I like to share posts that give examples of what I think is
objective thinking. Below are some extended quotes from Maverick
Philosopher about global warming that provide an example.
I
am a skeptic about global warming (GW). To be precise, I am skeptical about
some, not all, of the claims made by the GW activists. See below for some
necessary distinctions. Skepticism is good. Doubt is the engine of inquiry and
a key partner in the pursuit of truth.
A
skeptic is a doubter, not a denier. To doubt or inquire or question whether
such-and-such is the case is not to deny that it is the case. It is a cheap
rhetorical trick of GW alarmists when they speak of GW denial and posture as if
it is in the ball park of Holocaust denial. People who misuse language in this
way signal that they are not interested in a serious discussion. When GW
activists speak in this way they give us even more reason to be skeptical.
…
I
have not investigated the matter with any thoroughness, and I have no firm
opinion. It is difficult to form an opinion because it is difficult to know
whom to trust: reputable scientists have their ideological biases too, and if
they work in universities, the leftish climate in these hotbeds of political
correctness is some reason to be skeptical of anything they say. (Both puns
intended.)
…
Off
the top of my head I think we ought to distinguish among the following
questions:
1. Is global
warming (GW) occurring?
2. If yes to (1),
is it naturally irreversible, or is it likely to reverse itself on its own?
3. If GW is
occurring, and will not reverse itself on its own, to what extent is it
anthropogenic, i.e., caused by human activity, and what are the human causes?
(3)
is the crucial empirical question. It is obviously distinct from (1) and (2).
If there is naturally irreversible global warming, this is not to say that it
is caused by human activity. It may or may not be. One has to be aware of the
post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. Suppose there is a close correlation between
global warming and man-made carbon emissions. It doesn't straightaway follow
that the human activity causes the warming. But again, this is not a question
that can be settled a priori; it is a question for climatologists.
4. If
anthropogenic, is global warming caused by humans to a degree that warrants
action, assuming that action can be taken to stop it?
5. If GW is
caused by humans to an extent that it warrants action, what sorts of action
would be needed to stop the warming process?
6. How much
curtailment of economic growth would we be willing to accept to stop global
warming? And what other effects on human beings could the anti-global warming
policies be expected to have?
The
first three of these six questions are empirical and are reserved for
climatologists. They are very difficult questions to answer.
…
Our
first three questions are empirical. But the last three are not, being
questions of public policy. So although the core issues are empirical, philosophers
have some role to play: they can help in the formulation and clarification of
the various questions; they can help with the normative questions that arise in
conjunction with (4)-(5), and they can examine the cogency of the arguments
given on either side. Last but not least, they can drive home the importance of
being clear about the distinction between empirical and conceptual questions.
Just for the record I too am a skeptic or, to be more
specific and accurate, a “luke-warmer” which means I think we humans have some
impact on the global climate but nowhere near what global warming alarmists
claim. It would take many pages to explain why I believe this.
No comments:
Post a Comment