There is something of a parallel between the attitudes in the United States about African American slavery two centuries ago and the attitudes here towards climate change today. In both cases people were concerned that there was a situation which could lead to serious problems in the somewhat distant future. In both cases there was divided opinion about the nature of the problem, its seriousness and what to do about it.
Two hundred years ago there was wide spread agreement, at least among whites, that blacks were intellectually and morally inferior to whites. From that belief and the recognition that a large part of the U.S. economy depended on slave labor, and the increasing pressure for abolition abroad and within the United States led to the concerns as to what to do.
Today there is a wide spread agreement that the releases of greenhouse gases has increased and is continuing to increase. From that belief, and the recognition that a large part of the U.S. economy is geared to produce those greenhouse gases, and the increasing pressure for control of emissions abroad and within the United States there are concerns as to what to do.
There is also a fundamental difference. The belief that blacks were inferior was not scientific (and indeed science was not sufficiently developed to tackle such questions adequately two centuries ago) while the belief that the level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere affects the temperature is based on science. There were no scientific findings as to what would happen if slavery were not to be abolished, while there are scientific findings as to what will happen if greenhouse gas emissions continue to grow as they have been doing. (And of course, our ancestors were wrong to think that the blacks were racially inferior and it is very, very probable that if we keep emitting greenhouse gases in increasing amounts, we will see global warming, sea level rises that will wipe out coastal zones, and major local climate changes over most of the globe.)
In both cases, intellectual leaders of the time make pronouncements whether or not their knowledge is of a credible kind. The general public had then little ability to judge the quality of the knowledge of the opinion makers, and a large part of the general public today has little ability to judge the quality of the knowledge of those who would make opinion today.
I suggest that scientific knowledge is generally credible. I do so because scientific knowledge is based on controlled observation, based on efforts to challenge hypotheses based on theory, replicated by others in other places, and subjected to peer review. I have been fortunate enough to observe peer review on thousands of occasions and have come to appreciate the qualifications and seriousness that scientists bring to the process. I do not suggest that the wide spread scientific consensus that greenhouse gas emissions will lead to levels of climate change that will be damaging to our global society is to be believed as fact, but that it is quite likely to be fairly accurate, and thus more credible than non-science based opinions of the changes to expect in the global climate.
Why should people who do not understand the scientific method and scientific institutions for the vetting of knowledge claims, and who do not have the ability (nor interest) to read the research results themselves, give credence to those public intellectuals informed by the science as opposed to those who would deny the science? Of course, one can look for interests that might influence people's pronouncements; those who own oil companies might be loath to promote policies to reduce the consumption of oil. But scepticism about the claims of those who profit from the belief of others in those claims is not sufficient. Nor is belief in the accuracy of movie stars nor the credibility of business men when they speak about things outside their areas of expertise.
We need political leaders who are scientifically literate, at least in the sense that they recognize the utility of being informed as to the scientific consensus (where one exists) on issues that inform the policy issues on which they are working. We need political leaders who are constrained to base their public statements on the best available information. We will get such leaders only if we reject politicians who fail those tests, and that in turn demands an informed electorate.
It seems to me that the real answer is that schools should take on a long term effort to explain to students how science works, and how scientists vet knowledge claims. Increasingly we need to teach students information literacy -- the ability to judge the quality of information that they obtain. One aspect of information literacy is the ability to understand whether a scientific claim is widely supported within the scientific institutions or whether it is an outlier. Of course the great advances in science are first offered by individuals and appear as outliers, but they are few and far between. When 95 percent of a large and mature scientific community agree on one thing, while one-in-20 suggest another thing to be true, the 95 percent deserve more credence from the public. They may not be right, but they are more likely to be right than the minority.
The physical sciences differ from the social sciences. The physical sciences offer much greater possibilities for experimental tests of hypotheses. Indeed, they are more easily translated into engineering. We can see if out understanding of physics leads to the design and construction of bridges and buildings that stand up and last more easily than we can check whether our understanding of economics leads to economic policy interventions that work. The social sciences still offer a useful discipline of organized theory, careful taxonomy, and disciplined observation. They offer the institutionalized system for training and certification of new scientists, for networking among social scientists for the development (and rejection) of consensus on theory and the meaning of observations, and importantly for peer review. The unthinking rejection of the advice of economists because that advice conflicts with our prejudice is a very dangerous tactic, one that we should oppose in our politicians.
Thus HIV probably does cause AIDS, evolution probably does explain why the great chain of being exists, the earth probably is roughly spherical, and the earth probably does orbit the sun. And we are probably facing serious economic problems on a global scale if national leaders across the globe do not take advice from the economists on policies to promote economic growth and constrain willingness either to sacrifice future welfare for current consumption or to fail to work together to deal with mutual problems.
As difficult it is to move toward systems for vetting policy relevant knowledge and basing policy on the best available knowledge in developed nations (developed in the sense of nations with relatively strong scientific communities, relatively well educated electorates, relatively strong systems for public information, and relatively strong democratic institutions), the problems are greater still in less developed countries.
I have been reading The Age of Reform by Richard Hofstadter. Hofstadter points out that while the Land Grant College Act was passed in the United States in 1862 to develop national institutions which could strengthen the application of agricultural science to farming, the major impact of scientific farming (and commercial agriculture) was not much felt until a period starting in the late 1890s. The application of scientific approaches to agriculture of course continued through the 20th century, fueling the Green Revolution, and continues today to improve and maintain the productivity of farms.
The point is that the application of better scientific knowledge (and the development of that knowledge) to practical purposes is likely to be a very long term effort.
Remember that the way to create a lawn like that of the great European estates is to use very good seed, and then tend the lawn carefully for 300 years of so. Those who would create such lawns need to start as soon as possible because the effort requires such long term dedication. So too, those who would see the best knowledge applied to development in poor countries better start working as soon as possible because it will take a long time to build the institutions and see their impact diffuse through the society.
Two hundred years ago there was wide spread agreement, at least among whites, that blacks were intellectually and morally inferior to whites. From that belief and the recognition that a large part of the U.S. economy depended on slave labor, and the increasing pressure for abolition abroad and within the United States led to the concerns as to what to do.
Today there is a wide spread agreement that the releases of greenhouse gases has increased and is continuing to increase. From that belief, and the recognition that a large part of the U.S. economy is geared to produce those greenhouse gases, and the increasing pressure for control of emissions abroad and within the United States there are concerns as to what to do.
There is also a fundamental difference. The belief that blacks were inferior was not scientific (and indeed science was not sufficiently developed to tackle such questions adequately two centuries ago) while the belief that the level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere affects the temperature is based on science. There were no scientific findings as to what would happen if slavery were not to be abolished, while there are scientific findings as to what will happen if greenhouse gas emissions continue to grow as they have been doing. (And of course, our ancestors were wrong to think that the blacks were racially inferior and it is very, very probable that if we keep emitting greenhouse gases in increasing amounts, we will see global warming, sea level rises that will wipe out coastal zones, and major local climate changes over most of the globe.)
In both cases, intellectual leaders of the time make pronouncements whether or not their knowledge is of a credible kind. The general public had then little ability to judge the quality of the knowledge of the opinion makers, and a large part of the general public today has little ability to judge the quality of the knowledge of those who would make opinion today.
I suggest that scientific knowledge is generally credible. I do so because scientific knowledge is based on controlled observation, based on efforts to challenge hypotheses based on theory, replicated by others in other places, and subjected to peer review. I have been fortunate enough to observe peer review on thousands of occasions and have come to appreciate the qualifications and seriousness that scientists bring to the process. I do not suggest that the wide spread scientific consensus that greenhouse gas emissions will lead to levels of climate change that will be damaging to our global society is to be believed as fact, but that it is quite likely to be fairly accurate, and thus more credible than non-science based opinions of the changes to expect in the global climate.
Why should people who do not understand the scientific method and scientific institutions for the vetting of knowledge claims, and who do not have the ability (nor interest) to read the research results themselves, give credence to those public intellectuals informed by the science as opposed to those who would deny the science? Of course, one can look for interests that might influence people's pronouncements; those who own oil companies might be loath to promote policies to reduce the consumption of oil. But scepticism about the claims of those who profit from the belief of others in those claims is not sufficient. Nor is belief in the accuracy of movie stars nor the credibility of business men when they speak about things outside their areas of expertise.
 |
| Image Source |
We need political leaders who are scientifically literate, at least in the sense that they recognize the utility of being informed as to the scientific consensus (where one exists) on issues that inform the policy issues on which they are working. We need political leaders who are constrained to base their public statements on the best available information. We will get such leaders only if we reject politicians who fail those tests, and that in turn demands an informed electorate.
It seems to me that the real answer is that schools should take on a long term effort to explain to students how science works, and how scientists vet knowledge claims. Increasingly we need to teach students information literacy -- the ability to judge the quality of information that they obtain. One aspect of information literacy is the ability to understand whether a scientific claim is widely supported within the scientific institutions or whether it is an outlier. Of course the great advances in science are first offered by individuals and appear as outliers, but they are few and far between. When 95 percent of a large and mature scientific community agree on one thing, while one-in-20 suggest another thing to be true, the 95 percent deserve more credence from the public. They may not be right, but they are more likely to be right than the minority.
The physical sciences differ from the social sciences. The physical sciences offer much greater possibilities for experimental tests of hypotheses. Indeed, they are more easily translated into engineering. We can see if out understanding of physics leads to the design and construction of bridges and buildings that stand up and last more easily than we can check whether our understanding of economics leads to economic policy interventions that work. The social sciences still offer a useful discipline of organized theory, careful taxonomy, and disciplined observation. They offer the institutionalized system for training and certification of new scientists, for networking among social scientists for the development (and rejection) of consensus on theory and the meaning of observations, and importantly for peer review. The unthinking rejection of the advice of economists because that advice conflicts with our prejudice is a very dangerous tactic, one that we should oppose in our politicians.
Thus HIV probably does cause AIDS, evolution probably does explain why the great chain of being exists, the earth probably is roughly spherical, and the earth probably does orbit the sun. And we are probably facing serious economic problems on a global scale if national leaders across the globe do not take advice from the economists on policies to promote economic growth and constrain willingness either to sacrifice future welfare for current consumption or to fail to work together to deal with mutual problems.
 |
| Image source |
I have been reading The Age of Reform by Richard Hofstadter. Hofstadter points out that while the Land Grant College Act was passed in the United States in 1862 to develop national institutions which could strengthen the application of agricultural science to farming, the major impact of scientific farming (and commercial agriculture) was not much felt until a period starting in the late 1890s. The application of scientific approaches to agriculture of course continued through the 20th century, fueling the Green Revolution, and continues today to improve and maintain the productivity of farms.
The point is that the application of better scientific knowledge (and the development of that knowledge) to practical purposes is likely to be a very long term effort.
Remember that the way to create a lawn like that of the great European estates is to use very good seed, and then tend the lawn carefully for 300 years of so. Those who would create such lawns need to start as soon as possible because the effort requires such long term dedication. So too, those who would see the best knowledge applied to development in poor countries better start working as soon as possible because it will take a long time to build the institutions and see their impact diffuse through the society.
2 comments:
This is an outstanding column. I write about similar topics in my book Fool me Twice: Fighting the Assault on Science in America. Well done.
Thank you Shawn! I appreciate the praise from the author of Fool me Twice: Fighting the Assault on Science in America. Click here for a review of the book.
I quote from the book description on Amazon: "In early 2008, of the 2,975 questions asked the candidates for president just six mentioned the words "global warming" or "climate change," the greatest policy challenge facing America. To put that in perspective, three questions mentioned UFOs."
I should clearly have emphasized the need for a scientifically literate media that takes seriously the responsibility to draw on science to inform the public while supporting the increase of public scientific literacy. Of course, people need to tune in when the media takes on that job. According to a recent poll, neither liberals nor conservatives in America are doing that very much.
Post a Comment