only structural difficulty in the progress of science (eg see others mentioned in ‘Competing Civilizations’).

The Politicisation of Knowledge

Furthermore it is not only in science’s attempt to understand the world that people have trouble with knowledge. Limits to rationality are recognised: in management theories; by economists in justifying the creation of a market economy; and by students of public administration observing the counter-intuitive responses of complex social systems to ‘rational’ public policy. Moreover some knowledge is simply arbitrary (eg whether it is correct to drive on the left or right hand side of the road). And though faith in knowledge has been critical to the organisation and success of Western societies (through trusting individual rationality), quite different assumptions have prevailed in societies that lack the West’s classical Greek heritage (eg in East Asia).

Given the limitations of human knowledge, some have ‘thrown the baby out with the bathwater’ and declared, in effect, that all knowledge is arbitrary – a product of social circumstances and what political elites perceive to be advantageous to themselves. Such ‘post-modern’ assumptions, which Windshuttle has apparently been seeking to criticise and ‘Sharon’ was apparently trying to justify by showing that Windschuttle could be fooled by ‘make-believe’ knowledge, have very damaging consequences.

Examples of post-modern-sourced damage to societies like Australia’s are suggested in Competing Civilizations. These include: devaluation and erosion of the practical knowledge and experience required for effective government; eroding the foundations of individual liberty – namely the confidence that authorities have had in the socially-constructive behaviour of individuals; and undermining the notion of public truth which is critical to meaningful political debate – and thus to democracy.

‘Make-believe’ advanced knowledge is now not only being used in Australia to fool Keith Windschuttle. It is being used by populists to fool community opinion-leaders as the basis for gaining political power (eg see An Alternative to Market Fundamentalism?) in much the same way that highly-educated non-democratic elites have traditionally maintained control in East Asia.

As noted above, ‘Sharon’ has merely illustrated and trivialized a problem that requires much more serious attention.

I have no objection if you wish to reproduce the above on your blog.

Regards

John Craig

Centre for Policy and Development Systems
CPDS supports leaders developing enterprise, economic, community and governance systems

About chimera research legislation in the UK circa 2006:
http://www.innovations-report.com/html/reports/life_sciences/report-68747.html
and
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmsctech/uc1308-i/uc130802.htm

Legislation in the US 2005:

http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:S.659:
http://www.njrtl.org/core/newsletter_details.asp?ArticleID=810

and work being done right here in Australia:
http://www.biotechnologynews.net/storyview.asp?storyid=64647&sectionsource=s0&highlight=animal

(and these took a whole 2 minutes to find!)

Sorry I’m not being a good sport and laughing along with y’all, it just doesn’t seem that funny.

It is rather a pity to imply that there is virtue in dishonesty – as your recent Crikey article seemed to imply about an allegedly scientific article by one Sharon Gould.

Fraud in science seems to be a major problem, and to discredit what some see as a major hope for humanity’s future. Google ’scientific fraud’ and see. For example:

Global Trend: More Science, More Fraud – New York Times
Scientists Vow To Crack Down On Science Fraud
The Great Betrayal: Fraud in Science: Horace Freeland …
New rules proposed to catch science fraud – science-in-society …
Corrupted Science: Fraud, Ideology and Politics in Science: John …
Likewise, while con men may be heroes in movies like The Sting, in real life those who are caught are usually sent to jail. And very few people admire regimes that use deceptive propaganda to mislead their subjects. Telling the simple truth has been a traditional Western virtue (eg see Matthew 5:37).

I guess ‘Sharon Gould’ will be too embarrassed to apologize.

Regards

John Craig

Centre for Policy and Development Systems

CPDS supports leaders developing enterprise, economic, community and governance systems