Re: [asa] Global Warming, Ethics, and Social Sciences

*I broke my leg and took the advice of the orthopedic surgeon although I
didn't like it. I sure could not have overuled the surgeon with my
knowledge.*
**
My youngest son has a serious neurological disorder. I am not able to treat
him myself; I rely on the advice of specialists. However, I don't consider
myself incapable of making responsible decisions about his care and I would
not divest my responsibility for his care to anyone. I've read enough of
the literature relevant to his condition to understand it in a general sense
and to critically evaluate the treatment options the specialists present to
me. Obviously I'm not as knowledgeable as his neurologist, but I'm capable
of asking the right questions.

I guess I feel something similar relating to public policy. At the end of
the day, I'm spiritually and physically acountable for my son. And at the
end of the day, I have a similar kind of accountability relating to the
creation and culture in which God has given me a stewardship. It's of
course prudent to seek the counsel of experts, but I'd suggest we also have
a responsibility to learn enough to ask questions and make our own
judgments.

On 1/19/07, Al Koop <koopa@gvsu.edu> wrote:
>
> What choice do we have? It takes 10 years of specific education or so to
> be able to make an informed decision about global warming. I broke my leg
> and took the advice of the orthopedic surgeon although I didn't like it. I
> sure could not have overuled the surgeon with my knowledge. It depends on
> the situation obviously; the less information one needs to make an informed
> decison the more people can be involved; the ease with which the decision
> can be reversed also has to be factored in. Your former colleague is on very
> thin ice deciding happiness for others.
>
> Actually genetics in Russia would have been a lot better off listening to
> the top 200 geneticists in the republics than the views of the political
> favorite, Lysenko. Indeed one can make the case that poor science dominated
> by the political system contributed significantly to the collapse of the
> USSR. Genetics policy was anything but a scientific concensus in the Soviet
> Union.
>
> >>> "David Opderbeck" <dopderbeck@gmail.com> 01/19/07 1:10 PM >>>
> *So who am I to tell them I think they are wrong. Why should anybody
> besides top atmospheric scientists be able to claim they are wrong? Who
> decides they are wrong, and on what basis? Is it really a good idea to
> let
> voters decide between someone who says they accept this view and somebody
> who says they don't accept this?*
>
> This is the sort of thinking that scares me. Should we accept a
> benevolent
> dictatorship of scientific experts? How far should this principle extend?
> For example, a former colleague of mine on a law faculty wrote a paper
> about
> "affective forecasting" -- the well established consensus notion in the
> social psychology literature that people are bad at predicting which
> course
> of action will make them happy. His suggestion was that, based on these
> scientific results, rational people should be willing to delegate much of
> their life plans to experts. From my perspective, broad central planning
> based on scientific consensus has been tried in places like China and the
> former Soviet Union, and it has always turned out badly.
>
>
>
> On 1/19/07, Al Koop <koopa@gvsu.edu> wrote:
> >
> > >>> "David Opderbeck" < dopderbeck@gmail.com> 01/19/07 8:23 AM >>>
> >
> > The problem is, the ecologists can only tell us so much, and we need
> > insight
> > from economists and other social scientists if we want to make wise
> policy
> > choices. I think this is my biggest concern about the public debate
> right
> > now. Anyone who questions the sort of radical action that Gore & co.
> > propose is labeled as anti-science. It is not anti-science, however, to
>
> > insist on sound economic and social models before signing on to a
> radical
> > policy agenda. It's pro-science, or better, simple prudence.
> >
> >
> > AK:
> > This is my last post on this matter. The ecologists (and other
> scientists
> > in other cases) indeed can tell us only so much, but I insist that they
> can
> > be highly confident that they can set some limits and what they tell us
> > about such limits cannot be ignored by economists or anybody else. No
> > biological organisms will grow if one of the essential nutrients is
> > exhausted from the environment or if waste builds up to toxic
> > levels--period. In my opinion, any economic model is worthless that
> suggests
> > that organisms can grow and exceed the limits set by nature. In other
> > words, I am confident that science trumps economics. If economists
> respect
> > those limits, then they can tell us a lot, but too often they insist
> those
> > limits simply don't exist.
> >
> > But science is not so robust that on complex issues it can tell us
> > precisely what these limits are and when we are nearing them or when we
> have
> > reached them. The problem is that when reasonable knowledgeable people
> > think we are approaching these limits it is not easy to convince the
> general
> > public that this is the case. In fact, if you are politically savvy,
> you
> > know the public does not like to hear bad news, and if you haven't hit
> any
> > limits yet it is pretty easy to convince the public that there is no
> limit
> > in sight.rels of
> > oil a day. The economists tell us that we will require 120 million
> barrels
> > by 2025 and lots more by 2050 if the world economy is to remain on
> track. I
> > am confident that the 1-2% growth that we have been experiencing in oil
> > supply over the last 100 years simply will not continue for another 50
> > years. The response of most is: "How do you know? It hasn't happened
> > yet. Those scientists a!
> > re so smart they will figure out a way so we will have enough energy for
> > our cars." [ It is amazing that the general public finds it easy to
> believe
> > that scientists are so smart they can come up with all sorts of advances
> to
> > make life better, but when they suggest that there are problems looming
> on
> > the horizon the scientists suddenly become bumbling idiots.] It isn't
> easy
> > getting elected telling the public you will vote to spend money today
> for a
> > future problem that they cannot see that requires them to believe some
> > scientific projections about limits. All the opposing politician has to
> do
> > is point out previous alarms that were sounded that turned out to be
> > wrong. Certain oil people projected in the past 10 years that we should
> > have already reached the limit of oil supply, but we haven't. This is
> good
> > enough evidence for many (probably a significant majority I would say)
> that
> > we don't have to be concerned about limits to our energy
> supply. Likewise,
> > I see the s!
> > ame thing happening for global warming—reasonable knowledgea!
> > ble peop
> > le largely agree that humans are messing up the atmosphere and there are
>
> > likely to be dire consequences for future generations unless we take
> some
> > steps that cost us significantly in some way today. But people don't
> want
> > to take these steps unless they are sure they are needed, and there are
> > plenty of people that tell them these steps are unnecessary. Since the
> > global warming effects will creep upon us slowly, if they do indeed
> happen,
> > widespread support for mitigating global warming effects won't
> materialize
> > until too late, unless leaders have enough confidence in today's
> scientific
> > projections to act on it. I predict we will do little to restrict
> > greenhouse gas emissions and future gations will get to experience the
> > results.
> >
> > Now referring to Randy Issacs recent post, which I generally agree with,
> > almost all knowledgeable atmospheric scientists agree that global
> warming is
> > the result of human influence. So who am I to tell them I think they
> are
> > wrong. Why should anybody besides top atmospheric scientists be able to
> > claim they are wrong? Who decides they are wrong, and on what
> basis? Is it
> > really a good idea to let voters decide between someone who says they
> accept
> > this view and somebody who says they don't accept this? What will the
> > effects of this global warming be? This will have to be determined by
> the
> > geologists, ecologists, oceanographers, climatologists, etc. Who are the
>
> > general public to tell them they are wrong? Getting back to your
> original
> > question, David, we can indeed let the sociologists and economists give
> us
> > guidance about whether the public would like to see Florida under water
> in a
> > 100 years or whether they would they rather
> > take expensive steps to prevent this today. But what the public really
> > wants to believe is that they don't have to make that choice; what they
> > would really want to hear is that there is no global warming problem, or
> at
> > least none that we could prevent. Of course, no one wants to spend any
> > money to reduce carbon emissions if they are harmless. Of course no one
> > wants to spend enormous amounts of money to reduce carbon emissions if
> it
> > won't put a dent in global warming. But aren't these the questions that
> > science will have to answer? Isn't that where we are stuck?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> > "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
> >
>
>
>
> --
> David W. Opderbeck
> Web: http://www.davidopderbeck.com
> Blogmyspace.com/davidbecke <http://blogmyspace.com/davidbecke>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>

-- 
David W. Opderbeck
Web:  http://www.davidopderbeck.com
Blog:  http://www.davidopderbeck.com/throughaglass.html
MySpace (Music):  http://www.myspace.com/davidbecke
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.