Tuesday, December 20, 2011

Is the debate about climate science really about values?

Pielke Jr thinks so:

As I argued in my first essay in this roundtable, the justification of political actions in terms of science is a common feature of our politics, expressly because science is held in such high regard. Everyone (many scientists included) seems to think that by invoking the scientific correctness of his or her positions, he or she can reach a moral high ground that will trump the arguments presented by opponents (who, typically, also appeal to science). Science is thus viewed as a way to circumvent political discourse over values and interests.

For instance, we began this exchange with an invitation to respond to a question motivated by the statements made by Republican presidential candidate Rick Perry, who expressed skepticism about the science of climate change. While we've been having this discussion, the Obama administration has decided to overrule the recommendation of an FDA science advisory committee on the safety of an over-the-counter contraceptive for girls under age 17. 

While many observers cast both examples as anti-science, neither has anything to do with being anti-science and everything to do with politics and values.
While I think Dr Pielke has half a point here, he is holding it upside down. The story of how politicians and voters end up butting heads over science may sometimes have to do with ill-judged appeals to scientific legitimacy, but more often they have to do with the rigid rationality of science bringing to the fore the irrational contradictions between our stated goals and values and our feelings (including our desires, gut instincts, prejudices). Science is attacked not in defense of our values, but rather to defend ourselves from our values when they conflict with our impulses. Science is collateral damage in an assault on our own values and interests.

Suppose you are a man of a certain age ordering breakfast in a restaurant. You want this:






But you know your doctor wants you to order this:






You enjoy being alive and being able to climb a flight of stairs or two without feeling like the air is being squeezed out of your chest. Therefore you and your doctor are not having a conflict about values, or about interests. The second breakfast is the right thing to do. But you want plate number one. And that is where the anti-science rationalizations suddenly become useful.

Doctors don't know everything. They keep changing their minds about what is healthy [but not about whether you should eat 3,000 calories for breakfast]. My father ate whatever he wanted, and he lived to be 80! [Diabetic, blind, and in a nursing home after three heart attacks.] I reject the tyranny of health nuts! Give me plate one!

The debate about emergency contraception is the same thing. It's not (mostly) about values. As a society, most of us agree that kids should have ready access to contraception. But Plan B does not feel like contraception. Even when we know the facts, a pill you take after sex to prevent pregnancy feels like an abortifactant. People who have no problem with kids having access to condoms don't want them to have easy access to Plan B. Because of how it feels.

Climate denial is the same thing all over again. It's not a debate about values. No one's values are served by endangering human civilization or by bringing about the extinction of 40%-70% of all extant species. Conservative, liberal, religious, atheist; that possibility should be equally offensive to everybody. Nobody will argue openly for hurting the poor so the rich can freely pollute, or impoverishing the world of our children so that we can continue to waste.

The things that climate science in combination with what their own values imply -- that's what deniers are running from, because their feelings bring them in conflict with their values. That is also the problem in engaging the broader waffling public. To act we have to think about the long term (hard). We need to spend some money and energy now for benefits that are mostly in the future (hard). Conservatives need to accept that in this area, governments will need to be active in preventing a tragedy of commons (hard).

Conflicts over values can be hashed out directly. People bring science into it mostly, I think, when the hard clear light of scientific reason shows them something their values and interests tell them they should do -- but they still don't want to. Rather than control their feelings and impulses to bring them into line with their interests, or modify their values, they attack the messenger. When they do they use whatever materials are at hand, drifting around in the zeitgeist.

For an American, that means populism, anti-elitism, anti-secularism. Scientists are attacked as leftist with an agenda, ivory-tower dons who have lost touch with reality, parasites subsisting off of tax dollars, distracted professors without common sense. None of these tropes are new; they have been around for decades, some of them for centuries. They can come tinged with anti-Semitism. But at the deepest level, science is not the true target of these attacks -- their purpose is to help people close the gap between what they know they should do (based on their own values and interests) and what they want to do (based on their feelings and desires).

8 comments:

  1. Well, I think you're wrong here and Roger PJr is for once right. I find Mike Hulmes take on this topic quite convincing ("why we disagree etc"). The problem is less on the conservative side but rather with libertarian style ideologies. I find it hard to identify, where you're logic is false in that respect, but I guess you're in parts projecting your own values onto your "opposites". That possibly becomes clear in your phrase "that should be equally offensive". Their values do not imply "hurting" but they imply that every-one and every nation has to adapt on ones and its own. The (anti-)scientific arguments come afterwards to argue against premature preemptive measures and to "circumvent political discourse over values and interests" as RPJr puts it.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Robert, I am not taking a "side" here, but you might want to watch this commentary by George Monbiot at a "planetary boundaries" conference last year... Particularly from ~ 8:20.

    Monbiot obviously wears his personal values on his sleeve, and at the same time is clearly committed to basing his scientific understanding of climate (and other) on the peer-reviewed science. But he seems to say in this speech that the discussion needs to be "values-based"...

    Don't know what I make of it, because I certainly have a "bias" that says that the scientific "truth will out"... but I also don't see this as "sufficient"... And clearly it hasn't been so far...

    ReplyDelete
  3. Thanks for the comments, both of you. I'll respond very soon.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "Well, I think you're wrong here and Roger PJr is for once right. I find Mike Hulmes take on this topic quite convincing ("why we disagree etc"). The problem is less on the conservative side but rather with libertarian style ideologies. I find it hard to identify, where you're logic is false in that respect, but I guess you're in parts projecting your own values onto your "opposites". That possibly becomes clear in your phrase "that should be equally offensive". Their values do not imply "hurting" but they imply that every-one and every nation has to adapt on ones and its own. The (anti-)scientific arguments come afterwards to argue against premature preemptive measures and to "circumvent political discourse over values and interests" as RPJr puts it."

    If we're talking about the libertarian value system, look at this post on Hayek: http://theidiottracker.blogspot.com/2011/09/tragedy-of-commons-illustrated.html.

    If you're a libertarian, polluting someone else's air, or deleteriously modifying someone else's climate, is a violation of their liberty, and even an act of violence.

    Libertarians' values affect how they see solutions to these problems, but it shouldn't affect their ability to perceive a problem. It is the emotional associations that people who identify with libertarianism have with regards to environmentalism, government intervention, and international treaties that push them towards denying the science. Denying the science is easier than reconciling their feelings with their principles.

    "Robert, I am not taking a "side" here, but you might want to watch this commentary by George Monbiot at a "planetary boundaries" conference last year... Particularly from ~ 8:20."

    Heading there now. First impression of your comment, though, is that Monbiot is saying the same thing I am: ALL of our values point towards the need to deal with this problem. So obviously we need to have a values-based conversation. That conversation is not about changing people's values, but rather about drawing them towards putting their values into practice.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I think you're on to something, though the plan B example seems a bit of a stretch. The thing about libertarians is I've noticed they tend to instinctively reject suggestions that what you want and what you should want can be different things and take such suggestions as an attempt to control their lives. For example, they are more likely to assume people smoke because they like it rather than because they're addicts. And this distinction doesn't really show up in economic theory -- people maximize their utility, our economic decisions are an expression of our preferences, and so on.

    On the other hand, conservatives have no problem with this distinction and in fact believe there are lots of things we want that we should not do (e.g. sex). So what's it about for them? It may be that they prefer values that draw clear lines. "Am I a bad guy because I drove to work today? Al Gore flies a plane!" Then there is the issue that they prefer values (virtues, really) that are about self development (e.g. work hard, have self discipline) rather than those about considering your effect on other people.

    I think the fundamental difference between libertarian and conservative values is that libertarians believe it is your right to do the best for yourself that you can without everyone getting in your way, while conservatives believe it is your duty.

    ReplyDelete
  6. "Then there is the issue that they prefer values (virtues, really) that are about self development (e.g. work hard, have self discipline) rather than those about considering your effect on other people."

    That's true; the conservative ethos is less than emphatic on the subject of our responsibilities to other people that are not of their family, nation or faith.

    Not that they are monolithic on the subject, and we should bear in mind that a conservative who really contributes in caring for his or her family, community, nation and/or faith, may be better for the world than a progressive who loves all living things in theory but has not been able to put that belief into action (not that that describes all conservatives or all progressives).

    This difference might readily explain why these different groups of people have different reactions to illegal immigrants, or to foreign aid, or to wars in the Middle East. But it shouldn't as strongly impact people's attitude towards global warming, because global warming will also strongly affect our conservative's family, faith, and nation.

    If you care about anything that will outlive you, anything at all, it is consonant with your values to act strongly to mitigate global warming. And I guess I do disagree with George Monbiot here; I don't think non-progressives are people being manipulated by corporate power to think only about money and personal success.

    And even if they were, the fact remains that there is only the most tepid support for aggressive mitigation, even among the most flamingly liberal folks polled. Paying something now to avoid a big bill later is not popular, and I think that universal human trait of procrastination is a bigger problem here that the traditional progressive enemies of selfishness and corporate power.

    ReplyDelete
  7. you have done a great job by posting it. keep it Your blog looks really great. up thanks once again...
    ac duct cleaning Florida City fl

    ReplyDelete