Case Study of Objectivity in Science: Climate Change

科学客观性案例研究：气候变化

• 批准号: 0646253
• 负责人: Elisabeth Lloyd
• 金额: $ 11.55万
• 依托单位: Indiana University
• 依托单位国家: 美国
• 项目类别: Standard Grant
• 财政年份: 2007
• 资助国家: 美国
• 起止时间: 2007-07-15 至 2008-06-30
• 项目状态: 已结题
• 来源: https://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/showAward?AWD_ID=0646253&HistoricalAwards=false
• 关键词: Case; Study; Objectivity; Science; Climate

IntroductionThe PI proposes to investigate two controversial cases of climate science, seeking to elaborate our understanding of how climate models are tested and confirmed. Her case studies will involve the 'hockey stick' models of proxy surface temperature change reconstructions, and the debate over troposphere warming. She will then examine the treatment of these controversies in the Fourth Assessment Report (2007) by the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), with the aid of several climate scientists, in order to ascertain to a first approximation the IPCC's accordance with the organization's very high standards of procedural objectivity, as set out in their Guidelines. Her key result will be an analysis of confirmation in climate modeling. She aims also to produce a fair analysis of the IPCC Report. She has also noted a potentially important philosophical difference between different parties in the debates in their notions of evidence and confirmation. She shall follow up this promising early lead with vigorous investigation, and write it up if it turns out to be playing a significant role in the debates.Intellectual MeritsFirst, very little has been written in the philosophical literature on either the principles or details involved in climate model testing and confirmation. She plans to start to fill this gap with her analysis of confirmation and testing of two sets of controversial models and data in climate modeling. Second, the prima facie resemblance between Helen Longino's paradigm of procedural objectivity and the procedures adopted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is very striking. The PI has already conducted one "field test" of Longino's views of how objectivity works in science (2005), and she expects that she can make further contributions to the philosophical literature on 'objectivity' with this new case study. She also anticipates to be able to make a judgment concerning whether the IPCC has met their very high standards of procedural objectivity in the two highly contested case studies she will be examining, and about which she shall publish results.Broader ImpactsWhether or not the public can trust the IPCC reports and the objectivity of their findings has potentially large consequences for international policy decisions taken in response to the established fact of global warming. The crux of these decisions concerns the degree of trust lent specifically to the IPCC conclusions that human causes are substantively responsible for the observed twentieth century warming trend and the predicted continuations of that trend through the twenty-first century and beyond. The PI's proposed contribution or insight into such discussions aims to aid the scientific, policy-making, and public communities' awareness of the extraordinary standards to which the IPCC holds itself accountable in its reports of the climate science. In addition, if there are, as it appears, paradigmatic differences in philosophical frameworks underlying some of the debates regarding acceptability of modeling and testing in crucial areas, this deserves open and direct discussion, rather than simplistic challenges from one side to another to utilize "the scientific method." Thus, her proposed study is designed to contribute to deeper understanding of climate science not only by philosophers of science, but also by scientists themselves, policymakers, and also the broader public. She plans to write at least one article on how climate models are tested and confirmed for the educated lay public.

国际气候研究所建议调查两个有争议的气候科学案例，试图阐明我们对气候模型是如何测试和确认的理解。她的案例研究将涉及替代表面温度变化重建的“曲棍球棒”模型，以及关于对流层变暖的辩论。然后，她将在几位气候科学家的帮助下，在政府间气候变化专门委员会(IPCC)的第四次评估报告(2007年)中审查对这些争议的处理，以便初步确定IPCC是否符合其指南中规定的该组织对程序客观性的极高标准。她的关键结果将是气候模型中的确认性分析。她还打算对IPCC的报告进行公平的分析。她还注意到，在辩论中，不同当事方在证据和确认概念方面可能存在重要的哲学差异。她将对这一有希望的早期线索进行积极的调查，如果它被证明在辩论中发挥了重要作用，她将写下它。智慧的价值首先，关于气候模型测试和确认所涉及的原理或细节的哲学文献中写得很少。她计划通过分析气候模型中两套有争议的模型和数据的确认和测试来填补这一空白。第二，海伦·朗吉诺的程序客观性范例与政府间气候变化专门委员会通过的程序之间的表面相似之处令人震惊。PI已经对Longino关于客观性如何在科学中发挥作用的观点进行了一次“实地测试”(2005)，她希望通过这个新的案例研究，她可以为关于‘客观性’的哲学文献做出进一步的贡献。她还预计能够在她将审查的两个极具争议性的案例研究中就IPCC是否达到了他们非常高的程序客观性标准做出判断，并将公布结果。兄弟影响公众能否信任IPCC的报告及其调查结果的客观性可能会对为应对全球变暖这一既定事实而做出的国际政策决策产生重大影响。这些决定的核心是对气专委的结论给予的信任程度，即人为因素对观察到的二十世纪的变暖趋势负有实质性责任，并预测这一趋势将持续到二十一世纪及以后。PI对此类讨论提出的贡献或见解旨在帮助科学界、政策制定者和公众认识到IPCC在其气候科学报告中对自己负责的非凡标准。此外，如果在关键领域关于建模和测试的可接受性的一些辩论背后存在哲学框架中的典型差异，那么这就应该进行公开和直接的讨论，而不是从一方到另一方利用“科学方法”的简单化挑战。因此，她提出的研究旨在不仅有助于科学哲学家，而且也有助于科学家本身、政策制定者和更广泛的公众加深对气候科学的理解。她计划写至少一篇关于气候模型如何为受过教育的非专业公众进行测试和确认的文章。