In an article re-posted it IFL Science, writer Mathis Hampel discusses the disadvantages to the climate change discourse of the last several years, arguing how ineffective it's been. Specifically, Hampel addresses the reliance on the "truth" of science to settle arguments between politicians, businesses, skeptics, etc. Science has been used as a trumping force, and as a way to suggest that siding with science is like taking the "high road", as Hampel puts it.
This approach to solving problems is, to me, unhealthy. Relying so heavily on what science says about an issue can be sketchy. We lose sight of out values (our "'irrational' values") when we let science take precedence, but just because science says one thing doesn't mean that is the most effective way to persuade others (skeptics) of the issues at hand. That is what Hampel argues, that using the results science shows about global warming to try and persuade skeptics into believing and taking action isn't working. Instead, we should be more proactive, work more with people and groups, create climate policies that don't "hinge on scientific truth". I dig this, because as hopeful as I can be at times when I think about all the people working toward solutions to climate change, I still worry about the many people on Earth who don't care, who don't believe or want to understand. How can we convince them (since we haven't already)? Maybe Hampel's onto something...
Source: http://www.iflscience.com/environment/it-time-take-science-out-climate-change-debate
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment