Poetry Slam?

A friend and I have been having a little "poem war" through Facebook. We work with each other so we get to laugh and kid about it. But I've tried to up the ante - especially with my last little entry:

Children fear the thunder, but the power's in the bolt.
It's strength is not cacophony, but measured by the volt.
The little ones, pajama clad - it's thunder they're afraid of
to those distressed, let me divest;
Tis light that thunder's made of.

And so dear friend, let me contend
That rhyming is just thunder.
So let's do more, (though it's a chore)
and aim for works of wonder.
Lines erudite and full of might
in syntax rife with meaning;
these are the things our poems should bring
- like bolts of beauty gleaming.

We'll see if she'll take the challenge to go deeper.

Post-Modernity in Science?

Hackers recently distributed emails from climate research scientists, making them look like they are massaging the truth in favor of Global Warming (or the now popular super-unhelpful term 'climate change.') This has caused some interesting dialogue (or monologues) over the issue - and maybe raised some new ones?

I was pretty surprised to read an article by two guys on the BBC's site earlier this week.

Mike Hulme and Jerome Ravetz wrote an article, which seems to try to educate the general public in the way that science is done, perhaps to defend the emails which were leaked, and scientists roles in producing scientific discovery and progress.

I'm a little alarmed. It seems, science as I knew it, has succumbed to the amoeba of postmodernity. Here's an excerpt: (with British spelling)

How science has evolved

The understanding of science as a social activity has changed quite radically in the last 50 years.

The classic virtues of scientific objectivity, universality and disinterestedness can no longer be claimed to be automatically effective as the essential properties of scientific knowledge.

Instead, warranted knowledge - knowledge that is authoritative, reliable and guaranteed on the basis of how it has been acquired - has become more sought after than the ideal of some ultimately true and objective knowledge.

Warranted knowledge places great weight on ensuring that the authenticating roles of socially-agreed norms and practices in science are adequately fulfilled - what in other fields is called quality assurance.

And science earns its status in society from strict adherence to such norms.

For climate change, this may mean the adequate operation of professional peer review, the sharing of empirical data, the open acknowledgement of errors, and openness about one's funders.

Crucially, the idea of warranted knowledge also recognises that these internal norms and practices will change over time in response to external changes in political culture, science funding and communication technologies.

YOINK! Catch the bolded parts? (my bolding) The language is thick and heavy, but please note that the gist of this is that the new trend in science has begun to delineate between 'excellence' of science and objective empiricism.

Warranted knowledge - how you got to your conclusions (peer reviewed, sharing of data, open funding sources) has norms that will change due to politics, funding and the way it's communicated.

Am I reading this wrong? Do you think this is just about science's interface with society and society's understanding, or is this about how science is done?

I originally stuck this on facebook (forgot to post here first) and a friend pointed out that Pharmaceutical Companies fund their own studies, and thus retain the ability to control what results get released, thereby assuring that they'll be able to promote the good and subdue the negative, or dangerous.

Is that what I want from science? Perhaps that's what I've been getting for a while?

If science abandons concepts of truth, empiricism and objectivity, it's just another rudder people (with or without scruples) will use to steer public opinion toward desired results. And won't we wind up in Pilate's shoes - unable to recognize truth. "Quid Est Veritas?" indeed.

Here's the full article.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8388485.stm