Epistemology & Climate Change Part 2

Perhaps it is worthwhile to take a further look at this term "knowing."  In the example of Climate Change, let's suppose that Man Made Climate Change (MMCC) is "True": that it is factual that emissions from human industrial activities are responsible for some level of change in the climate of the earth - either making it more chaotic, or resulting in the increase in temperature, or both.

Now it seems to be me that there are several schools of people in relation to this truth.  There are those who truly know this truth - these would be the scientists who have applied the scientific method and demonstrated the truth.  Then there are those who "simply" or "accidentally" know this truth - while they believe in MMCC, they do so for reasons other than the demonstration of the truth - such a person might have a correct premise (the temperature of the earth is increasing) and a correct conclusion (man-made emissions are causing the temperature of the earth to increase), but they have not demonstrated the connection between the two.  There are also those who falsely know this truth.  A good example of this type is someone who argues "MMCC is true because a preponderance of scientists believe it to be true" - majority opinion has no bearing on truth.  This type has an incorrect premise (majorities are correct when it comes to scientific opinion), but end up at the right conclusion anyway.  Nevertheless, in our overall example, even those who falsely know truth, know truth. On the other hand, there are three corresponding schools:  there are those who truly do not know this truth - such as scientists who have applied the scientific method and have erred in their experiments or conclusions.  Likewise there are those who simply or accidentally do not know the truth - their rejection is based on factors other than the demonstration.  Finally, there are those who falsely do not know the truth - that is, both their rejection of the truth and their reasons for it are flawed.

Now, it should be obvious that in any population, the number who truly know the truth is likely to be very small.  In fact, it is likely that only specialists will ever be in this camp, and then it is likely only a minority of the specialists themselves will truly know the truth.

For the example of MMCC, and of course, presuming that it is true, of the other two types - those who simply or accidentally know the truth, and those who falsely know the truth, the adherents of Scientism fall into the latter camp.

But does this discount the knowledge of truth of those who either simply or falsely know the truth, or does it vindicate those who do not know the truth?  I argue that it does not.  For, in a semiotic sense, our means of knowing the truth may be one of the three posited conditions, but if the truth stands external to ourselves, then the intermediary, in a static end-state, is irrelevant.  All three types of individual stand in the same relation to the truth.

What is different, however, is how that truth becomes actionable in the hands of the three different types of "knowers".

Epistemology & Climate Change

A spate of comments regarding Global Warming from some of my liberal facebook friends has left me pondering the different ways of knowing.  

Let me begin this by saying that I am not a scientist.  My undergraduate degree is in mechanical engineering, and I never completed my master's degree in material science.  I have worked in nanotechnology (more accurately, microtechnology) for about twenty years, and have only two published papers (one in the Journal of Materials Research and one in the Journal of Experimental Biology).  Both of my papers were primarily written by actual scientists - I was a contributing coauthor.  I have, however, worked with many scientists, and while my field of study is not environmental science, the "Scientific Method," does not vary by branch (for the hard sciences, anyway).

Why is this relevant?  Because I am bemused by the degree to which the adherents of Global Warming (or Climate Change) bear resemblance to the adherents of other faiths.  Now, before you get your panties in a bunch, and accuse me of Global Warming Denial, Homophobia, and Santorum-Loving, let me say that by no means do I dispute Man Made Climate Change.  I simply do not know enough about it.  It certainly seems reasonable to believe that the enormous emissions associated with our fossil-fuel-burning energy production ought to have some impact on the atmosphere, but realistically I don't know.  

The earth's environment is insanely complex.  Dozens of elements chemically interact in the atmosphere. This interaction is complicated by the pressure and temperature at which the interaction takes place.  Pressure, temperature, and composition of the air are variables with time (season and hour) and location (altitude, latitude, longitude).  Further, magnetic and gravitational influences cannot be neglected.  And, of course, there is no closed system to study, insufficient historical data, and the time period of our observation is tiny compared to the timescale of the system being studied.

This doesn't mean that the environmental system of the earth cannot be studied, understood, or modeled. But it does mean that, in comparison with something like metallurgy, the problems which confront the scientist are staggering.

Again, let me assert that I am not questioning the preliminary conclusions of climatologists.  Perhaps they have approached their task with a rigor that would surprise me.  Perhaps their analytical and numerical models are of a sophistication that makes the material scientist's finite element modeling or molecular dynamics look like child's play.

My point is this: that the dogmatic reaction of the non-scientist adherents to those who do question Man Made Climate Change is a reflection not of "science" or "reason", but of Scientism, which is itself no more rational than any faith.  Scientism consists in a belief that truth can only be ascertained by application of the Scientific Method.  But in an epistemological sense, an individual's relation to truth, expressed by "knowing" is confounded by the means in which that truth is related to knowledge.  If one accepts the idea that the Scientific Method is the only demonstrable means of knowing truth, then this applies only to the individual that has produced or seen produced the evidence in a conclusive study, presuming that such a conclusive study is even possible.  But this is not applicable to most of the adherents of Global Warming.  Rather, such non-scientists are relying on the authority of scientists to transmit truth to them.  So we have a sort of second-hand knowledge.  The non-scientist will reply that so long as the Scientific Method was properly applied, then the Authority is genuine, and that Genuine Authority can be verified either by direct reproduction of the Scientific Method, or by appeal to a secondary Authority in the form of "Peer Review."

It is precisely in this appeal to Peer Review, however, that the Global Warming Disciples show their hand, for it is the strident rejection of the "Global Warming Deniers" that reduces the "Peers" to a subset of the community.  So long as the presupposition is that Man Made Climate Change exists, anyone who disputes this is excluded from the group of Peers.

Now, it is the joy and delight of the Global Warming Disciples to raise the specter of "Flat Earth Theory" as an example of undeniable scientific fact that was (and is) nevertheless challenged or denied.  But let's take a moment and look at Flat Earth Theory from an epistemological standpoint and then compare it to Man Made Climate Change.  How do you know that the earth is round?  You were probably told this in school.  Perhaps you were shown a picture of a round earth.  Maybe you have been to the ocean and observed ships sinking over the horizon.  Perhaps you studied physics and grasp the abstract notion that a sphere is a shape that minimizes surface energy.  Here you are seeing three different types of knowing: Revelation (knowledge transmitted by an Authority), Observation, and Abstract Reasoning.  Have you, personally, ever worked through the abstract reasoning that leads to the conclusion that the earth is spherical (or mostly spherical, of course)?  Have you really taken the time to observe the phenomena that support the Round Earth Theory?  Possibly so, but in all likelihood, the primary means of your knowing is the first - that you are swimming in waters in which Round Earth Theory is so dominant that it is never questioned.  Now, the shape of the earth is a pretty basic thing - mankind didn't need modern science or the "Scientific Method" (as articulated) to determine that the earth was round.  As with most liberal mythologies, the idea that the Flat Earth was a medieval construct symptomatic of man's pre-enlightenment ignorance is as pervasive as it is inaccurate.  But let's start taking more recent scientific theories, from the laws of thermodynamics to quantum theory.  You can point to your computer and say that it is evidence of the truth of physics.  But remember, Arthur Clark's oft-cited Third Law: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" cuts both ways:  Magic is indistinguishable from an advanced technology - to an adherent of Scientism.  The fact is that, in all probability you don't know how your computer works.  You accept the explanation of the scientists because you trust them as Authorities.

Now, in the case of your computer, you can back up your faith with evidence: the computer works.  But what about in the case of Man Made Climate Change?  You don't have the same luxury.  The complexity of the system, the disparity in time-scales for your observation and the purported data, all make it impossible for you to independently verify the theories of the climatologists.   When one set of scientists says "rising worldwide temperatures are due to fossil fuel emissions," and another set of scientists says "rising worldwide temperatures are due to natural cycles" and another set of scientists says "rising worldwide temperatures are due to errors in measurement", you choose to believe the first, ignore the second, and mock the last.

As I pointed out in the beginning of this long screed, the environment presents scientific problems that make material science look trivial by comparison.  Yet within material science, as I can attest through personal experience, there is argument and debate and disagreement.  A good example is something called "indentation size effect," or "ISE", which was a theory that said that as indentations in a material got smaller, they eventually got to a point where the deformation mechanisms were different and you were really sampling the interaction of atoms rather than the "continuum mechanics" behavior.  A large group of the community felt that the observations of ISE were more likely experimental errors.  The debate continues, although the preponderance of opinion seems to be that ISE is real and has been demonstrated by pillar-crushing experiments and well-controlled tests on defect-free samples.  If such argument continues to exist when considering hundreds of thousands of closed-system tests in laboratory environments on simple single-element materials, how much more argument is likely when you consider an open, non-laboratory, multi-element, untestable, uncontrolled and impure system such as the earth's environment?

My conclusion is that you believe one set of scientists over another because that is who you want to believe.  You either trust them more, because of their reputation or their numbers, or because of who-else trusts them, or you want to believe them because their conclusions align with your perception of reality.

If this is true of Global Warming Disciples (and I have no doubt that I have failed to convince you), then it is certainly true of Global Warming Deniers, whom, I assert, disbelieve Man Made Climate Change because they don't want it to be true.

Escape from Facebook

The facebook format has slowly sucked all the creativity out of me and left me a troll.  In hopes of establishing at least some modicum of self-respect, I'm coming back to Blogger after a long hiatus.  I'll be re-posting material from my older blogs (but I won't link to them - previous anonymity meant that there was no filter).