On Arguments and On Knowing, Believing and Evidence
With the blog site not accessible I wrote this offline and it got a bit long, sorry. So taking what we have been studying in chapters 3 & 4 of Weird Things, I am pondering these thoughts in light of global climate change. The basic arguments (as I see it)… Argument #1: A) Actual data over the past century has shown an increase in atmospheric CO2. B) Retrospective analysis of ice core samples show that probably at no other time has CO2 levels been as high as it is now. C) Human activity within the past century used fossil fuels at an unprecedented rate for energy to drive technological leaps for humankind. Conclusion #1: The increase of CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere is probably due human activity. (an Inductive Argument). Argument #2: D) Actual data over the past couple of centuries have shown that the Earth’s average temperature is rising. E) Longer warm periods may be contributing to a trend of earlier springs and later falls. F) Climate change is when significant changes occur to sustained weather patterns over a period of time. Conclusion #2: The Earth is most probably going through a period of global climate change. (an Inductive Argument) Argument #3: G) Computer modeling of the Earth’s atmosphere shows that CO2 significantly contributes to the average temperature rise. H) Computer climate modeling demonstrates catastrophic changes to the various climate regions on Earth. I) Actual climate changes in various regions have demonstrated fatal outcomes for sensitive ecosystems. Conclusion #3: CO2 is most probably associated to climate change that has fatal implications to sensitive ecosystems. (an Inductive Argument) Summation: Human activity has most probably increased CO2 in the atmosphere which has contributed global climate change and the demise of sensitive ecosystems. I believe the argument for global climate change would be categorized as a Hypothetical Inductive Argument. Much of the argument depends on retrospective evidence with a hypothesis developed from contrived computer models (that are constructed from Analogical Inductive methods). It would seem that what most environmental scientists agree upon is strong probability based on an inductive argument. Schick and Vaughn say that an inductive argument can’t be considered valid only either strong or weak and much of their discussion on induction argument is about how it can be misleading and deceiving. Based on the inductive argument it appears that no one can know, not even the experts, on the cause and effects of global climate change. The best that can be said is that they believe that there is a strong likelihood that global climate change is caused by human activity. Even with a preponderance of experts agreeing, when an argument is stated as a ‘strong likelihood’ it seems to not carry as much urgency as compared to a deductive argument based on physically valid premises, such as an argument based on, say, an oil eruption in the Gulf of Mexico. It seems that the conclusions, because they are inductive in nature, are extremely vulnerable to counterargument and confusion, by appeal to authority, the masses, and to the person. What can we know about global climate change? Or can we only believe this? The evidence can be questioned because it is not totally objective and our experts can only say, with any certainty, that they believe this to be a strong probability. Any thoughts on this?
While I agree that generally speaking, things of "strong likelihood" are not taken with as much weight or urgency as physically valid premises, I think the issue with global climate change and the lack of action to "combat" it are due to it not really impacting our daily lives. I'll be the first to admit that even though I personally believe with the stated arguments on global climate change, it's difficult for me to change my habits for something I can't feel the negative impact of. I know this is probably selfish of me, but I think there are many people in the same camp. I think if the oil eruption would have occurred somewhere in the Middle East instead, I would actually be surprised if anything were done in the U.S. to ensure the rigs in the Gulf didn't face the same dangers. I think it would be easy for companies like BP to justify how their rigs are different or how being in the Gulf geographically would alter the outcome, etc. that would differentiate the two scenarios and thus, lead to two different outcomes. I personally believe I rely on the justification that if global climate change really started to take a toll, I have full faith in science and technology that something will be done quickly and immediately to prevent drastic damages. However, given the events following the oil eruption, I may need to readjust my beliefs...
Paul -- very nice summary of the arguments! I wouldn't, though, say that inductive arguments can't give us knowledge. I'd say they give us probable knowledge. Like all human reasoning, they might turn out to be based on incomplete or misleading data. Or they may contain unnoticed analytical errors. Deductive reasoning can be fairly conclusively checked for validity (though ambiguity and vagueness of language can still create trouble). But even the best deductive argument has to start with some premises, and, when we are reasoning about the world, some of those premises are usually empirical -- justified by inductive reasoning. I'm not quite sure what you mean by "physically valid" -- but maybe it's that we don't have detailed understanding of the mechanisms involved in climate change. (So it's 'models' vs. 'mechanisms'.) But we do have an understanding of some of those mechanisms (like the 'greenhouse effect'). So I'm not sure what the contrast is. Is it that the future is harder to know about than the present and past? Or is it that big complicated systems (like the global climate) are harder to predict than smaller simpler ones (like how long it will take to boil an egg)?
Anna-- I think what you are talking about is an example of the "availability error".