07 May 2012

Ignore the Gloss at Some Risk

Writing in the NYT yesterday, Jack Hitt discusses what Jerry Ravetz would call the "extended peer community" in the evaluation of knowledge claims. In the process Hitt produces a concise description of why blogging and other forms of commentary are vitally important:
These days, the comments section of any engaging article is almost as necessary a read as the piece itself — if you want to know how insider experts received the article and how those outsiders processed the news (and maybe to enjoy some nasty snark from the trolls).

Should this part of every contemporary article be curated and edited, almost like the piece itself? Should it have a name? Should it be formally linked to the original article or summarized at the top? By now, readers understand that the definitive “copy” of any article is no longer the one on paper but the online copy, precisely because it’s the version that’s been read and mauled and annotated by readers. (If a book isn’t read until it’s written in — as I was always told — then maybe an article is not published until it’s been commented upon.) Writers know this already. The print edition of any article is little more than a trophy version, the equivalent of a diploma or certificate of merit — suitable for framing, not much else.

We call the fallout to any article the “comments,” but since they are often filled with solid arguments, smart corrections and new facts, the thing needs a nobler name. Maybe “gloss.” In the Middle Ages, students often wrote notes in the margins of well-regarded manuscripts. These glosses, along with other forms of marginalia, took on a life of their own, becoming their own form of knowledge, as important as, say, midrash is to Jewish scriptures. The best glosses were compiled into, of course, glossaries and later published — serving as some of the very first dictionaries in Europe.
Hitt uses the case of the ivory billed woodpecker to explain that authoritative knowledge claims are often subject to scrutiny from those with knowledge and expertise outside the academy. The ivory billed woodpecker was thought to have been seen in a video in 2004 -- the first sighting in more than 50 years. The sighting was subsequently written up and published in Science. It turns out that the sighting was false, it was not an ivory billed woodpecker. The paper in Science however stands uncorrected.
This has resulted in a situation where the authoritative claims are widely known to be incorrect but not recognized as such.  Hitt writes:
Already, among scientists, there is pushback, fear that incorporating critiques outside of professional peer review will open the floodgates to cranks. Not necessarily. The popular rejection last year of the discovery of a microbe that can live on arsenic was mercifully swift precisely because it was executed by online outsiders. Not acknowledging that crowd-checking and amateur commentary have created a different world poses its own dangers.

Take the case of the ivory-bill. The article in Science has never been retracted. Cornell still stands by its video. The federal Fish and Wildlife Service acted as though the ivory-bill existed, and, in 2008, it asked for $27 million to support recovery efforts. Here’s the thing: The ivory-billed woodpecker is the Schrödinger’s cat of contemporary media — dead to those who’ve looked inside Tom Nelson’s blog but alive to the professionals who can’t bear to.

Some may fear that recognizing the commentary of every article will turn every subject into an endless postmodern discussion. But actually, the opposite is true. Recognizing the gloss allows us to pause in the seemingly unending back and forth of contemporary free speech and free inquiry to say, well, for now, this much is true — the ivory-bill still hasn’t been definitively seen since World War II, climate change is happening and caused by mankind, natural selection is the best description of nature’s creative force. Et cetera.

It seems that the greatest challenge associated with blogging and other forms of "gloss" is not one of knowledge claims but of the accountability of authoritative institutions.
For instance, various claims made by the IPCC and US government as related to disasters and climate change are widely known to be false and Steve McIntyre has thoroughly documented many instances of questionable scientific practices in the so-called hockey stick literature. In both cases the relevant institutions have so far decided that it is easier to ignore the gloss than to deal with its consequences. But anyone who is paying attention can see what is going on. There is no ivory billed woodpecker.

Hitt explains that such false knowledge serves instrumental purposes, again citing the case of the ivory billed woodpecker:
The weirdest part of the ivory-bill’s resurrection is that if you look back through the past four decades, it turns out the bird has come back to life many times before. The ivory-bill seems to rise like a phoenix at times of environmental anxiety. And each time the sighting has been debunked, and then afterward some great section of wilderness has been declared protected and everyone feels better for a while.

After a 1966 disputed sighting in Texas, 84,550 acres became the Big Thicket National Preserve. When the ivory-bill was sighted/not sighted in a South Carolina swamp in 1971, the outcome was the creation of Congaree National Park. Alex Sanders, who as a member of South Carolina’s House of Representatives fought to preserve the land, told me that when people ask him where the ivory-bill is, he says, “I don’t know where he is now, but I know where he was when we needed him.”

Nice line. But you have to wonder: if we’d cinched our sense of reality with just a bit more reason instead of mythology, maybe we’d still be seeing the ivory-bill for real.
Ignoring the gloss may serve the interests of short-term expediency, but the longer-term consequences may not be so welcomed, especially within those bodies whose assertion of authority rests in knowledge claims.

18 comments:

  1. Excellent post. :-)

    ...although I believe you are quoting certain excerpts redundantly (the part about the 'Phoenix'). It is pretty telling how the previous stories of wood-pecker sightings leading to numerous enviro-positive effects.

    One of the issues continually exposed by McIntyre, but continually ignored by the mainline climate scientists is that just because the overall conclusions of earlier work (ie, unprecedented modern warming) are confirmed by more rigorous later studies, it doesn't excuse shoddier first attempts-- compounded by stonewalling or caterwalling.

    If someone publishes a picture of a frog and declares that it's 'demonstrative proof the Ivory-billed woodpecker exists' and only years later does one actually surface-- why is it somehow accurate to therefore maintain their original publication was accurate (or even 'further confirmed')?

    ReplyDelete
  2. 'Fake but accurate' is a common claim of folks of a certain political persuasion.

    re: 1) I'm curious what overall conclusions have proven correct after McIntyre has eviscerated the shoddy and fraudulent work. 'Unprecedented' modern warming certainly hasn't been proven. It hasn't even been alleged with any competence.

    ReplyDelete
  3. -1- Salamano

    The overall conclusions of earlier work have not been confirmed by more rigorous later studies. Go back and read McIntyre. All such confirmations depend on either the same flawed data sets, or different flawed data sets, as has been laid out in bloody detail by Steve. Please note that not a single paleo climate scientist has come to his blog to dispute him.

    ReplyDelete
  4. If a bird ceases to exist in the forest, but still shapes public policy, is it still extinct?

    ReplyDelete
  5. "The federal Fish and Wildlife Service acted as though the ivory-bill existed, and, in 2008, it asked for $27 million to support recovery efforts."

    The last part of that sentence explains alot about how research groups and government agengies operate today.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Isn't this a known metaphor because if the article had been about Climate Change and blogs it would just result in the usual shouting match?

    ReplyDelete
  7. I have never seen the Loch Ness monster but I know it exists. According to the Scottish Tourist Board, Scots are famed for their honesty, generosity and cheerfulness.

    ReplyDelete
  8. P.S.

    The film 'Braveheart' is based on incredibly detailed Hollywood computer models of 13th century Scottish history.


    Not many people know that.

    ReplyDelete
  9. What a great article! I nominate the 'Ivory-Billed Woodpecker" for the Political Metaphor Hall of Fame.
    Where can I buy a T-Shirt?

    ReplyDelete
  10. I want to buy a T-shirt too, it looks cool, the one "I want to believe" (I think of the X-files). Would be nice to wear when I lecture about environmental philosophy for my students.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Tee-shirts can be found here:

    http://www.magnificentfrigatebird.com/gifts/designs/ivory-billed-woodpecker-i-want-to-believe/

    ReplyDelete
  12. By the way, the article is incorrect in one respect. The Ivory Billed Woodpecker survived in Cuba until the 1980s. The Cuban birds are currently listed as a subspecies. I attribute the lack of attention given to the later Cuban extinction to the fact that the popular narrative would prefer to cast it as a result of greedy money grubbing American exploitation of the natural world, rather than the Glorious People's Revolution.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Ironically, the ability to comment on the original article at NYT has been curtailed.

    ReplyDelete
  14. "..The sighting was subsequently written up and published in Science. It turns out that the sighting was false, it was not an ivory billed woodpecker. The paper in Science however stands uncorrected."

    The sighting was not false, at least not a forgery as stated on blogs of e.g Tom Nelson's. There was discussion what the video is showing. At first it looked convincing, but with bird identification three rulses-of-thumb apply:
    1) does alle observed features fit bird A?
    2) does all observed features exclude bird B?
    3) are the circumstances enough to prove 1 and 2.
    Personally I think rule 3 is a no (the images were too blurry an too far away), and therefore the sightings are anecdotical.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Leaving aside the woodpecker controversy, despite its intrinsic interest, I strongly endorse Hitt's discussion of "extended peer review." I have learned a great deal not only from expert bloggers, but also from the comments posted by expert and non-expert alike. The range of opinions thus made available regarding a given topic often makes clear how complex and contentious the issue really is. Now in addition to whatever assessment I make of the original post, I have available a host of alternative views that often make me rethink my own position and that of the blogger. It is difficult to overestimate how important all this is for learning!

    ReplyDelete
  16. Science is very slow to correct theories and accept replacements e.g. only nuts believed in plate tectonics pre-1960's; Clovis people first peopled America's just recently disproved; the dinosaurs gradually went extinct; bacteria can't possibly cause ulcers; and so on. In many cases a scientist would have their career ruin if they challenge conventional wisdom.

    ReplyDelete
  17. To The Right Wing Professor –
    - 5 - Ask the Spotted Owls…

    - 13 – If it makes you feel any better, just put “spotted owls kmart” into your Intertubes search for accounts of all the Spotted Owl nests found in KMart signs out west. Then consider the cognitive dissonance faced by enviros who must wrestle with the notion of shopping at KMart to save the durn thangs.

    ReplyDelete