The issue unfortunately boils down to faith. The scientific method is founded in logic, and to accept conclusions from the scientific method you must be able to follow that logic. Problem is most of the public doesn't have the education to follow the line of scientific inquiry and rationale inherent in something as complex as our climate system. The climate is an intersection of physics, biology, and chemistry that is simply gigantic, and it takes years of study to really feel grounded in the field. Attempts to put the topic in layman's terms (like An Inconvenient Truth) are ultimately doomed to fail because they cannot replicate in two hours what climatologists spend years learning.
As a result, all the public can do is put its faith in science. Terms like peer review and broad consensus are thrown about as bludgeons to beat down the natural process of questioning undertaken by those who do not understand. Scientists are in a reluctant battle of belief - they know what the data says and understand the implications, but that knowledge and understanding cannot be simply imparted to the layman. They beg for the public to believe, and use their status as scientists as collateral in the bargain.
Problem is there are plenty of others who are also begging for the public to believe. Special interests, free-market politicians, folks wary of government intervention. These are the people who are most adept at winning arguments of faith. Scientists are trained to be logical, to avoid straw man arguments and ad hominem attacks, whereas non-scientists earn their keep by mastering those tactics. I don't see a way out of this problem that doesn't involve waiting until evidence is so inescapable that the time to act is long in the past. The best we can do is invest in education and hope that the public gradually becomes less susceptible to logical fallacies.
No comments:
Post a Comment