Academic Thuggery

I am following the debate around the East Anglia University climate data with interest not so much because of the topic, though it is certainly a critical issue, but because of how academics often operate. In short, their methodology resembles nothing so much as that of the medieval church. Those who disagree with them are not in error. They are evil. And they are not to be debated with. They are to be silenced and if possible destroyed, though we no longer burn them at the stake; we deny them tenure (that great engine of non-conformity) or refuse to publish their work in reputable journals.

As the great philosopher of science, Karl Popper, tirelessly argued, science is never settled. We must always be prepared to modify or even discard our most cherished theories if they are found wanting. If climate change resulting from human activity is a problem, and I believe that it is, then good science will not only support this but will point the way to solutions. Those who would preclude all debate, however, leave even well informed non-scientists wondering what is being deliberately obscured or overlooked.

Popper's great protagonist, Thomas Kuhn, argued that science and scientists protect and defend existing theories often by bending data to fit or by excluding those who would question. What Kuhn never seemed to realize and what Popper so strenuously argued is that this is not science but politics, and where this occurs we have a duty to be skeptical.