Andrew Brown makes some compelling points
It’s easy to suppose that the whole vast apparatus of modern creationism has taught us nothing at all. All those books, the endless arguments on usenet and then on the web, the museums, the theme parks, the teaching materials – all of it dedicated to teaching lies; none of it contributing so much as a moment’s thought to the advance of knowledge.
But I think there is one important thing which all these millions of hours of labour has shown that could not have been learned any other way. It wasn’t intentional. But creationists have proved that most scientists have a very naïve and inadequate idea of evidence. In particular, they believe that the justification for believing scientific claims is that they are reproducible and produce irrefutable evidence. The creationists have shown this is mistaken. Of course the experiment must be reproducible. Of course the results must be clear. But it’s just as important that we take both these things on trust. When scientists report results we take them at their word. Without a belief that they are trustworthy, nothing they do compels belief.
He presses this argument, suggesting that climate change denial is essentially based on mistrust too and I reckon he’s on to something: it isn’t so much about how strong the evidence is as how trustworthy we feel the purveyors of that evidence are.
{ 11 comments… read them below or add one }
Will 11.11.09 at 6:09 pm
N. T. Wright said something similar about mistrust. He was on a panel in America talking about climate change and trying to reach an evangelical audience. He mentioned scientists reports and after the show, one of the organisers mentioned that he threw out any credibility when he mentioned the scientific evidence. The organiser said that those who think environmentalism is not really a moral issue have done such a good job teaching so many that the scientists are bad, a lot of evangelicals check out of the conversation when they hear. Wright seemed exasperated when relating this story and said, ‘How do you have a discussion then if you can’t talk about what the scientists are saying?’
Richard 11.11.09 at 6:33 pm
If NT Wright doesn’t know how to address this, what hope we lesser mortals? But it is important that we try.
Klem 11.11.09 at 6:34 pm
On the other hand those who believe that humans are responsible for Climate Change do so because deep down inside they always felt that polluting the air would do some kind of environmental damage, they just didn’t know what. So when they heard that CO2 changes the climate, they imediatly believed the theory that humans were responsible. It didn’t matter what the scientists said or didn’t say, they beleived anyway. This is due to their Christian upbringing; that they are born sinners and everything that humans touch is a sin. So it’s easy to Believe that humans have damaged the climate, it fits. It’s not true of course but Climate Change is about Belief not truth.
Richard 11.11.09 at 6:45 pm
It’s true that our response to climate change is a matter of belief. Or trust.
But I reckon the evidence for human caused climate change is about as firmly proven as empirical science ever gets. So I’d want to argue that it is a matter of truth.
DmL 11.12.09 at 5:40 am
I am not convinced of any sort of long term climate change, positive of negative, man-made or no. Nor do I trust those with the loudest voices on either side. I do think we ought to be good stewards and careful with our energy usage.
Tony Buglass 11.12.09 at 2:56 pm
“But creationists have proved that most scientists have a very naïve and inadequate idea of evidence. In particular, they believe that the justification for believing scientific claims is that they are reproducible and produce irrefutable evidence. The creationists have shown this is mistaken. Of course the experiment must be reproducible.”
In principle, yes. In practice, it’s a bit more complicated than that. Some experiments can be replicated in a test-tube or lab with very little difficulty - case proven. Some tests take a bit longer - which is why the science of geology is not the same as the science of chemistry, and why evolution will always be a theory rather than a law. A critical-scientific approach to history may well appear scientific because it is dealing with ‘evidence’ - but the evidence is usually partial, and not always empirical, so historical conclusions will always be along a spectrum of plausibility rather than certainty.
In the case of climate change, we have a complex problem - the data is still being amassed, the techniques are still evolving, and the knowledge base is still developing. So any conclusions must be provisional. Within that context, however, it is clear that something big is under way, and that there is a mechanism involved which does include CO2, and human agency is implicated. The picture will become more clear as events progress. By which time it may be too late.
If the Titanic had radar, would they have argued about whether that blip showed a very big iceberg, or just a big iceberg? Would they not have altered course as a precaution?
Richard 11.12.09 at 3:02 pm
That’s well put, Tony.
Kim 11.12.09 at 3:52 pm
That it is.
Ray 11.13.09 at 1:38 am
Tony, and others, we will not tax the rich and the farmers and the industrialists and trade in “global-warming units” or “carbon credit units” just in case something big is going to happen. That would be stupid, along with all the other stupid stuff that is being plied as gospel truth about the future of the planet. Al Gore is accountable for calling “Fire!” in the movie-theatre when there is no such thing as humanly caused warming, let alone any fire.
Tony Buglass 11.13.09 at 9:31 am
Well, Ray, that makes you just as dogmatic as Al Gore and his friends. Isn’t there a variably-declining adjective: I am principled, you are stubborn, he is bloody-minded?
I am not a scientist. I would have liked to be, but I took a different path in high school (’cos I was rubbish at maths and physics). However, my first degree included philosophy of science, so I can at least see why it works the way it does. My take on global warming is that human agency may be debatable, but is increasingly demonstrable. I hear an increasing number of scientists say it is happening. And from the nay-sayers, I generally hear only nay, not why not.
So, I’m not sure I can be as clear as you are, that it definitely is or is not happening. It probably is, but that is not conclusive, for the reasons I gave above. I’m not sure whether or not that is good news. If you’re right, then there is nothing we can do - well, I hope that’s a consolation to populations of the Pacific nations and low-lying cities as they lose their homes and become refugees and migrants. At least working on whatever element of human agency there may be gives us a way of fighting back.
Doing nothing is not an option. And unlike the Titanic, we can’t even abandon ship and send an SOS.
Richard 11.13.09 at 10:29 am
Ray - that’s a very strong conviction you have. The evidence is against you, though.
My question is why so many (usually) US ’sceptics’ are so fixated on Al Gore? Did he discover global warming? Is he a scientist? The logic seems to be
1. Al Gore believes in the reality of anthropogenic climate change
2. Al Gore is wrong about everything
Therefore, there’s no global warming.
Have I got that right?