Originally Posted by BRussell
You'll have to give me a little more to go on there.
Perhaps for another thread. Needless to say, psychology and meteorology are not analogous in my view.
What? She's making a recommendation about what the policy of this organization should be for certifying meteorologists. I think she can do that, and I think others can discuss it. Right?
Except for the recommendations have nothing to do with displaying competency and instead have to do with some sort of loyalty oath.
The purpose of the certification is to make sure "broadcast meteorologists" (i.e., weathermen) do a good job in conveying information to the public. If they judge that a meteorologist isn't doing that, I can't imagine why they wouldn't kick that person out.
If it were just about that, then there would be no debate. You can't take a trait that is part of the scientific method and declare it to be political. This is why I noted that the best science deals with refutation. There has not been refutation of global climate change as a norm. There has not been refutation of global climate change being caused by changes in the output of the sun. There has not been refutation of carbon dioxide build up as being a by-product of warmer climates instead of merely being the cause. (How many cars have we driven on Venus?)
Other meteorologists noting that these have not occurred is not grounds for professional incompetence. Point blank you have scientists who have some confirmation of a result but they don't care to wait for the refutation of other causes. They want their theories moved along. They want the skeptics silenced.
SDW has claimed that she wants to "punish skeptics," but that is simply false. Given that accurately conveying their field is the whole point of this organization and this certification, they absolutely should kick people out if they don't accurately convey their field. That basic position shouldn't be controversial at all, and is probably true of any professional organization.
I've never encountered an organization where group-think was enforced in membership in this manner. This is akin to an association of cardiologists being forced to subscribe to the one "best" method of heart operation excluding all prior and future developments. This is akin to a state bar telling lawyers that they must support a certain law and never advocate or lobby for any change against it.
Certainly where it gets sticky is how it is implemented on a case-by-case basis. Is one stupid comment enough to get someone kicked out? No it shouldn't be. Is "expressing skepticism?" No it shouldn't be, and I repeat - [b]this woman never claimed it should[b], and it would be stupid to do so (which is why SDW framed it that way). But a consistent pattern of severely misrepresenting their field to the public? I'd think so. What's the purpose of the certification otherwise?
The purpose of the certification is to show competency, not control thought. It is entirely possible to be a competent meteorologist and still have and discuss disagreements on new developments within the field.
What if 30 years ago they had decided to declare incompetent and remove anyone who did not subscribe to the coming global cooling and new pollution induced ice age? Where would the current theories on global warming be coming from? What if they said that based on the then understood evidence, you couldn't possibly be a competent meteorologist if you don't come to the same group-think conclusion?
The thing that is so dangerous about this in a scientific field is that group consensus can often change radically with some new piece of information. Dinosaurs go from cold blooded lizards to ancestors of birds for example.
I'd say that working against previously established norms and group consensus is often a norm within science. The older models are often taught to provide historical background. However the breaks between the models are often sharp and quick when they occur.