Journeys in Alterity: My Suspicion

Monday, October 19, 2009

My Suspicion

The majority of those who hold a position one way or another on global warming do not possess scientific knowledge sufficient to defend the position, but believe the position is true because it is the position of a trusted authority.

8 profound comments:

S. Rich said...: As it is with pretty much everything, I'd say.

Speaking of things most people don't understand. Kyle, you should look up this article...it uses the term "hermeneutics" almost as much as you do: http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=4335; October 19, 2009 7:06 AM
Rodak said...: To me, the question of global warming seems to be a perfect occasion for the human community to collectively make "Pascal's Wager."
Since it probably can't be known whether global warming "exists," or not, it makes more sense to act as though it does exist. If we take those steps which would eliminate, or mitigate, the human effects on global warming, even if global warming is not a reality, we will reap benefits, such as cleaner air and water, less acid rain, etc. But if we do nothing, and global warming is a reality, we collectively "go to hell." I think it's a no-brainer for anybody who is concerned with anything other than the immediate costs involved in taking the necessary steps.; October 19, 2009 7:24 AM
Kyle R. Cupp said...: S. Rich,

Yeah, I’d say we assume a lot based on authority. Blackadder makes an interesting observation over at American Catholic about how the split on global warming happens largely on partisan lines, although you will find exceptions, such as himself.

Rodak,

Having lived in both relatively clean and heavily polluted parts of the country, I’ve had the same thought myself.; October 19, 2009 7:37 AM
Alien Shore said...: One should never accept an argument from authority on the basis alone that it comes from an authority. But, one does rightly listen to an authority who has taken the pains to be expert in her or his subject. I still have to reason for myself, aware of the limitations of my knowledge or training in a given subject (e.g. global warming), but I can still listen to trusted authorities, not because they are in a "position" of authority, but because they have earned the right to speak.

So I do think it is probably pretty safe to say that most who hold a position on global warming don't know the science as a climate scientist does, but I don't think it is clear that a majority of people hold their position solely on the basis that some trusted authority simply says so. I imagine they also think the authority(ies) have good reason to say what they say, mixed with whatever limited observation they can make as well. For example, I don't have sufficient knowledge scientifically to explain gravity, but I'm reasonably certain, authorities aside even, that gravity exists. Now, to be conservative, I'm quick to say that global warming may not be the slam dunk that gravity is, but if I have reason to believe that it exists, it is not required that I possess the scientific training of a climate scientist to be able to express that view.

You may be right about the majority. I just don't think it is that evident. Mostly because (and I suspect you agree) that we are not left with only the two choices of possessing the knowledge or having a view because some authority says so. There is also the reasoned opinion of a rational person, held within the admitted limitations of their own knowledge.

I don't think your post is closed in on those two choices, but I thought it was worthwhile to mention it.; October 19, 2009 8:24 AM
c matt said...: I think it's a no-brainer for anybody who is concerned with anything other than the immediate costs involved in taking the necessary steps.

It does depend largely on those immediate costs. Sure, if there were no significant immediate costs, then it would largely be a no-brainer. But if the proposal being submitted to cure Global Warming entails great disruption, economic or physical or both, then more precaution should be taken.

Of course, there are reasons other than GW to take measures that would ostensibly reduce it, but if there is no crisis situation demanding drastic and immediate action, then a more circumspect and less disruptive approach is preferred. Reminds me a lot of the health care reform debate.; October 19, 2009 10:48 AM
Mary said...: To me, Kyle, the question more important is whether, if global warming exists, it is caused by man-made emissions. If it is not, all of our "green living" will have little effect on it.; October 19, 2009 12:00 PM
Kyle R. Cupp said...: Good point, Alien Shore. I agree. We have to ask why a person trusts an authority and what makes someone an authority. The authority ought to be able to make reasonable case for his or her position.

Mary - I'm one for raising and dwelling upon questions that might be less important than others. If it is true that human behavior has no causal effect on global warming, then changes to human behavior won't reduce global warming. Still, even if that is the case, I still favor a number of measures aimed at reducing pollution because of the negative effects pollution has on the environment.; October 19, 2009 12:42 PM
Alien Shore said...: In addition to the environmental damage caused by pollution, which Kyle rightly points out, the extensive damage to human health in numerous forms is likewise reason enough to live "green".

Regarding global warming, if you have a spare hour, I recommend this lecture that aired a couple of years ago on UCTV. http://www.uctv.tv/search-details.aspx?showID=13459.; October 19, 2009 1:28 PM