In support of Frank's comment, response to the opinion piece he posted, and just because I'm interested in others' reponses:
I've gotten to the point where I start almost every freshman-level course with a discussion of positive statements (or statements of fact), normative statements (or statements of opinion), and statements of uncertainty. It never fails to shock my students when I tell them that all science is uncertain, or to enlighten them when I explain the role of replication and generalization in the scientific process. I'm not sure if the students are shocked by what I tell them or shocked that a professor would say such things. My guess is that it's a mix of the two. Science has given us many answers to big problems, it's provided an illusion of control that is seductive, and, like almost any social construct, "pure science" has its atheists and its true believers but most of the the world only really cares when it's viscerally connected to their daily lives. Even then, psychologists have shown that response to scientific advice depends as much on the perceived costs and benefits to the individual and their preconceived ideas as the actual evidence. With our faith in rationality we have become expert at rationalization. I wouldn't go as far as Sarewitz and Thernstrom, saying that politics is the only solution to this disconnect, but it does seem that there must be other forces than science in play if we are to deal with a global-scale problem like climate change. This brings up an interesting but neglected aspect of the human side of ecosystems--the role of the diversity of perspectives and personalities across individuals (or states). If we all believed the same thing, then when we are wrong we will be very very wrong. When there are many different beliefs, it's more likely that some will be right, but less likely that we'll all act together based on that person's position. Thus, as frustrating as the stolen e-mails, the climate negotiations, and the differences of opinion may be to the list, these are symptoms of a profound aspect of human--and non-human--existence: variation is key to our survival. That it could also be the source of our downfall is ironic, but not inevitable. As I said above, I'm hoping for input on this idea. There's probably a whole section in the literature that addresses just this topic and I just haven't found it yet. Happy holidays to all and to all a good night! dgwebster On Sun, Dec 20, 2009 at 2:43 PM, Alcock, Frank <[email protected]> wrote: > I suspect that there will be many voices speaking for climate change with > little consensus on the horizon regarding authoritative claims to truth in > the form of "science." Less philosophically, I suspect it'll take some time > before the claim that "4 out of 5 scientists surveyed conclude that..." will > be a trump card in political debates. > > Related to this issue, I was wondering what the listserv folks think of > this recent editorial: > > > http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-sarewitzthernstrom16-2009dec16,0,952168,print.story > > ------------------------------ > *From:* [email protected] on behalf of Susanne Moser > *Sent:* Sun 12/20/2009 2:22 PM > *To:* Global Environmental Politics Education ListServe > *Subject:* Re: Climategate Impacts > > This strikes me as an interesting thing to pursue a bit. > > So, let's take quick stock: For years, scientists were the most trusted > regarding climate change, although overall shrinking, especially among > some audiences. There always has been and is more so now a deep partisan > divide over trust in scientists (I actually think there is also a class > divide here, but that's for another day). By comparison anyway, the > media, NGOs, industry or government have all had lower ratings of trust. > > Second, scientists have been widely criticized for their slow response > to the hacked email (I really think it's wrong that we perpetuate the > misguided allusion to Watergate, so I don't), which has given this > entire affair a double whammy: exposure of emails that could easily be > and have, of course, been terribly, savagely misinterpreted (though NO > wrong-doing has actually been found, let's recall!) AND the completely > lame, politically naive response of the wider scientific community. > > Consequently.... drum roll please... the curtain rises for rightwing > media publicly slaughtering scientists and the science of global warming > (which was, let's recall, already prior to the hacked emails on the > downturn for a variety of reasons), and now this unsurprising polling > result. Duh! > > What - is my question here - can be done? Who is left to be trusted as > messengers for climate change? Do we now depend on Mother Nature as the > most immediate, un-media-ted "witness" to tell us her truth? Or is there > someone else to fill the gaping hole? > > As we know from hazards and other studies, trust, once lost, is VERY > hard to rebuild. If we lose the weakly, but still (relatively) most > trusted messenger, and only untrusted ones remain - who is left to speak > for climate change? > > Thanks for indulging me. > > Susi > > Wallace, Richard wrote: > > > > Lovely. The poll is a blunt instrument to be sure, but let’s hope > > public disaffection with the climate debate and resulting distrust of > > “scientists on the environment” doesn’t bleed into other areas, like > > biodiversity, deforestation, transboundary pollution, etc. Worth > > watching, anyway. > > > > Rich > > > > -- > > > > Richard L. Wallace, Ph.D. > > > > Associate Professor > > > > Environmental Studies Program > > > > Ursinus College > > > > P.O. Box 1000 > > > > Collegeville, PA 19426 > > > > (610) 409-3730 > > > > (610) 409-3660 fax > > > > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected] <[email protected]> > > > > > > *From:* [email protected] > > [mailto:[email protected]<[email protected]>] > *On Behalf Of *Wil Burns > > *Sent:* Sunday, December 20, 2009 12:48 PM > > *To:* [email protected]; 'Global Environmental > > Politics Education ListServe' > > *Subject:* Climategate Impacts > > > > Ooops… scientists getting hit…a new Washington Post-ABC News poll > > after “climategate.” Scientists “significantly” losing credibility > > with the public: > > > > “Scientists themselves also come in for more negative assessments in > > the poll, with four in 10 Americans now saying that they place little > > or no trust in what scientists have to say about the environment. > > That’s up significantly in recent years. About 58 percent of > > Republicans now put little or no faith in scientists on the subject, > > double the number saying so in April 2007. Over this time frame, > > distrust among independents bumped up from 24 to 40 percent, while > > Democrats changed only marginally. Among seniors, the number of > > skeptics more than doubled, to 51 percent.” > > > > > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/18/AR2009121800002.html > > > > * * > > > > * * > > > > * * > > > > *Dr. Wil Burns, Editor in Chief*** > > > > */Journal of International Wildlife Law & Policy/*** > > > > *1702 Arlington Blvd.*** > > > > *El Cerrito, CA 94530 USA* > > > > *Ph: 650.281.9126* > > > > *Fax: 510.779.5361* > > > > *[email protected] > > <mailto:[email protected]<[email protected]> > >*** > > > > *http://www.jiwlp.com <http://www.jiwlp.com/>* > > > > *SSRN site (selected publications): http://ssrn.com/author=240348* > > > > *Skype ID: Wil.Burns* > > > > > > > > __________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus > > signature database 4704 (20091220) __________ > > > > The message was checked by ESET Smart Security. > > > > http://www.eset.com > > -- > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Susanne C. Moser, Ph.D. > Director, Principal Scientist > Research Associate > Susanne Moser Research & Consulting > Institute of Marine Sciences > 134 Shelter Lagoon Dr. > University of California-Santa Cruz > Santa Cruz, CA 95060 > Santa Cruz, CA 95064 > email: [email protected] > > > > > __________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature > database 4704 (20091220) __________ > > The message was checked by ESET Smart Security. > > http://www.eset.com > > > -- D.G. Webster Assistant Professor Environmental Studies Program Dartmouth College 6182 Steele Hall Hanover, NH 03755 phone: 603-646-0213 http://www.dartmouth.edu/~envs/faculty/webster.html<http://www.dartmouth.edu/%7Eenvs/faculty/webster.html>
