Sunday, September 28, 2014

Emotional Hot Air

T.C. Chamberlin, American Geologist 
In 1899, T. C. Chamberlin proposed that the CO2 content of the atmosphere decreased during times of enhanced continental erosion, ultimately resulting in glacial epochs.*

It seems fitting that two years earlier, the same man wrote presciently about the pitfalls of "emotional science:"
Love was long since represented as blind, and what is true in the personal realm is measurably true in the intellectual realm. Important as the intellectual affections are as stimuli and as rewards, they are nervertheless dangerous factors, which menace the integrity of the intellectual processes. The moment one has offered an original explanation for a phenomenon which seems satisfactory, that moment affection for his intellectual child springs into existence; and as the explanation grows into a definite theory his parental affections cluster about his intellectual offspring and it grows more and more dear to him, so that, while he holds it seemingly tentative, it is still lovingly tentative, and not impartially tentative. So soon as this parental affection takes possession of the mind, there is the rapid passage to the adoption of theory. There is an unconscious selection and magnifying of the phenomenon that fall into harmony with theory and support it, and an unconscious neglect of those that fail of coincidence. The mind lingers with pleasure upon the facts that fall happily into the embrace of the theory, and feels a natural coldness toward those that seem refractory. Instinctively there is a special searching-out phenomenon that support it, for the mind is led by desires. 
There springs up, also, an unconscious pressing of the theory to make it fit the facts and a pressing of the facts to make them fit the theory. When these biasing tendencies set in, the mind rapidly degenerates into the partiality of paternalism. The search for facts, the observation of phenomena and their interpretation are all dominated by affection for a favored theory until it appears to its author or its advocate to have been overwhelmingly established. The theory then rapidly rises to the ruling position, and investigations, observation, and interpretation are controlled and directed by it. From unduly favored child, it readily becomes master, and leads its author whithersoever it will. The subsequent history of that mind in respect to that theme is but the progressive dominance of a ruling idea. 
Briefly summed up, the evolution is this: a premature explanation passes into tentative theory, then into an adopted theory, and then into ruling theory. 
~ T. C. Chamberlin, The Journal of Geology18975: 837-848.  Link 
________________
Geochemical evidence supporting T. C. Chamberlin's theory of glaciation.  A while back, I wrote a brief piece on calcium's role in sequestering CO2 and how the weathering of rocks releases more calcium: "This Is Calcium's Finest Hour."

6 comments:

Chip Ahoy said...

That's how you'd briefly sum it up?

I'd sum it up but not briefly. My version would put emphasis on scientists holding affection for their own theories as parents do for their own children. The degree of love is analogous.

Love is blind in the personal and measurably so in the intellectual realm.

This really was true of my parents. They loved us no matter what. And defended us.

The author developed the idea of preference bias. He discusses sticking with the theory in revision to fit the facts and fitting facts to fit the theory.

[at this point I looked up the word "fit" in 5 dictionaries and henceforth will sign it differently. The reason I looked is because my version is too much like "tea" and too much like "vote" and for now on whenever I hear or read the word "fit" I will conceptualize "mesh"]

So that the theories grow, as children grow.

In Synova's post yesterday about the teacher asking what people in the future might think about dummkopfs who reject climate science now, this same parental impulse is evident.

The teacher who poses the question isn't even taking ownership of the theory. It's somebody else's child she adopted as her own. And she is not there in the future she is asking about. She is imagining her imaginary human progeny (somebody's progeny) about the difficulty of her present day idea-progeny, their success a given. Hers is the "right side of history" conceit projected forward and stated post historically. Conceit cloaked as interrogative, screw declarative, that invites discussion and we're way past defending all that. Or she is unwilling. Or she is incapable. Or it simply offends her pop-science, her religion, her adopted idea-child.

The teacher is in the realm of imaginary future where her idea-child flourished. She is abiding in her imaginary utopia where her present day detractors are ridiculed.

This is one seriously twisted sister.

Psychology of the sort I grew up with and in which I am well versed. I have such a sister.

Her children shall inherit the future. She is there in the classroom to usher that in that glorious age. She's escaped the present with its wearisome haggling, she abides in the future where her adopted idea-children are safely ensconced, safe enough to look back at the past, to now, when we have these ridiculous fights about her sanctimonious ugly-ass mong irrational overly emotional children with dictatorial tendencies uninterested in real science.

To answer the question down there it stops being science when idea-children evoke the same parental love-response that real children do. When preference bias sets in to filter data that does not comport and linger and overemphasize and lovingly enjoy data that does. It stops being science when pop-science substitutes for real science and fills the spaces of human psychology and evokes emotional responses such as experienced with family, with politics, with religion.

Synova said...

Thanks, Chickelit. Yes, Synova likes that post. :)

I also enjoyed the linked post to your blog. Just by coincidence I just got back from a hike that involved a whole lot of Calcium Carbonate.

I put a couple pictures on my blog.

There's a great deal of limestone and calcite on top of the mountain here that is getting dissolved and transported and relithified below. The rocks look so organic it took me a little while to figure out what was going on.

Synova said...

There's a link to my blog on the sidebar here. :)

Eric the Fruit Bat said...

(1) Today I started up the audio disc lecture series on evolutionary psychology.

This is the second time for me.

I hope to pick up bits of information I missed the first time round and to remember more permanently the things I can manage to memorize at all.

(2) I'm even more hopeful than before. He starts off talking about the adaptive power of curiosity.

(3) That's a teaser on his part, of course. A flattering tease.

(4) Before I typed out this comment, I went to the webpage of my Internet Service Provider, Verizon.

There was a teaser, click bait, that read: "Obama Makes Surprising Concession About ISIS Terrorists."

(5) The promise of an emotional reward.

(6) If we're all so smart, why aren't we rich?

(7) I'd settle for happy, personally.

But that's just me.

chickelit said...

When it stops being Science...
...usher in the Silence...

Unknown said...

That's interesting about the Calcium.