In "scientific" environmental forums such as Realclimate, the subject matter is scientific, but the debates are entirely political for all intensive purposes. On the main line you have the "alarmists" at one extreme, and the "denialists" on the other. A rough indicator of where you might be on the line is by answering the question "How certain are you that Global Warming is caused by humans?". This might not seem like "the" crucial point in the argument, but that question is perhaps the only one that science can definitively speak about, and it is the main point that proponents of not taking action are getting traction on (by casting doubt on the objectivity or accuracy of that science). Why is it not plausible to be 100% convinced that global warming is caused by humans and be as convinced that we should not spend a single cent on reducing greenhouse gases - or alternatively, to believe that there is grave doubts that there is any dangerous warming due to greenhouse gases, but to still believe that we should vigorously pursue alternative energies, cap and trade restrictions AND new restrictive regulations. The key for one-on-one discussions on the issue is to know where the line is, even using it as a reference to more clearly define how your idea is different from that of your peers which are near a point on the line. It may not be strictly any more "scientific" than ad hoc discussions, but it brings a NEW and OBJECTIVE philosophy to the table.
3)Ideas as a volume in Idea space - Rather than as points on a line, Marconomics views ideas more accurately as a multidimensional volume in idea space. Whether it be a concept of God as an idea, or views on the environment, or a description of a behavioural disorder, ideas need the freedom of movement in several dimensions to better grasp reality
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
This is where I make a very dull comment which is basically me nodding my head vigorously up and down in agreement. I have written before about how historically questions that have been posed as points on a line have usually been eventually resolved by throwing the line away.
I assert that is vitally important to dig down to find out what other people really believe, not just react to whatever label they have pasted on themselves, because people use the same words to mean such very different things. Unfortunately in order to do this, people have to be prepared to talk about specifics, to answer loaded questions, to try and put their core axioms in words. If someone says: "I believe in God", or "I am a secular humanist," or "I am a conservative" it tells me approximately nothing useful or important about their position.
I find 'New Scientist' and similar forums particularly infuriating in this regard. There is this persistent idea that the Bush administration has been 'anti- science', but I can't find any evidence that total US R&D expenditure or Federal government science funding has declined significantly as a proportion of GDP. The 'anti-science' perception comes from one position in a political debate being labelled 'scientific' (e.g., climate change, embryonic stem cells) when it is nothing of the sort.
Ideally, governments would just throw lots of money at scientists for us to do what we wanted with. Clearly, that is not going to happen. Governments of whatever stripe are going to set priorities, and direct funding according to their ideological prejudices, who has their ear at that moment, and what the media hype engine is shrieking about. If we don't agree with those priorities (and face it, we *never* will, in toto)it doesn't make those governments 'anti-science'.
Sorry, your comment is not dull at all :) And it is likely to spur me to move on with this blog book and perhaps elaborate on the "God" concept and perhaps the behavioural disorder example which I have mentioned but not explained. Or I shall move on to the next axiom lest I get too distracted by tangents.
Post a Comment