Here.
I know, I know: I’ve already written one ridiculously long piece on one sentence of George Will’s now-infamous global warming column for The Washington Post. But I just had another thought or two on the subject. And I decided that, rather than add a large chunk to an already too-large post, I’d just make a new post on the douchebaggery of George Will.
I realized, you see, that, not only was Will being epistemically and ethically irresponsible with his column, he was also relying on some rather dubious assumptions about philosophy of science to do it.
Here’s my first thought: In my last post, I was thinking of Will’s statement as a general argument, not as an argument about science. Consider the difference. Here’s a formulation of Will’s argument if it were a general argument:
(1) If global warming exists, then global sea ice levels will have dropped.
(2) Global sea ice levels are now equal to those of 1979.
--
(3) Global sea ice levels have not dropped
--
(4) Global warming does not exist.
Let’s pretend that (2) is true, even though it’s not. Let’s further pretend that (2) supports (3), even though it doesn’t. I know, I know: we’re granting Will an awful lot here, but bear with me.
If we grant all of this, then this argument is valid and sound (quite an achievement for Will). It would seem, then, that the story is over, and global warming does not exist. But there’s something suspicious about this, at least from a philosophy of science point of view.
Here’s a formulation of Will’s argument as an argument about science:
(1) The theory of global warming (T) has the observational consequence that global sea ice levels will have dropped (O).
(2) Global sea ice levels are now equal to those of 1979.
--
(3) Not-O
--
(4) Not-T
Unless you’re a pretty strict (or naïve, as the case may be) Popperian, your intuition should be that the first formulation (with all that shit granted) is convincing but the second formulation (with all that shit granted) is not. Here’s why:
In science, one anomaly does not a falsification make. For example: our theories of planetary motion had the observational consequence that Neptune would move a certain way. It didn’t. We could have called our theory of planetary motion falsified and moved on, but we didn’t. Instead we postulated the existence of another planet that affected Neptune’s orbit such that it didn’t match our theory’s observational consequence. Then we found Pluto.
Theories, to paraphrase Imre Lakatos, grow up in an ocean of anomalies. Without anomalies, theories wouldn’t have any work to do, they wouldn’t have anything to digest—and turn into new discoveries.
Strictly speaking, the first formulation (granting all that shit) is correct: global warming would not be true—in one very specific articulation. But that anomaly would be start scientists looking for what went wrong, and, when they found it, then the theory of global warming might look a little different, but it would still be global warming.
Refuting fully-fledged theories (like global warming) is hard, hard work. And it would take more than just a couple anomalies to do it.
Of course, Will’s argument is actually specious (though we’re pretending it’s not), so this whole post is pretty hypothetical...
Here’s my second thought: Will wasn’t just being specious with that one particular statement. His entire friggin’ column was pretty much bullshit. He leads off with the greatest hits of the global cooling fad in the ‘70s. Of course, global cooling wasn’t ever really much of a competitor for global warming. It might have been, were it not for human activity… but that is neither her nor there.
But let’s pretend, for the sake of argument, that back in the ‘70s, global cooling really was a serious competitor to global warming. Even if it were, I would argue that we are still rationally constrained to accept the reality of global warming. I would go so far as to argue that we were even rationally constrained to accept global cooling (presuming, of course, that it actually was the dominant scientific paradigm back then).
The thing about scientific theories is that, while they may not be correct, they represent the best of our knowledge at a given time. And, as such, in general, we are rationally constrained to accept them. Simply put, they are the best explanation for the phenomena around us. And, if you’re a believer in inference to the best explanation (as most are), then, when a given scientific theory (i.e. global warming) is the best explanation, we are constrained to accept it.
Of course, explanatory goodness is measured in degrees, but with our mature scientific theories, there simply aren’t serious competitors. The only time we aren’t rationally constrained to accept the truth of a given theory is when it has a direct and serious competitor. Global warming doesn’t. And, if Will were correct, and global cooling didn’t have one in the ‘70s, we would have been rationally constrained to accept that too.
The really ridiculous thing about all of this is the hypocrisy. After all, Will would probably argue that we are rationally constrained to accept his specific theories about economics. And, I think we can all agree that economics is a significantly less “hard” science than climatology. And in the last thirty or forty years, we’ve seen more reversals in cutting-edge economics than in climatology. Hell, we’ve seen more reversals in economics than we would have in climatology even if global cooling were a competitor.
The sad fact about climate-change deniers is that, if they refuse to accept global warming, in order to be principled about it, they would have to anti-realists about nearly all of science and social science. They would have to part with economics; they would have to say goodbye to any kind of foreign policy paradigm; they would not believe in any kind of political models; and, frankly, they would practically be Cartesian Skeptics.
If you’re looking for some more analysis of George Will’s column (though I imagine that, if you’ve read this and the last post, you’re probably pretty Will-d out), head over to Ezra Klein:
There needs to be some sort of Godwin's Law variant for conservatives who try to argue against global warming because they remember that Newsweek dipped into pop-science in the mid-70s and touted "global cooling." Call it Will's Law, after George Will, the supposedly cerebral conservative who brings this up every time he doesn't have a better column idea.
Klein also brings up an important point about Will’s earlier posturing as an anti-Palinist--a real intellectual. The fact is, few things smack of cultural-political Pentecostalism than climate change-denial. Klein writes:
Which is all the more galling given the good Will did his reputation as an "intellectual conservative" by attacking Sarah Palin during the general election. "America's gentle populists and other sentimental egalitarians postulate that wisdom is easily acquired and hence broadly diffused; therefore anyone with a good heart can deliver good government, which is whatever the public desires," he mocked. And yet here Will is, postulating that the scientific consensus should be dismissed because of a popular science article from the same year that Wheel of Fortune premiered on NBC. This is Sarah Palin's argument wrapped in better word choice and made with a more graceful pen. If anything, that's more dangerous, not less.
Knock, knock.
Lastly, if you’re ever wondering what they hell people are talking about when they say stupid things like “Global warming ended in 1998,” and need to know why they’re being stupid. This is a good place to check out.
|