Getting people to believe in climate change often takes more than just presenting facts to them. Facts will help with people that are open to the idea and who trust the facts (as well as those who collected them and are presenting them), but they won't help with people that have other reasons that make them skeptical. I think there are two that are the most common, and they are both connected to an underlying misunderstandings or fears of science. The first is when people have an unrealistic view of science, and the second is when they have a fear that science may take over their lives.
I think one of the major problems with climate change acceptance is a misunderstanding of science. Science cannot definitively prove anything; scientific truths are arrived at by consensus of the experts based on evidence collected according to the methods and traditions that the experts have deemed the best for the purpose at hand. Yes, even science relies on tradition and authority. We must trust the experts and their judgment, even in science. Some people just don't get that and want one hundred percent, clear and certain proof. I consider this the direct effect of scientism on the climate debate. Demanding that is unrealistic and actually unscientific.
The opposite of this is important to note to, though it has only an indirect effect on the climate debate as far as I can see. This is when science is understood as being synonymous with the newest information available so that the newest must be the most true and scientific. Science tells us to stop smoking, to drink less, to not eat eggs and then to eat them, that GMOs are safe and then not safe and again safe, that there is no God, that monogamy is not natural and so on. But in reality much of that isn't really science. (Science takes time to find truths and over turn old ideas; it has its traditions and authority that vet truths, and that takes time.) What is happening with all of these new truths that come at us all the time is that the media is taking something that might have a bit of scientific evidence to support it (or maybe growing evidence) and selling it to us as science because they know we will buy it if it is labeled science. It is the media and making marginal things science, so we buy it as news, as truth. So in a sense we are right to be skeptical of what the media tells us is science, truth. This might lead to scientism as skepticism. It also can lead to a fear of science running our lives, which is my next point.
The second major resistance to climate change, I think, is due to the fact that many people assume that once we accept a scientific truth or fact, the science or scientists then also give us a command to do something. That implicit in the truth or fact are clear actions that we must take because of it. Many people are not comfortable with having their actions dictated to them by science and scientists. When it comes to climate science that may be one thing, if technology can indeed produce alternative energy sources that will allow us to have the kind of life we have currently, or at least close to it, then maybe the scientists and technologists can tell us what to do. But that is not a direct line from the fact to the action, there is a detour there. And, I think that detour is very important: we must evaluate and choose based on more than just the science and its facts. Science can't assume the right to tell us what to do based on its facts, even if we accept those facts; we have to choose to take those actions in a separate decision. I think people are afraid that we must simply listen to and follow the scientist and technologist when it comes to climate change. That we must abandon our lives to the dictates of science.
This fear of science dictating our lives is even greater because of the way that everything is labeled and sold as science, as was mentioned above. When every study with new information is touted as a new scientific truth that must change the way we act, it is understandable that people feel that science and scientists are trying to take over our lives and tell us what to do.
I think one of the major problems with climate change acceptance is a misunderstanding of science. Science cannot definitively prove anything; scientific truths are arrived at by consensus of the experts based on evidence collected according to the methods and traditions that the experts have deemed the best for the purpose at hand. Yes, even science relies on tradition and authority. We must trust the experts and their judgment, even in science. Some people just don't get that and want one hundred percent, clear and certain proof. I consider this the direct effect of scientism on the climate debate. Demanding that is unrealistic and actually unscientific.
The opposite of this is important to note to, though it has only an indirect effect on the climate debate as far as I can see. This is when science is understood as being synonymous with the newest information available so that the newest must be the most true and scientific. Science tells us to stop smoking, to drink less, to not eat eggs and then to eat them, that GMOs are safe and then not safe and again safe, that there is no God, that monogamy is not natural and so on. But in reality much of that isn't really science. (Science takes time to find truths and over turn old ideas; it has its traditions and authority that vet truths, and that takes time.) What is happening with all of these new truths that come at us all the time is that the media is taking something that might have a bit of scientific evidence to support it (or maybe growing evidence) and selling it to us as science because they know we will buy it if it is labeled science. It is the media and making marginal things science, so we buy it as news, as truth. So in a sense we are right to be skeptical of what the media tells us is science, truth. This might lead to scientism as skepticism. It also can lead to a fear of science running our lives, which is my next point.
The second major resistance to climate change, I think, is due to the fact that many people assume that once we accept a scientific truth or fact, the science or scientists then also give us a command to do something. That implicit in the truth or fact are clear actions that we must take because of it. Many people are not comfortable with having their actions dictated to them by science and scientists. When it comes to climate science that may be one thing, if technology can indeed produce alternative energy sources that will allow us to have the kind of life we have currently, or at least close to it, then maybe the scientists and technologists can tell us what to do. But that is not a direct line from the fact to the action, there is a detour there. And, I think that detour is very important: we must evaluate and choose based on more than just the science and its facts. Science can't assume the right to tell us what to do based on its facts, even if we accept those facts; we have to choose to take those actions in a separate decision. I think people are afraid that we must simply listen to and follow the scientist and technologist when it comes to climate change. That we must abandon our lives to the dictates of science.
This fear of science dictating our lives is even greater because of the way that everything is labeled and sold as science, as was mentioned above. When every study with new information is touted as a new scientific truth that must change the way we act, it is understandable that people feel that science and scientists are trying to take over our lives and tell us what to do.
It is true that humans are responsible for the rapid change in climate and that this will drastically change the earth. (This is what the vast majority of experts, authorities on the subject, are saying, and we have to take their word for it.) That however does not dictate what we need to do or that anything needs to be done. (Of course I am simplify here, but that simple understanding is the understanding I think many people have.) I know it sounds callous and cold to say we don't have to do anything, but we need to be a bit callous and cold when moving from truth to action, especially when there is opposition. I don't think we can let ourselves get carried away by the facts and ignore values and tradition when making decisions.
That this situation is established scientific fact is one thing. (Which should make us take it much more seriously than something presented in an article on a news-site talking about the results of one study and how is should change our lives, but for some people, it doesn’t.) What we do with that is another. It can't be assumed that we need to do something or that the same people that brought us the fact ought to be the ones to tell us what to do. Going from the fact to the action requires making a choice based not just on the facts but also on values, and making that action work often requires that people (the average person) need to believe it. Experts can talk all they want, but especially when it comes to climate change--because it will likely require all of us to significantly change our everyday lives-- people need to believe in the solutions enough to act on them, or the solutions will not work.
In the end, I think it is dealing with misunderstandings and fears that will get more people to agree that climate changes is a real threat that we have played a part in and then come to the table to agree on what will be done about it. People that are going to be convinced by facts are already convinced. Getting those that still are not (and we need not only to convince them to believe but also convince them to act) will take something other than facts, it will take addressing fears and misunderstandings about science itself.
That this situation is established scientific fact is one thing. (Which should make us take it much more seriously than something presented in an article on a news-site talking about the results of one study and how is should change our lives, but for some people, it doesn’t.) What we do with that is another. It can't be assumed that we need to do something or that the same people that brought us the fact ought to be the ones to tell us what to do. Going from the fact to the action requires making a choice based not just on the facts but also on values, and making that action work often requires that people (the average person) need to believe it. Experts can talk all they want, but especially when it comes to climate change--because it will likely require all of us to significantly change our everyday lives-- people need to believe in the solutions enough to act on them, or the solutions will not work.
In the end, I think it is dealing with misunderstandings and fears that will get more people to agree that climate changes is a real threat that we have played a part in and then come to the table to agree on what will be done about it. People that are going to be convinced by facts are already convinced. Getting those that still are not (and we need not only to convince them to believe but also convince them to act) will take something other than facts, it will take addressing fears and misunderstandings about science itself.
No comments:
Post a Comment