Link Byfield at the Citizens Centre for Freedom and Democracy has provided a good description of whether or not you should pay any attention to someone’s argument about the dangers we pose to the environment, how soon carbon dioxide will see us cooked in a greenhouse of our own making, or some other new terrifying and impending threat.
It’s democracy’s misfortune that all these arguments are the domain of experts, just like the anti-heresy and anti-witchcraft programs of long ago; argument by authority. Increasingly the main task of democracy is for inexpert voters to sift and arbitrate expert arguments. How is this possible?
We have two ways, neither reliable but both better than argument by hysteria.
One is to ask if a claim accords with our own experience and common sense. For example, since climate experts can’t reliably predict the weather next week, how they can reliably forecast the next century?
This question drives scientists nuts, partly because it’s true, and partly because so much science is counter-intuitive. “Common sense” would also decree the world to be flat and the stars little diamonds in the sky. True. But remind them that the need to burn witches was based on the best inductive scientific reasoning of the 17th century.
In addition, we can judge the strength of a case by the behaviour and attitude of the people making it. Are they rational or in hysterics? Do they explain or do they scold? Do they disguise possibilities as certainties? Do they respect or revile sceptics? Are they trespassing into policy and/or religion?
One thing’s certain: this problem will not go away any time soon. It will probably get worse. In fact, it is already so severe it probably heralds the end of civilization.
Just kidding.
Pingback: larry borsato