The Washington Post is still trying to contain the read-rage of its subscribers over George Will’s denial of global warming. The furor has centered on some arcane bits of data from 1978. The Post is hiding behind its claim that many fact-checkers misread the data summary. The question in the debate should not focus on whether George Will or the Washington Post misrepresented the facts, but on whether they are debating science with faith-disguised-as-science in a nay-sayers exercise in anti-intellectualism.
I am concerned about how science is discussed in the public arena when it intersects with politics, how it seems that the volatile emotions of the civic debate - since emotional appeals do change people's minds - have made it fine to color scientific debate in the same manner. I am thinking of global warming and of evolution, where the science may have question marks within it and could someday undergo a radical shift, but that shift would still include the facts as we know them today. Evolution is not going to be completely overthrown, nor is global warming. There is too much data.
People get confused because science does undergo enormous theoretical shifts when new information arrives. I can remember in my life being scoffed at by a geography teacher for my belief that surely Africa and South America must have broken off from each other. Once satellites went up and the movement of land masses was recorded, science tossed out the old model of geophysics and came up with plate tectonics.
This does not mean I can toss aside all science when it contradicts my beliefs. This instead shows the resilience and trustworthiness of science because of its fundamental divergence from belief systems like religion; science admits of disproof. Science actively looks for ways to disprove its most cherished theories. If fact contradicts theory, then theory falls, not fact. I could imagine a number of ways to test the theory of gravity, and if any of them worked, the relevant theories would have to change.
Pointing out flaws in current theories is a healthy way to challenge scientific orthodoxy. But when the challenge arises out of an opposing orthodoxy, then that opposition must submit to the same rigor. However, when one is a theory and the other is an a priori position simply denying the validity of the theory, the fundamental battle between science and faith falls right into our laps.
I ask George Will to conceive of any evidence that would disprove his belief that global warming is natural. If his viewpoint is not faith-based, then he must envision a way to surrender his theory. Then it can be tested. As it is, he is simply saying "That's not true" and we all know it is impossible to disprove a negative statement.
This kind of anti-science ignorance is not something the Post should be defending, even if presented by an eminent commentator. Fact-checking is not the same as intellectual honesty. Even if the facts supported his claims of flaws in the global warming arguments, what is the overarching viewpoint that is driving his belief that the scientists are wrong. Is it scientific, and thus does it contain arguments that he himself would accept as undoing his position? Or is it something he just "knows" and so remains impenetrable to evidence?
Read More...
Summary only...
