I made a smartass reply to a climate change deniers comment this morning, smug in my knowledge that approximately 98% of climatologists and other scientists with expertise support the idea that carbon dioxide-induced climate change is real. Even though I dont know enough about climatology to make an informed decision, I take the rational approach that if those who know better have concerns, then so do I. And I recognize that there are likely to be assumptions and model predictions that are questionable, but not enough to make the hypothesis invalid. That word right there - hypothesis - is problematic. My thoughts on this may not be original or especially valid but here goes. The hypothesis statement is that the uncontrolled combustion of millions of years of stored carbon is causing an increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which may cause warming of global temperatures at a rate that is greater than typical of geological rates; this unprecedented global warming might cause [or is causing] destructive weather patterns and unprecedented patterns of extinction and cultural damage. The typical next step in scientific inquiry is to develop experiments to support or refute the hypothesis. The astute person will immediately recognize that there are not experiments that can reasonably be done to test this hypothesis in the tradition sense of controlled experiments. Experiments are simplifications of the real world that still have elements of that real world, but are simplifications that make assumptions that may or may not be realistic. The only way to test a hypothesis of something of this scale and complexity is to use mathematical models. Mathematical models attempt to describe complex physical or biological processes in terms of an equation; the simplest may be a linear equation of y=ax+b that might describe a dose-response relationship, for example. But as processes become more complex, so do the equations, and the assumptions become more restrictive or unrealistic. And as processes become more complex, hypothesis testing may become a duel between competing models. My consolation is that the deniers do not seem to attempt to model a process but rely on misrepresentation of meteorological data or rely on non-rational arguments. What I really meant to talk about was rationalism using global warming deniers as an example. Rationalism may be the true foundation of what is considered Western culture. But it has its limitations: it is a belief system based on logic that has no more basis in fact than the belief that Hercules has been tricked once again to carrying the Earth on his shoulders. It is humanism in its most basic form: the belief that what we can rationally think about is the truth, because of our intellect. It has all the trappings of proofs and theorems but it has the circularity that rationalism defines things such as proofs and theorems. Rationalism is the polar opposite of spiritualism or religion on the surface, but is in fact a belief system with no more or less basis in truth, because truth is an experience that is unique to each of us. The trouble with rationalism is that if something can’t be explained, such as paranormal occurrences, a rationalist denies that it exists rather than admitting it can’t be explained with current knowledge. Rationalism is as arrogant as an unyielding fundamentalist. However, rationalism is the true state religion of Euro-centric cultures, including the United States. The deniers attempt to use it although they fail miserably because their truths are somewhere else. The Constitution is based on rationalism with an implicit denial of spiritualism and an explicit denial of religion. Rationalism is the basis of a republic, the system of government of the US, not a democracy which may lead to irrationality based on the whims of a majority. Rationalism’s adherents attempt to provide basic human rights regardless of the popularity of the moment.
Posted on: Mon, 21 Oct 2013 02:33:24 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015