how not to argue:Some great thoughts not only for anyone involved in academia, but anyone involved in any kind of human relationship. May we all hold our ideas with a degree of humility and a desire to learn from one another.
In his 1975 book Thinking About Thinking, philosopher Anthony Flew outlined a form of argument that he dubbed the “No True Scotsman” fallacy:Argument: "No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."
Reply: "But my uncle Angus likes sugar with his porridge."
Rebuttal: "Ah yes, but no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."Although this fallacy can be found in almost any debate, it is particularly prone to be bandied about on matters of politics, science, or—as has become increasingly common—politicized science. In fact, the argument is used so often on issues such as intelligent design, global warming, and stem cell research that we could call it the “No True Scientist” fallacy.
Science requires the collection and interpretation of data. Consensus, therefore, requires that there be no significant dispute on either the data (e.g., its relevance) or it interpretation. On readily testable theories such as gravity, consensus is possible. On disputed matters such as whether man is the primary cause of global climate change, consensus is neither possible nor necessarily desirable.
The scientific community is not infallible, which is why disagreements over data and its interpretation should be robust and thoughtfully engaged. While claiming that “No true scientist believes X” or “No true scientist doubts Y” may be the easiest way to dismiss dissenters, it is often counterproductive. The slow-witted and simple minded may be dazzled by academic credentials and institutional affiliations but most thoughtful people are harder to fool. They recognize that No True Scientist should fear honest inquiry and solid arguments – even when their colleagues disagree.
Read the whole thing!
1 comment:
Ercatli,
Thanks for the comments! I appreciate the feedback and the thoughts to think about.
I'd like to quote the sentence you referenced in it's entirety: "On disputed matters such as whether man is the primary cause of global climate change, consensus is neither possible nor necessarily desirable."
The key word there is "disputed". I don't have any issues with climate change per se, but am very concerned that it has become so politicized that scientific facts and efforts with scientific merit are lost amongst the noise. I am also very afraid of politicians implementing policies to try to counteract it because "we've got to do something". If we don't fully understand the situation, we may end up making things far worse instead of better.
Some questions I have:
To what extent is the average temperature increasing?
What is the likely short-term impact (5-10 years)?
What is the potential long-term impacts (20-100 years)? How confident are we in these estimates? (Something I've learned from my studying of engineering, business, and economics is that extrapolating long-term trends from historical data is fraught with high probability of serious miscalculation.) We should hear thoughts from all sides of the debate on this and not only those that favor our particular scientific or political views.
How much of the temperature change is man-made and how much is natural (some scientists attribute most of global warming to volcanic expulsion of gases)? (We've had ice ages in the past and the earth has also been hotter in the past. Are we just in the midst of a temperature cycle right now? Is there potential harm to the planet by trying to disrupt it?)
What are the costs and benefits of trying to implement change? What is the most efficacious and effective way to deal with this change? Is it better to adapt to it or try to modify the direction?
How can we use market principles to try to effect changes? (For example, the most effective tactic to reduce fossil fuel emissions would be a huge tax on fuel. To use an extreme case to illustrate my point -- imagine if everyone had to suddenly pay 10 times the current amount for the price of gas. You'd certainly see many people rushing to buy hybrid cars, a flood of the market with smaller and more fuel efficient cars, increased use of public transportation, and it would push alternative fuels into a profitable competitor price wise. I'm befuddled why no environmental group has petitioned for this? (I wouldn't endorse it because of other negative effects, but it would certainly be effective at reducing carbon emissions.))
How do we gauge our levels of confidence in the data and causation of warming effects our theories purport? It is easy to confuse correlation with causation. Why has there not been a direct correlation over the 20th century between the amount of fuels consumed and the rise in temperatures? In the 1960s, they were talking about "global cooling".
My bottom line: I think it is good for all of us to maintain a healthy level of humility when considering our positions and our "solutions" for how to deal with this issue. Because the environment is such a precious thing, we should use utmost care when we think about trying to tamper with it through national and international policies. I fear the consequences of such actions. History is replete with examples of people meaning well in what they do, yet causing tremendous harm by their actions.
Post a Comment