Belief and Knowledge and Humans and Nature:
Belief and Knowledge and Humans and Nature:
Revised: 20120703
I am starting this entry from a previous blog, Rhetoric Again - Cycles. I got some interesting comments as well as a couple of letters for that entry. To set the tone, here is a thought from the end of that blog.
There is little doubt that humans are the dominant life form on the planet today. We shape every ecosystem. We consume all forms of energy. Like the balances between plants and animals in the past we change the atmosphere and the ocean. Not only are we a dominant life form, we have this amazing ability to extract rocks and liquids and gas from the Earth and burn them. We have the ability to push around land, to make concrete, to remove mountains, and build islands. We are, therefore, not only biological, we are geological.
With this notion, I place humans as a force of nature – as part of nature. Because we have the ability to remember, reason, develop and accumulate knowledge, then unlike other parts of the natural world, we have the ability to make decisions that influence our future. Therefore, our role in nature, in the natural world is unique. To be clear, that uniqueness is not in our ability to change the environment, but in our ability to understand the consequences of those changes and the ability to anticipate and influence the future.
I bring up this idea of humans as a reasoned biological and geological force for several reasons. First, I believe that to set the world into two divisions, that which is natural and that which is human, is both a false and dangerous division. Focusing on climate change, it is a division that sits at the foundation of those who argue that the climate is full of natural cycles, and that the current warming is just part of that natural cycle, and hence there is no need for us to be concerned. Or alternatively, there is no need for us to modify our behavior because it is all a force of nature, and we don’t have any influence over nature. (see also).
This is a belief – mine, that humans are part of nature. But many others see humans as outside of nature. The outside perspectives are not simple. For example, there are those who see humans as a disturbance to nature, and there are those for whom humans have divine providence over nature. That is the second point I want to make, the very foundation of how we think about climate change, our environment, and our place in nature is belief based. It is a belief base associated with our personal identity.
I have been motivated to think about what we believe and how this impacts our behavior on climate change for many years. For the sake of this blog, that motivation rises from how do we communicate climate change? Some scientists spend a lot of time thinking about how to communicate their work; in fact, research sponsors often require plans for communication, outreach and broader impacts. Many scientists, trained in a discipline of evidence-based knowledge generation, fall naturally to presenting evidence-based arguments, with the idea that ultimately the evidence-based argument will be convincing beyond reasonable doubt. In many ways this invites an argument more suitable to our approach to legal problems. We the scientist will present the evidence base. This will stand in contrast to the arguments of the non-scientist. There will, ultimately, be judgment in favor of the evidence base, because, well, it becomes self evident. This form of argument does not recognize that we often look at evidence and make decisions that deny the existence of that evidence. We make decisions that align with, our desires, our beliefs and what we want to believe.
I have written about some of these communications issues, and they are compiled here in What to Do? What to Do?. What I want to state more explicitly than I have stated before is the importance of the recognition of the belief-based argument. First, I naturally contrast the belief-based argument with the knowledge-based argument, which is not really the right contrast. The belief-based argument is, in fact, informed by knowledge, but it does not give high weight to science-based knowledge. Hence, it is not especially useful to pose a belief-based versus a knowledge-based argument. I have already stated that both sides of the argument are belief based and that both sides on the argument are informed by knowledge. Hence, it is easy for these arguments to fall into an attack on identity – I the scientist work from the foundation of knowledge and the ability to generate knowledge. You do not. This is not useful.
Second, I have used belief-based argument with the idea that it might be viewed as a politically based argument or even a religion-based argument. I have often referred to the politically based argument in my blog entries, and I have stated that once in a political argument, where the foundation is not primarily science-based knowledge, there is really little purpose in arguing over facts and evidence-based knowledge of the Earth’s climate. There is even evidence that introduction of science facts increases the polarity of political arguments (here). In such an argument, people may be working from a different base of facts. This is especially evident in the arguments over biological evolution, divine creation and, say, the observation-based scientific description of progression of Earth’s life and climate.
Where am I planning to take this blog? The first place I want to take it is that the communication of climate change is complex and individual. If we mash together evangelical, conservative, and Republican as dismissive of climate change and view a concern for climate change as secular, liberal and Democratic, then we do disservice to all. It does not take much effort to reveal evangelical, conservative, Republican organizations that are concerned about and vested in ways to address climate change. That is why in the 2012 political environment, a focus on exposing those seeking solutions is a more useful way forward than perpetuating the political arguments and despair over the political response. There is no simple key that will be uncovered by a compelling presentation of knowledge; there is no single approach to communication that will be universally effective. Successful communication is purpose-based and recognizes the valid points of view brought to the table by all constituencies. It often requires overcoming barriers of prejudice.
The next place I want to take this blog is to return to the idea of natural cycles – climate variability. We have been faced with many environmental challenges. I am sitting in St. Cloud, Minnesota, in a region that was largely deforested many years ago, on the Mississippi River, which has too much nitrogen-based nutrients in the water. A few miles back I saw a bald eagle, a species that was endangered by DDT. We eliminated the use of DDT, and we have seen the return of the bald eagle and the ospreys. Why can we make that decision? Lot’s of reasons, and an important one is the easy identification of cause and effect and seeing the return of the eagle over one’s lifetime after DDT was banned. Climate change does not have that easy cause and effect.
Responding to climate change does not have the narrow focus of regulating an insecticide and saving a grand bird. It is not easy to see the benefit of regulating carbon dioxide emissions. Those benefits are many years in the future, and the near-term cost is high. It is like people not taking a medicine that has a 90% chance of curing them from a slowly progressing disease because they don’t understand how the drug they ingest might work; they don’t want to introduce alien chemicals into their body. They seem to be doing okay right now. And if we look at the consequences of climate change, they are frightening, threatening, and they are our fault. We don’t accept fault easily; we have a mandate to feel that we are right. We don’t like change forced upon us, either individually or collectively. We fall back to our beliefs, our identity.
After the blog Rhetoric Again – Cycles, I was asked whether or not I considered man part of nature? Yes, I am saying that man is part of nature. But I don’t think that nature proceeds as a completely unrestrained force. We are many, and we influence nature. In fact, we are at this time the most dominant force of nature. However, we are also able to investigate nature, develop knowledge, and anticipate scenarios for the future. Therefore, we can influence the course of nature. My belief is that we have the responsibility to act on this knowledge. And like people who get caught in cycles of behavior, perhaps trapped by psychological pitfalls, with recognition of our role in nature, we have the ability and the opportunity to take advantage of our knowledge.
To my students I try to teach that they separate what is known from what they believe and what they want to believe. Advocacy needs to be recognized by the advocate, and advocacy changes one's role in decision making. The advocate identifies with an issue and is trying to elevate one position relative to other positions. The convincing advocate for addressing climate change is anchored in a knowledge base that is drawn from scientific investigation. With a separation of what is known, from what is believed to be known, and what is desired based on belief, the climate-change advocate becomes more effective in the decision making process. It is then easier to incorporate climate knowledge into planning and policy and societal response becomes possible.
r
Reader Comments
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 — Blog Index
"The work MUSTgo on,
the cause MUST endure,
the hope MUST live
....and the dreams WILL never die."
Well, yeah, I mean, if we do anything but take care of number one like we always have who knows where it could end. Jeez, with that kind of thinking, misogyny itself could be endangered and we can't have that, can we?
/snark
Your post was eloquently written. I must say that I am obviously on one side of the divide when our blog moves into the political realm. However, I didn't come here to pontificate my personal political or religious beliefs.
I came here to learn more about the science of Climate Change.
I came here to ask questions.
I value being able to particpate in an open learning environment.
If this blog does not become part of the future, the future is the far less for it!!
There are few understandings more profound than this. Our image of the world shapes the way we orient ourselves to the world and treat the world (and each other, really). Believing ourselves to be separate from Nature, or even for nature to be mechanistic, drives not only our distrust in nature (as a poet once said, "I, a stranger and afraid, in a world I never made"), but our violent treatment of it. Even the idea of "coming into the world" is misguided. We don't come into it, we grow out of it.
Philosopher Alan Watts had an amazing, expressively beautiful way of making this crystal clear. I encourage everyone to listen to the two following lectures, both clocking in around an hour apiece. They go by fast, though, and are brimming with wisdom:
Alan Watts - Man in nature
Link
Alan Watts - Our Image Of The World
Link
There are plenty of other clips of his worth listening to on YouTube, several are more manageable 5-10 minute segments.
God help us all if China and India exceed us per capita in Co2. Earth will recover but we shall perish.....
I think that statement is entirely wrong as a general proposition. One obvious problem is that not all sources of knowledge are equal, e.g. this blog vs. WUWT, and if they're not equal then the correct one is elevated, regardless of whether everyone admits that.
You also seem to be advocating for "knowledge-based decision making" to be considered as distinct from advocacy, which is confusing if not just contradictory.
It starts to sound awfully post-normal a la Mike Hulme, a path I would hope you choose to not go down.
12:57 PM GMT on July 03, 2012
r
"Too far" is a world in which life as we know it would be very, very difficult. It would be physically impossible to mitigate against a 12C global temperature rise, and that's the route we are on.
Horrendous wildfires. Oppressive heat waves. Devastating droughts. Flooding from giant deluges. And a powerful freak wind storm called a derecho.
I like that some climate scientists are starting to take off the gloves...
"This is what global warming looks like at the regional or personal level," said Jonathan Overpeck, professor of geosciences and atmospheric sciences at the University of Arizona. "The extra heat increases the odds of worse heat waves, droughts, storms and wildfire. This is certainly what I and many other climate scientists have been warning about."
Kevin Trenberth, head of climate analysis at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in fire-charred Colorado, said these are the very record-breaking conditions he has said would happen, but many people wouldn't listen. So it's I told-you-so time, he said.
This is a nice one-page description of what global warming is bringing us. Might be a good thing to pass along to others who might not be a plugged in to what is happening....
Link
Thing is: the folks I argue with don't seem to be making much of an effort to analyse the grounds THEY stand on.
So I'll try to incorporate whatever I picked up - oh wait; there's a transcript of the lecture right here.
Will there be a quiz?
How much will it count for the final?
This seems (to me at least) the primary issue in communicating climate change. Defining what constitutes a "valid" point-of-view would be helpful. I would argue that mainstream modes of communication - that being the various forms of broadcast media consumed by the majority of the public - may have a purpose, but are selective on what a valid point of view is.
As you alluded to, recognition of a valid POV is purely belief-based. If your beliefs are based on multiple and varying sources of information, it will bias your judgement of what is considered a "valid" point-of-view. However, if your beliefs are knowledge-based, where information is derived from a pool of data that remains constant (i.e., historical climate data and measurements), recognition of a what a valid POV is more likely to be constant.
I think what it comes down to is a question of information literacy. You cannot be successful in communicating a purposeful message when your audience is not literate in the information from which you draw your message. Your POV will be considered invalid and not worth discussion by those with alternate and/or varying sources of information for their belief-base. Instead, their own POV will hold more weight, and the result of the attempt at communication will digress back into the tug-of-war between opinions rather than a dicussion stemming from a common information pool.
P.S. - If you choose to leave WU due to the recent sale, please let us know where you choose to go next. I find your blog to be refreshingly informative and poignant; a much needed respite from the pundit hyperbole of the internet.
For a brief period, about 10 years ago, I was part of a corporate Knowledge Management Team. In order to have a conversation about what "Knowledge-Based Communications" should be it is first necessary to define the two basic types of knowledge, which are:
Explicit Knowledge: This is fact based knowledge which is obtainable by reading, studying, observing, listening. For example, knowing the high temperature in your home town yesterday is explicit knowledsge. Theoretically, 90% of all knowledge is Explicit.
Tacit Knowledge: This level of knowledge is more intuitive and gained via experience. Someone with tacit knowledge in a specific discipline has an understanding or knowledge about how all of the little pieces of explicit knowledge fit together.
Many young scientists and engineers know the laws of physics pertaining to their discipline, They've memorized the formulas, they know how to conduct the tests and quite often can perform a perfunctory analysis of the results. With the exception of child prodigies and some geniuses, it takes years to achieve mastery in any field of endeavor.
The earth's climate is a very, very complex system. Understanding how all of the pieces fit together is no small feat that can be learned in short time frame, even with extensive education, experience and mentoring.
That's why, those of us amateurs, here on the blog need the tuteledge of Dr. Rood, Dr. Masters and Angela. Obviously, we have some regular posters who have a great deal of valid information and in-depth knowledge on various aspects of climate change. We need all of them to keep providing valid information and data so that individually our knowledge bases can expand.
**************************************
Indeed, Ricky.
It will not be of of your choosing, I suspect.
Your grapevine is probably telling you something that you may have "used" to be able to disclose.
It's a different ball game now. Be careful what you wish for. Notoriety, rhetoric and grants don't mix.
Within her eyes."
Can't remember the next line.
Nor who wrote it.
But your lecture/blog got me thinking: Maybe we are evolving.
nd be sure to continue telling people what they think
JOHN MCCAIN, speech, May 12, 2008
Fresca?
Connect the payment dots anyone?
Now, Mr. Rood, your entire post is based upon science accuracy, no?
Considering the entire CAGW philosophy is based upon modeling, how can you claim such accuracy?
You cannot!
Tell us how well the models do with clouds and even the PDO? They don't even consider them to any extent as just a few simple examples.
Tell us how the models do with simple reconstruction of projections based upon the observations we have had over the last 20 years. They don't do well do they?
You proclaim a view point of an ideologue, not a scientist, and it is quite disappointing.
You may be able to dissuade the students you have control of, but you will never baffle anyone who is knowledgeable of the weakness of the actual science that you try to embellish. It is just wrong what you do with your esoteric methodologies.
Lipstick on a pig is what I see. Plain and simple!
Seems you and Masters just can't handle the truth as is exemplified by the current and continued behavior.
Step up and do the real science you so selfishly disrespect and ignore.
You know how many holes are in what you state, and yet you continue to state them with no remorse.
You just don't grasp that of which is in front of you.
Perhaps you could learn how to learn?
Edit>> I will include the full episode so you don't have to find part 2. Sound familiar?
OMG!!
I knew they have all shifted away from beliefs they once held.
They (Most conservatives & Dems from WV and LA) have been bought and paid for. Anyone want to venture a quess who paid them off?
Worked for Chevron Offshore mid 90's and was a Union Bricklayer doing Refinery Refractory Work(Catcracker and Furnaces) usually for Pullman Kellog back then in the late 70's.
Nola is Home so Indeed...we know.
Crawfish?
Now THAT is a perfect example of invalidating a knowledge-based point-of-view with a belief system based in information illiteracy.
Ossqss, I'm not going dignify your opinions with counter-arguments of the reality of climate change. Primarily because all you're doing is attacking the presenter and not the argument. This is one of the most common fallacies of logic and rhetoric, demonstrating that you are here to disrupt the flow of communication with your own biased point-of-view, and not add any substantive debate to the subject.
I his current post, Dr. Rood isn't even discussing the science; he's discussing how to best communicate between people of different beliefs. In your attack comments within previous blog posts, I've watched as you've made your beliefs plainly clear without even an ounce of consideration to the opinions of others. This further demonstrates that when it comes to communication, you are part of the problem and not the solution.
So please do us all a favor and cease your commenting. Personally, I find your attacks tiresome and repugnant, and they do nothing but spread discord.
we dont need no thought control,
No dark sarcasm in the Classroom
Teacher's leave them Kid's alone..
There's the fossil fuel campaign donations.
There's also a group of right-wingers who have defined their own reality and if you need their votes then you have to voice their craziness.
Look at poor Willard. He wants to be president so badly that he'll say things that he has to know are batshit crazy just to secure that "27%" of the vote. He has zero chance of winning if they stay home on election day.
My wife was born and raised in the Golden Triangle of SE Texas. Since we met and married we make 2 or 3 treks a year to Louisiana, just for the Cajun food.
4:56 AM GMT on July 04, 2012
As for the representation of clouds, you repeat an untruth perpetuated for many years. In fact, I had a letter in March Scientific American about that very subject.
r
You're a better person than I, Dr. Rood. I've dealt with this so much in the past, I can't get myself to offer the reasonable reply anymore…
Thanks for the introduction. I'll be a little more lighthearted about it in the future.
What would the models tell me of my Tunnel idea Dr. Rood? Remember I can place Gulfstream SST SETPOINT anywhere between 70 and 90 degrees F.
Where in either of my two posts above did I state an opinion on AGW?
I have no idea what the contractural agreements are between WU and TWCC.
But I dont think that open hostility is one of them.
If I were on the board and strongly supported all aspects of AGW I would vote to remove the comment option on Feature blogs and let Dr Rood or the other authors speak for me to get my point accross. At least any rhetoric coming from them is tempered with modern corporate practice.
The last thing I would do is link to this page as it is currently fashioned with a yard full of attack dogs and smart asses.
EDIT:
TWCC will spend a good deal of effort to promote their new purchase. At least that's the way most of corporate America works. They pretty much know what sells.
Is there at least a remote possibility that has been the subject of my posts?
But then I'll have to wait for you to tell me what I'm thinking. I'm just an idiot.
Seariously?
The only trolls on here are the ones who deny the world is warming or that the cause is carbon emmisions.
It would be possible to deny these positions and not be a troll, but to date, perhaps not coincedentally, all of the posters with such positions have been trolls.
When the denialist trolls are not here, this is actually a fun and informative blog.
(Snippet)
Our ice age
110,000 to 12,000 years ago
The cool temperatures of the Quaternary may have allowed our brains to become much larger than those of our of hominid ancestors. While that's still open to debate, it's plausible that the most recent glacial period left its mark on our species.
Neanderthals, with whom we shared the planet until just before the last glacial maximum, 20,000 years ago, may have struggled to survive as the rising and falling ice ate away at their habitat – although many other explanations for their extinction have been suggested. What is beyond doubt is that Homo sapiens survived and turned to farming soon after the ice retreated, setting the stage for the rise of modern civilisation.
As the glacial period drew to a close and temperatures began to rise, there were two final cold snaps. First, the chilly "Older Dryas" of 14,700 to 13,400 years ago transformed most of Europe from forest to tundra, like modern-day Siberia. After a brief respite, the Younger Dryas, between 12,800 to 11,500 years ago, froze Europe solid within a matter of months – probably as a result of meltwater from retreating glaciers shutting down the Atlantic Ocean's "conveyor-belt" current, although a cometary impact has also been blamed.
Twelve thousand years ago, the great ice sheets retreated at the beginning of the latest interglacial – the Flandrian – allowing humans to return to northern latitudes. This period has been relatively warm, and the climate relatively stable, although it has been slightly colder than the last interglacial, the Eemian, and sea levels are currently at least 3 metres lower – differences that are being closely scrutinised by researchers keen to understand how our climate will develop.
But this respite from the ice is likely to prove short-lived, at least in geological terms. Human effects on the climate notwithstanding, the cycle will continue to turn, the hothouse period will some day come to an end – and the ice sheets will descend again.
Link
Author:
Michael Marshall
13:32 26 November 2009
Michael is the Environment reporter at New Scientist.
He writes life and environment news, and has a weekly column, Zoologger.
He joined New Scientist in 2007 after several years as a neuroscientist. He has a Master's degree in Psychology from the University of Cambridge, and an MSc in Science Communication from Imperial College London
Speaking of the devil...
Owls Hoot at night.
Eagles Fly by Day.
.."we can dance if we want to"...
That really rubs me the wrong way.
Thus, I've decided to drop any pretense of playing nice with the pro-destruction crowd. Upon my return next week (I'm posting this while sitting under a tent on the Delaware shore), I'll be
doublingtriplingquadrupling my efforts to permanently shout down and shut up all anti-science denialist/contrarian/false "skeptic" types. It may be futile--money talks, and they've got a lot of it--but there's far too much at stake for me to sit idly by and do nothing.Glad to see ya, Nea. I just was looking for you on the main blog ;-) Have a nice time anyway.
You're not going into this fight alone!!
Enjoy the remainder of your trip!
Viewing: 1 - 51
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 — Blog Index