cancel2 2022
Canceled
Doubt that more than a very few have heard of this, however it does explain a hell of a lot about alarmism, consensus and bogus science.
The Matthew effect
One of the influential metrics used in support of the idea that we are experiencing a climate crisis relates to the level of consensus amongst climate scientists. The assumption is that it is inconceivable for such a level to exist in the absence of a shared knowledge attesting to the veracity of the claim. Not only is this consensus used to justify eye-watering levels of investment in an urgent pursuit of Net Zero, it also appears to vindicate the use of the term ‘denier’ when referring to those who remain sceptical. From that position much more follows on in the form of endless pontification upon how such individuals can possibly think the way they do. Is it a disease? Is it motivated reasoning? Is there something wrong with their values? Are they anti-science conspiracy theorists? Or are they just plain stupid? Whatever it is, scepticism can’t possibly be justified. Can it?
Without wishing to call into question the quality of thinking and the evidence that lies behind the science of climate change, it is sobering to reflect upon the fact that the development of consensus amongst scientists does not actually require an explanation based upon such quality. Faced with a starting point in which there may be a number of competing ideas with none having superior merit, the mere act of referencing each other’s work will cause an emergent narrowing of viewpoint, caused by nothing more than a basic statistical effect. This effect is an example of what has been dubbed the Matthew effect, in an allusion to the parable of talents from the New Testament:
“For to every one who has will more be given, and he will have abundance; but from him who has not, even what he has will be taken away.”
Matthew 25:29, RSV
The more technical term for this is ‘accumulated advantage’, and it works like this:
Assume two papers have been written on a subject and each heavily cites reference material and related research. Let us assume that both bodies of citation have equal merit, i.e. there is no a priori reason to prefer one citation list over the other, or indeed any one citation against the next. However, it is statistically likely that there will be an overlap, i.e. some references will appear in both lists. Then a third person writes a paper and, in order to generate his or her own bibliography, he or she samples from those of the first two. Statistically, those citations that appeared on both of the first two lists will be more likely to appear on the third, further increasing their preponderance. A fourth paper written on the subject will accentuate that bias, and a fifth even further. After only a few generations, the field will appear to be dominated by the views of a small number of scientists whose ascendancy was based upon sheer dumb luck fuelled by a positive feedback. The careers of scientists are very much dependent upon the number of citations received, and so it is tempting to speculate that most of the high profile and successful scientists who dominate the narrative today do so because they are the beneficiaries of the Matthew effect rather than because their work is of superior quality. It is an empirical fact that a minority of academics attract more citations than the rest of the community put together, and this matters because consensus is not a simple numbers game, it coalesces around success.
You might think that this is a fanciful and naïve scenario that bears no relationship to how science actually works in practice. But there are plenty of scientists and sociologists out there who take it very seriously. Take, for example, American sociologists Harriet Zuckerman and Robert K. Merton, who first coined the term ‘Matthew effect’.
The more technical term for this is ‘accumulated advantage’, and it works like this:
Assume two papers have been written on a subject and each heavily cites reference material and related research. Let us assume that both bodies of citation have equal merit, i.e. there is no a priori reason to prefer one citation list over the other, or indeed any one citation against the next. However, it is statistically likely that there will be an overlap, i.e. some references will appear in both lists. Then a third person writes a paper and, in order to generate his or her own bibliography, he or she samples from those of the first two. Statistically, those citations that appeared on both of the first two lists will be more likely to appear on the third, further increasing their preponderance. A fourth paper written on the subject will accentuate that bias, and a fifth even further. After only a few generations, the field will appear to be dominated by the views of a small number of scientists whose ascendancy was based upon sheer dumb luck fuelled by a positive feedback. The careers of scientists are very much dependent upon the number of citations received, and so it is tempting to speculate that most of the high profile and successful scientists who dominate the narrative today do so because they are the beneficiaries of the Matthew effect rather than because their work is of superior quality. It is an empirical fact that a minority of academics attract more citations than the rest of the community put together, and this matters because consensus is not a simple numbers game, it coalesces around success.
You might think that this is a fanciful and naïve scenario that bears no relationship to how science actually works in practice. But there are plenty of scientists and sociologists out there who take it very seriously. Take, for example, American sociologists Harriet Zuckerman and Robert K. Merton, who first coined the term ‘Matthew effect’.
Read more: https://cliscep.com/2022/06/28/the-matthew-effect-and-climate-change/
The Matthew effect
One of the influential metrics used in support of the idea that we are experiencing a climate crisis relates to the level of consensus amongst climate scientists. The assumption is that it is inconceivable for such a level to exist in the absence of a shared knowledge attesting to the veracity of the claim. Not only is this consensus used to justify eye-watering levels of investment in an urgent pursuit of Net Zero, it also appears to vindicate the use of the term ‘denier’ when referring to those who remain sceptical. From that position much more follows on in the form of endless pontification upon how such individuals can possibly think the way they do. Is it a disease? Is it motivated reasoning? Is there something wrong with their values? Are they anti-science conspiracy theorists? Or are they just plain stupid? Whatever it is, scepticism can’t possibly be justified. Can it?
Without wishing to call into question the quality of thinking and the evidence that lies behind the science of climate change, it is sobering to reflect upon the fact that the development of consensus amongst scientists does not actually require an explanation based upon such quality. Faced with a starting point in which there may be a number of competing ideas with none having superior merit, the mere act of referencing each other’s work will cause an emergent narrowing of viewpoint, caused by nothing more than a basic statistical effect. This effect is an example of what has been dubbed the Matthew effect, in an allusion to the parable of talents from the New Testament:
“For to every one who has will more be given, and he will have abundance; but from him who has not, even what he has will be taken away.”
Matthew 25:29, RSV
The more technical term for this is ‘accumulated advantage’, and it works like this:
Assume two papers have been written on a subject and each heavily cites reference material and related research. Let us assume that both bodies of citation have equal merit, i.e. there is no a priori reason to prefer one citation list over the other, or indeed any one citation against the next. However, it is statistically likely that there will be an overlap, i.e. some references will appear in both lists. Then a third person writes a paper and, in order to generate his or her own bibliography, he or she samples from those of the first two. Statistically, those citations that appeared on both of the first two lists will be more likely to appear on the third, further increasing their preponderance. A fourth paper written on the subject will accentuate that bias, and a fifth even further. After only a few generations, the field will appear to be dominated by the views of a small number of scientists whose ascendancy was based upon sheer dumb luck fuelled by a positive feedback. The careers of scientists are very much dependent upon the number of citations received, and so it is tempting to speculate that most of the high profile and successful scientists who dominate the narrative today do so because they are the beneficiaries of the Matthew effect rather than because their work is of superior quality. It is an empirical fact that a minority of academics attract more citations than the rest of the community put together, and this matters because consensus is not a simple numbers game, it coalesces around success.
You might think that this is a fanciful and naïve scenario that bears no relationship to how science actually works in practice. But there are plenty of scientists and sociologists out there who take it very seriously. Take, for example, American sociologists Harriet Zuckerman and Robert K. Merton, who first coined the term ‘Matthew effect’.
The more technical term for this is ‘accumulated advantage’, and it works like this:
Assume two papers have been written on a subject and each heavily cites reference material and related research. Let us assume that both bodies of citation have equal merit, i.e. there is no a priori reason to prefer one citation list over the other, or indeed any one citation against the next. However, it is statistically likely that there will be an overlap, i.e. some references will appear in both lists. Then a third person writes a paper and, in order to generate his or her own bibliography, he or she samples from those of the first two. Statistically, those citations that appeared on both of the first two lists will be more likely to appear on the third, further increasing their preponderance. A fourth paper written on the subject will accentuate that bias, and a fifth even further. After only a few generations, the field will appear to be dominated by the views of a small number of scientists whose ascendancy was based upon sheer dumb luck fuelled by a positive feedback. The careers of scientists are very much dependent upon the number of citations received, and so it is tempting to speculate that most of the high profile and successful scientists who dominate the narrative today do so because they are the beneficiaries of the Matthew effect rather than because their work is of superior quality. It is an empirical fact that a minority of academics attract more citations than the rest of the community put together, and this matters because consensus is not a simple numbers game, it coalesces around success.
You might think that this is a fanciful and naïve scenario that bears no relationship to how science actually works in practice. But there are plenty of scientists and sociologists out there who take it very seriously. Take, for example, American sociologists Harriet Zuckerman and Robert K. Merton, who first coined the term ‘Matthew effect’.
Read more: https://cliscep.com/2022/06/28/the-matthew-effect-and-climate-change/
