Re: [asa] Creation Care

*On the other hand, if they don't want to listen, then what?*
**
It's hard not to respond with an East German accent: "then ve vill make
them listen!" Seriously, one of the costs of a free, open, democratic
society is that the public might get it wrong. One could argue that a wise
and beneficent tyrant is preferable to democratic government. That, in
fact, underlay some of the old belief in the divine right of kings. Of
course, history demonstrates that tyrants usually aren't all that wise or
beneficent.

One could then argue that a socialist form of government, in which the
people devolve key decision-making authority to central planning experts, is
more sensible. Maybe this is a third rail in this discussion, but it's
something I think we need to be clear about when we talk about the authority
of scientific consensus: the modern environmental movement has tended in
many quarters towards socialistic presuppositions, often mixed with a sort
of nouveax-pantheism.

This is NOT to suggest that climate scientists are part of a pink or
red cabal or are dupes of an anti-democratic conspiracy. It does, however,
help contextualize which aspects of the science and which policy
prescriptions get emphasized by advocacy groups, in public debates, and in
some university settings. Anyone who suggests that large-scale
decision-making relating to scientific issues is too complex for ordinary
people, and should be instead devloved to a small group of professional
experts, has to explain how that system will escape the corruption and
injustice that has plagued every other such system in history.

On 1/26/07, Dawsonzhu@aol.com <Dawsonzhu@aol.com> wrote:
>
> *Reason, wisdom, experience, common sense, faith, and revelation, in
> varying proportions as the circumstances dicate, is the basis on which we
> need to evaluate truth claims and make decisions. A recapture of the
> classicle virtue of phronesis and the Biblical virtue of wisdom is what we
> need. The last thing we need is to abrogate our duty to think for ourselves
> to some supposedly authoritative community. Most people are not as stupid
> as other people think they are.
>
> *Since this is a matter that would become that of public policy, it is
> certainly
> something that needs to be explained clearly enough that most of the
> people with a high school education can understand what is being discussed
> at some reasonable level.
>
> On the other hand, if they don't want to listen, then what?
>
> Also, whereas it is part of the duty of a scientist/expert in
> a field to explain the concepts clearly, the tendency for the layman
> to expect some polished AV show in executive summary form is
> more than a small inconvenience for people devoted to doing their
> job as scientists. When you have only 5 minute to explain years
> of careful, detailed research, a polished straight to the point
> performance is more than a small Herculean accomplishment.
>
> By Grace we proceed,
> Wayne
>
>
> Why must there be a single person or single community that serves as
> arbiter? That approach always leads to tyranny.
>
> Reason, wisdom, experience, common sense, faith, and revelation, in
> varying proportions as the circumstances dicate, is the basis on which we
> need to evaluate truth claims and make decisions. A recapture of the
> classicle virtue of phronesis and the Biblical virtue of wisdom is what we
> need. The last thing we need is to abrogate our duty to think for ourselves
> to some supposedly authoritative community. Most people are not as stupid
> as other people think they are.
>
> It seems to me that you're coming dangerously close to the zeitgeist that
> takes "the literature" as a sort of secular scripture and the scientific
> community as a sort of secular priesthood. Of course practical wisdom
> relies on the recommendations of trained experts and recognizes the motives
> of the experts' political critics -- but it never, never sloughs off the
> duty to think carefully and weigh everything in the balances simply because
> of expert authority. Even beyond the simple and obvious truth that all
> human knowledge is historically and socially situated, we as Christians know
> in particular the every temporal social structure, every community,
> scientific, ecclesiastical, political, familial whatever, is deeply
> corrupted by sin and therefore cannot be authoritative in an ultimate
> sense. To put it in somewhat Kuyperian terms, each of these communities
> have a certain type of authority and certain roles within their given
> spheres, as well as certain relationships to each other; none of them is a
> meta-authority.
>
> String theory is not consensus in the sense of being tested experimentally
> and found to be consistent.
>
> And string theorists would say that their models are sound and elegant,
> and that if you don't have the many years of training required to really
> understand them, you shouldn't question them. See, the authority game gets
> pecked away bit by bit, and the response always is, "well that community of
> science doesn't really have it's act together, but this one does." But then
> that community of science says, "who are you to say we don't have our act
> together?" Who, then, is the arbiter of which community of science gets to
> be the arbiter?
>
> Allowing the shrill voices of critics who have no competing models, who
> have no in-depth understanding of the field, to prevent action is also
> unacceptable.
>
> Perhaps, but censoring criticism is equally unacceptable. If the critics
> really have no in-depth understanding of the field, let the mainstream
> voices demonstrate that through facts and argument. If that can't be
> demonstrated through facts and argument, maybe the critics know more than
> the mainstream thinks.
>
> As to "no competing models" -- that line, IMHO, though, is a canard when
> it comes to policy making. If a model is advanced the demands very costly
> social action, criticism of the model can be very valuable even if the
> critic has no competing model. Simply avoiding the costs of the faulty
> mainstream model would be a good thing.
>
> Having said all this, let me reiterate: I personally think global warming
> is a real problem that is substantially caused by human actions, and that
> some political action is necessary. I am not convinced that anyone can say
> the problem will be catastrophic in any given time frame, however. But I am
> most sure that censoring debate and arguing from authority is a bad
> precedent to set, particularly if we want to approach the science-policy
> nexus from a thoroughly Christian perspective.
>
>
>
>

-- 
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.