Responding to Paul D. Hauck (updated 17feb16)

George Rebane

Scientism - the misuse of science-like arguments to prop up unfounded propositions, policies, and propaganda.

The 8feb16 Union published, as its lead op-ed piece, an Other Voices commentary – ‘An alternative alternate universe’ – by Mr Paul Douglas Hauck of Penn Valley.  In it Mr Hauck responds to my 16jan16 Other Voices commentary (Download OtherVoices_160113), and was preceded here in these pages.

Mr Hauck presented a very curious but polite and measured criticism of my ‘Swansong …’ piece. Unfortunately, in it he gave no “alternative” to the alternate universe from which I characterized Obama’s SOU speech in some detail.  Neither Mr Hauck nor I know each other, so I did a little googling on the man who promptly stated that he was a “numbers junky” and a “victim of (his) training as a scientist” that caused him to “overvalue objectivity at times.”  From there his criticism of what he understood of my piece proceeded in a march of thinly veiled innuendos.

But before addressing his critiques, we should first consider his carefully couched credentials revealed online. The man attended an institution called the Chicago School of Professional Psychology from which he presumably obtained some certification or degree, since he is shown to have worked as the Director of Children’s Services in the Department of Mental Health of the David Grant Medical Center located at Travis AFB.  From this and the offerings of his alma mater, I deduce that he is a child psychologist.

There is no evidence online that he has any training in the hard sciences or the mathematics related thereto. This means that his acumen with the sciences and numbers required to read and understand the literature of “original climatological studies … in reputable scientific journals” is the derived result of a prodigious home study effort.  Among the many other talents he highlights in his piece, his claim to being a “fairly competent writer” who successfully fights back the urge to “build a pretty solid case in support of (his) position” that claims my “accusations” were “disconnected from the facts”, is strained by his gratuitous use of full quotes of words and phrases I never wrote nor even implied.

Mr Hauck also has some problems with the logical development of argument as when he obliquely accuses me of “starting with a preconceived model of how things “should”(sic) work.” of which I offered none, preconceived or otherwise. This may be forgiven because his alma mater proudly proclaims training its graduates to join the ranks of elite government central planners which could explain why he sees such prescriptive behavior in everyone he reads or encounters.

In another part of his analysis of my piece he refutes my assertion, supported by commentators nationwide, that Obama has “driven mainstreet Americans further apart than they were in the sixties”. He does this by citing Gov Nikki Haley’s observation that Republicans also have responded in a polarizing manner. Not sure how that refutes my point about our most divisive of presidents.

In his grand summary Mr Hauck finally allows his progressivism to peep through as an unabashed acolyte of the ‘balanced argument’ as opposed to my “somewhat absolutist style” – readers know that I neither worship balance nor lay claim to that deficit. Given his science credentials, I’m not sure that our psychologist’s studies taught him that human progress is seldom gained through anything considered so bland as balanced.  Quite the opposite, and especially in science, expanding knowledge has always been achieved a fortiori by the most unbalanced of propositions that at the time were deemed outrageous by their target audiences.  What clearly escapes almost all lay people, climate true believers like Mr Hauck among them, is that at the margins of knowledge science is a very messy business and scientists almost never agree – claiming scientific consensus there is blatant propaganda forged from myth.

But I digress. Let me conclude with the letter I sent to The Union today.

In his ‘An alternative alternate universe’ Mr Paul Hauck’s critique of my ‘Swansong from an Alternate Universe’ was almost painfully civil in his quest for balance. The gentleman’s disagreements with my citations of Obama’s iniquities consisted of a collection of innuendos variously veiled in gossamer to sack cloth.  He let us know immediately that he is trained in science and an accomplished student in other more eclectic fields, one who develops understanding of things from “raw data”, a practice that we glean would let him refute the points I made about our president’s tenure.  Nevertheless, he did eschew specifics in order to remain balanced as a penance of his “Lenten discipline this year.”

Being an unabashed patron and purveyor of the unbalanced argument, I gave Mr Hauck the benefit of an expanded response on Rebane’s Ruminations. In turn, as a fellow scientist, I invite him to join me there to do what best may be called ‘dharma battle’ over the points of our obviously disparate ideologies.  His accepting my invitation would guarantee an enjoyable and even entertaining exchange for the anticipated launch of which I must again thank The Union.

[17feb16 update]  Let the record show that The Union published my letter in its 17feb16 edition (here).  I am grateful.

Comments

[Gregory]

Dr. Hauck is a PhD child and adolescent psychologist, the *California School of Clinical Psychology. The requirements for admission seem to be a BA in Psychology (or an ala carte covering much of the same) with a B or better average, or a petition to waive the GPA requirement. I've not found a bio that lists his undergraduate curriculum vitae but unless he was premed (which also is usually very light on the physical sciences, including inorganic and physical chemistry), he might not have taken even a watered down chemistry or physics; ; a BA Psychology would probably discharge their science requirement with a "Your Friend, the Amoeba" general biological science class.

"Reading the historical tables at the back of the federal budget, original climatological studies or reviews in reputable scientific journals, and articles about the complex history of the Middle East seem, to me, the best way to go about understanding the sources budget deficits, the process of climate change or the dynamics of the conflicts in Iraq and Syria."

I am guessing Hauck never actually *read* any journal regarding climate, meteorology or atmospheric physics.

[Gregory]

Since Hauck is such a stickler for grammar and spelling, someone should inform him of the correct spelling of "junkie". Perhaps there just aren't enough heroin addicts among his kiddie patients for him to have run across it professionally.

[Walt]

Just about once a month now, the good Dr. gets a hit job done on him in the local LIB rag.
Wear it like a badge of honor Dr. R. It means your doing good. Notice? "Other" local discussion (as one sided as it could get) NEVER get ragged on in the bird cage liner.

Free advertisment George!,, More readers to help enlighten.
Keep up the great work.

[Gregory]

I'm also guessing Hauck won't be discussing the issue; by avoiding an exchange he can maintain the 97% facade.

[Gregory]

There's a masturbatory thread over at the FUE's that is related to this... the self congratulatory high fives between two of the least educated Cal Berkeley grads that may be in western Nevada County: Keach and the FUE himself. Much in the same way many (including NBC anchors) think Palin said she "can see Russia from her house!", Keachie especially has repeated, over and over, how I've been lording my Alma Mater over theirs... only I have not. What Jeffie and the Lickspittles ignore (because it doesn't fit their narrative) that the issue in those old Global Warming arguments was that someone whose degree is BA Basketweaving, UC Berkeley, does not have the knowledge to understand the climate debate, and all they have been doing is picking from among the high priests their friends tout. Talking to them about thermal physics, fluid dynamics, aerosols, experimental verification of models, falsification etc is often not unlike this owner admonishing their dog:
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/2f/3a/6e/2f3a6e827d86aa13ae41ccdc2e34c643.jpg

Keachie's view has been that he doesn't have to actually master the mathematics or (perish the thought) take even the introductory freshman physics that is the first step to majors in physics, chemistry, engineering and even architecture... when he can quote reams from Wikipedia that he doesn't have to understand, secure in the thought that had he sat in the lecture hall chair for the requisite classes, he too would have a real science degree.

Documented in an earlier RR thread, activist Dr. Anna Haynes, when first meeting me but before any introduction, was offering to lecture me and my friend on global warming (after all, our amusement over the exposed Climategate emails indicated we must be ignorant rubes), secure that, with her PhD from Harvard in a totally unrelated biological field (all hail Dunning-Kruger), she knows how to choose the authorities that are correct... the deer in the headlights, gobsmacked look when she heard me retort with my degrees, so let's talk, was delightful. Rather than talk, she beat a hasty retreat to retort in the safety of her own blog.
http://rebaneruminations.typepad.com/rebanes_ruminations/2010/03/the-sad-tale-of-anna-haynes.html?cid=6a00e54f86f2ad88330133f18f1b27970b#comment-6a00e54f86f2ad88330133f18f1b27970b

Jeff and Doug, that's how someone bashes others with their alma maters. "I have a PhD. From Harvard"... lecturing a perfect stranger.

Then there is the inimitable Steven Frisch with a BA PoliSci from near bottom-rated 'Frisco State, who is sure he's on the smart side on Climate Change. Frisch once wrote a blisteringly inaccurate smear of a Harvey Mudd education, describing Mudd as a mere engineering trade school, not far from a University of Phoenix. Not the respected liberal arts college it remains, though the popularity ratings like the US News lists have always been problematic as most folk (like Frisch) just can't wrap their head around the concept of a liberal arts college of math, science and engineering though the Quadrivium has always been wrapped around math and science.

Pelline is recently proud to share he was accepted to Pomona College (#2 in the USNews liberal arts college ratings, think Stanford without a graduate school, light on science and no engineering), and that would have been a fine choice. And is very proud his alma mater, UC Berkeley, is the #1 public national university, being #20 on the US News list. However, he has in the past just a bit hesitant to share his major... Rhetoric; it took an inordinate amount of pestering to get him to divulge that secret in the past. Jeff, have you added it to your LinkedIn page yet? Or are we still just supposed to believe any degree from Cal is all that is needed to establish bona fides?

The problem all the MD's, JD's, other doctorates outside of the physical sciences don't get is the lack of the role of authority in the physical sciences... probably best illustrated by the old saw about old science professors, Clarke's First Law... When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong. While a JD or an MD is a slave to authority, being subject to malpractice if they stray from that their betters have laid down, those of us who chose the physical sciences, including engineering, are not... we're slaves to reality, including the reality that you really can't prove any physical theory true, you can prove it false and it isn't cherrypicking to do so: it is in fact the key to the scientific method. If your theory makes a prediction that is found not to be true by observation or experiment, the theory is false.

A corollary to that is that if the "scientists" respond to problems with their theory not matching reality with personal attacks, what they're doing isn't science, it's politics.

No, the issue that the usual suspects didn't go to my alma mater, it's that they didn't study the sciences where they did go to school and have neither the vocabulary or the temperament to discuss the issues in play. Mudd is #1 for mid career salaries, a top engineering program, top math, chemistry, chemistry, physics and computer science programs, and still is a top "liberal arts" college (as high as #1 in other lists). Still, all of those ratings (save the mid career salary rank) are subjective rankings, popularity contests... the ranking that makes me proud of my alma mater, besides the memories, is that the top three undergraduate institutions in the country ranked by the percentage of alumni who go on to earn PhD's are the California Institute of Technology, Harvey Mudd College and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and CalTech deserves the accolades. It truly is the top science school in the country. UC at Berkeley and at Los Angeles are also top notch as are a number of other schools.

I've known a number of people from a number of colleges, and people from any college who argue the science and not the politics get my full respect, but unfortunately, that doesn't include the folk I've mentioned above.