1 / 91

Three Faces of Environmental Politics

Three Faces of Environmental Politics . Science, Ideology, and Office-Holding. I. Controversies in Environmental Politics. Are Navy sonar tests worth the environmental costs?. I. Controversies in Environmental Politics. Are Navy sonar tests worth the environmental costs?

jael
Download Presentation

Three Faces of Environmental Politics

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Three Faces of Environmental Politics Science, Ideology, and Office-Holding

  2. I. Controversies in Environmental Politics • Are Navy sonar tests worth the environmental costs?

  3. I. Controversies in Environmental Politics • Are Navy sonar tests worth the environmental costs? • Should SUVs be held to the same standards as cars?

  4. I. Controversies in Environmental Politics • Are Navy sonar tests worth the environmental costs? • Should SUVs be held to the same standards as cars? • Will more nuclear power help or harm the environment?

  5. I. Controversies in Environmental Politics • Are Navy sonar tests worth the environmental costs? • Should SUVs be held to the same standards as cars? • Will more nuclear power help or harm the environment? • Can humans prevent climate change?

  6. I. Controversies in Environmental Politics • Are Navy sonar tests worth the environmental costs? • Should SUVs be held to the same standards as cars? • Will more nuclear power help or harm the environment? • Can humans prevent climate change? • When should we punish people for harming animals?

  7. The Core Problem • Real environmental controversies have scientific, moral, and political elements • But we are… • Nonscientists who must learn to evaluate science • Humans who must find a way to assign value to nature • Citizens who must evaluate the policies of office-holders • How can we accomplish this?

  8. II. What is Science? • This question is not trivial: it is a major argument on many environmental issues • My approach: Recount the history and philosophy of science in order to discover “rules” for • Separating science from pseudo-science • Comparing two scientific theories or explanations

  9. A. Ancient Science • Plato – World of ideas vs. World of senses • World of Senses = Unreliable – Analogy of shadows on a wall; everything we see is imperfect and incomplete in some way. • World of Ideas = Truth. Only logic can reveal the true nature of the world. Idea of perfect “Forms” which are more real than anything we see.

  10. 2. Aristotelian Science • Rejection of Platonic epistemology – Aristotle believes that nature is real and must be studied, using a deductive method • Rejection of experiment – goal is to understand what is “natural” and changing nature is not “natural” • Method = Look for categories in nature and deduce “essence” of things.

  11. Example 1: Aristotelian Biology • Aristotle observes that male sheep, goats and pigs have more teeth than females • Aristotle argues that men have more vitality than women (hotter “essence”) • Aristotle therefore concludes that men have more teeth than women, “by reason of the abundance of heat and blood which is more in men than in women” • Men and women have the same number of teeth (on average) – Aristotle never bothered to check

  12. Example 2: Aristotelian Gravity • Earth is the center of the universe • Objects made from the earth naturally attempt to return there (i.e. fall to the ground) • The heavier an object is, the more it desires to be in its natural state • Objects actually fall at the same rate, regardless of mass

  13. d. Ptolemy: Facts  models, not the other way around Example: use math to estimate positions of the planets, not to describe their “real” motion. Justification = many models describe identical data (apparent motion of planets)

  14. B. The Enlightenment: Essentialism Rejected • Rediscovery of ancient texts – reveals ancients didn’t know all the answers (example: Ptolemy’s orbits aren’t accurate) • Belief in progress – As economic growth and technology advanced, people came to believe that we would know more in the future (vs. wisdom of the ancients)

  15. 3. The Copernican Revolution • Heliocentrism: Copernicus argued that planets revolved around the sun – simpler system than Ptolemy, but not (initially) better at predicting planets’ positions

  16. b. Scientists compare models: Cumulative knowledge • Observations undermine idea of “heavenly spheres” – Tycho Brahe observes comet passing through planetary orbits • Galileo observes phases of Venus (predicted by Copernican model but not by Ptolemaic model) and moons of Jupiter (not everything revolves around Earth) • Kepler discovers that geometry (ellipse) describes planetary motion (theory: sun/God animates the universe) • Newton theorizes that simple mathematical laws of gravity might explain Kepler’s model of planetary motion

  17. C. Logical Positivism • Positivism: 19th-Century idea that scientific knowledge is the only authentic knowledge. • Logical positivism (early 20th century): Only statements proven true through logic (deduction) or observation (induction) are to be accepted. Fact vs. value distinction. • Process: • Induction: Prove statements true through observation, then… • Deduction: combine these statements to make new predictions

  18. 4. Problems of Logical Positivism • The Inductive Fallacy – How many observations does it take to “confirm” a theory?

  19. Inductive Fallacy Will always get fed at 9 AM Christmas at 9 AM Fed at 9 AM everyday for the past few months

  20. Inductive Fallacy (continued) • How many functions (explanations) will perfectly explain the data? • An infinite number, making dramatically different predictions

  21. 4. Problems of Logical Positivism • The Inductive Fallacy – How many observations does it take to “confirm” a theory? • The Demarcation Problem – Empirical observation and attempts at confirmation don’t separate science and pseudo-science

  22. Who uses empirical methods? • Astrologers: Mass of horoscopes, biographies, star charts

  23. Who uses empirical methods? • Astrologers: Mass of horoscopes, biographies, star charts • Phrenologists: Thousands of skull measurements

  24. Who uses empirical methods? • Astrologers: Mass of horoscopes, biographies, star charts • Phrenologists: Thousands of skull measurements • “Scientific” racists: One recent author tabulates 620 separate studies of average IQ from 100 different countries with a total sample size of 813,778 to confirm hypotheses of racial differences

  25. C. Falsificationism • Karl Popper: Stop trying to confirm theories and try falsifying them instead • Method: Make novel predictions with theory that prove the theory false if they fail to occur (critical experiments) • Result: Scientific theories are never proven true. Science consists of conjectures (theories which haven’t failed yet) and refutations (those which have failed)

  26. 4. The Demarcation Problem • Allows us to reject astrology, etc as pseudo-science: Astrologers rarely make testable predictions, and don’t give up astrology when they fail • Popper argues that Marxism and Freudianism are both pseudo-science (example of “false consciousness” in Marxism) – enough ifs, ands, and buts allow them to “explain” anything after the fact, but predict nothing novel

  27. 5. Problems of Falsificationism • The ceteris paribus Clause – Theories are tested “all else being equal” but it never is. • Virtually all useful scientific theories had “anomalies” when first stated (Copernicus, plate tectonics, etc) – strict falsificationism is a recipe for ignorance • Popper’s solution: require a replacement theory that explains everything the old one did, plus something else, before abandoning old theory (may mean we retain pseudoscience…)

  28. D. Social Models of Science • Kuhn’s “Paradigm Shifts” • Idea: Science is a social activity that proceeds under a “paradigm” of unquestioned assumptions about the world and a set of problems considered to be critical (value decision) • Every interesting theory has anomalies – things that seem inconsistent with the theory. • “Normal science” is puzzle-solving; unexplained anomalies are simply assumed to be unsolved puzzles – scientists usually suppress novel explanations if they can retain their paradigms (Tycho Brahe believed in an earth-centered universe, plate tectonics was rejected for decades, etc)

  29. d. Scientific Revolutions • When enough anomalies start piling up (especially ones that get in the way of practical uses of science), new explanations begin to receive a hearing • At some point, the new explanation becomes the “expected” explanation – a new paradigm • Note that this is a social process – we cannot be sure the new paradigm is any “better” or more accurate than the old one. It’s just…different.

  30. 2. Lakatos: Research Programs • Goal: Retain idea of falsification while acknowledging that scientists do not actually reject theories when anomalies are found • Objections to Kuhn: • Kuhn offers no way of comparing paradigms – but science often looks like it has “progressed” over the past centuries • Most fields have multiple “paradigms” at the same time

  31. c. The Methodology of Scientific Research Programs • Research programs rely on multiple theories to identify problems and solve puzzles • Each scientific research program has a “hard core” of unquestioned assumptions and a “protective belt” of auxiliary hypotheses (i.e. attempts to “save” the program from falsification) • Evaluation: Look for “progressive” research programs (making new predictions and discoveries) and reject “degenerative” ones (simply adding to the protective belt without offering new knowledge)

  32. Example: Neptune • Astronomers discovered that the orbit of Uranus didn’t match Newton’s predictions • They did NOT give up Newtonian physics • They DID add a new item to the protective belt: something else must be “perturbing” the orbit of Uranus • This turned out to be Neptune: Progressive change to research program • What if…no Neptune? Could hypothesize that some unobservable force acts only on Uranus  no new predictions = degenerative shift

  33. d. The Demarcation Problem • This was the assigned reading by Lakatos • How do we know pseudoscience? • It critiques science without offering an alternative set of predictions • It continually invents new hypotheses that explain its previous failures but do NOT make new, falsifiable predictions

  34. E. Conclusion: Standards for Evaluating Science • Every model must be tested against another model • Simplest model = random chance (systematic studies of astrology usually show it fails this test) • It takes a model to beat a model – Where an existing theory outperforms chance, critics are obligated to suggest a better explanation for the facts

  35. 2. What makes one explanation better than another? • Progressive vs. degenerative research programs – A theory or set of theories that keeps making novel, falsifiable predictions beats one that keeps adding new assumptions just to explain what we already know or generates untestable hypotheses • Utility – Since we cannot be sure theories are True or False (ceteris paribus problem) they need to be useful. Preference for parsimonious theories using observable variables.

  36. III. Ideology • Ideology defined: A connected set of beliefs about what the world should look like • Preferences between states of the world • Rationality: Connected and transitive preferences

  37. B. Science vs. Ideology? • Science cannot “disprove” ideology – because they address different questions! • Prediction vs. Prescription – “Taxes stifle growth” vs. “Taxes should be cut.” • Ideology adds the “should” • Ideology may cause people to make empirical statements (i.e. taxes and growth) but the statement is not a necessary part of the ideology

  38. 3. Styles of argument • Science: Hypothesis-testing and theory-comparison using data • Ideology: The “lawyer” style – Starting with a conclusion and building a case from confirming evidence • Implication: Scientists can also be ideologues – “CO2 increases average temperatures” vs. “Global warming must be stopped”

  39. C. Activism: How ideologues work • What do Americans think about the environment? a. The importance of salience: relative weight of different issues

  40. C. Activism: How ideologues work • What do Americans think about the environment? • The importance of salience: relative weight of different issues • General sympathy for environmental movement (activists)

  41. C. Activism: How ideologues work • What do Americans think about the environment? • The importance of salience: relative weight of different issues • General sympathy for environmental movement (activists) • Perception of environment as distant problem

  42. 2. Tactics of environmental activists • Raising the salience of the environment • Time pressure: Argue a “brink” in the near future • Irrevocable damage: Argue that environmental damage is different from economic damage, i.e. cannot be repaired • Magnify impacts: Argue that environmental damage is worse than other problems, i.e. risks human extinction or other catastrophe

More Related