Uncategorized

A reader of this web-log sent me this link, with the note: I wonder what this gamma ray burst of 13 billion years ago does for the Intelligent Design argument?

I have previously commented on Intelligent Design here.

I was going to proceed chapter by chapter through Ian Lowe’s new book ‘A Big Fix: Radical solutions for Australia’s environmental crisis’ but by the time I get to chapter 6 I’ll have missed the key points, or lost my audience, or both. So here goes the dive bomb.

Lowe begins the book by stating that he is a scientist.

Then on page 86, he says,

“Sustainability science [which he supports in previous paragraph] differs fundamentally from most science as we know it. The traditional scientific method is based on sequential phases of inquiry: conceptualizing the problem, collecting data, developing theories, then applying the results. …Sustainability science will have to employ new methods, such as semi-quantitative modeling of qualitative data, or inverse approaches that work backwards from undesirable consequences to identify better ways to progress. Researchers will have to work with land-users to produce new understandings that combine scientific excellence with social relevance.”

So Lowe is suggesting that:
1. Science should not be sequential,
2. There is such a thing as semi-quantitative modeling,
3. We should image the worst, no matter how unlikely.

But science has to be sequential. You advance a hypothesis. For a hypothesis to be proven, it needs to be predictive, so you make predictions based on the hypothesis and devise ways of testing the prediction. There is no way that any of those steps can be taken out of sequence and still be called science. An adjective like ‘sustainability’ can only qualify the noun, it can’t negate it.

The wooliness of Lowe’s thinking is demonstrated by his second proposition. The only thing that “semi-quantitative modeling of qualitative data” can indicate is that he doesn’t want to count the results accurately. Quantitative is a digital concept, it doesn’t come in shades.

The third proposition could be referred to as the “Chicken Little Principle”. “If I say the sky is falling, then there is no time to go through the normal rigour of the scientific method, because by that time the sky will have fallen. So let’s ‘desequentialise’ and ignore the facts, it will make me feel better, and guess what, the sky won’t fall either!” Yes, and the same logic applied to milk souring in the middle ages led to lots of little old ladies being drowned in duck ponds.

I protested when Joh Bjelke-Petersen was awarded an honourary doctorate of laws because of his contempt for the law. In the circumstances I would be inconsistent if I didn’t call on Griffith University to strip Lowe of his professorship in a science faculty. He has abandoned science.

I know a lot of people have a lot of time for Ian Lowe, but on the evidence of this book his time has passed.

Chapter 2 of ‘A Big Fix:Radical Solutions for Australia’s Environmental Crisis’ by Ian Lowe (Black Inc 2005) is titled ‘Defining Sustainability: What does it Mean?’.

As I began reading the chapter I thought of Michael Crichton (author of Jurassic Park and other best sellers) and his irreverent definition of sustainability:

“Today, one of the most powerful religions in the Western World is environmentalism. Environmentalism seems to be the religion of choice for urban atheists. Why do I say it’s a religion? Well, just look at the beliefs. If you look carefully, you see that environmentalism is in fact a perfect 21st century remapping of traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs and myths.

There’s an initial Eden, a paradise, a state of grace and unity with nature, there’s a fall from grace into a state of pollution as a result of eating from the tree of knowledge, and as a result of our actions there is a judgment day coming for us all. We are all energy sinners, doomed to die, unless we seek salvation, which is now called sustainability. Sustainability is salvation in the church of the environment. Just as organic food is its communion, that pesticide-free wafer that the right people with the right beliefs, imbibe.”

Lowe’s definition of sustainability is somewhat different, he quotes Victoria’s Environment Minister John Thwaites and adds some:

“It means never having to say ‘sorry’ to our grand-children. So there are some obvious criteria to test whether the way we live can be sustained. Are we likely to run short of critical resources? If we are, our society will not be sustainable. Are we doing serious damage to the natural systems that support us? If we are destroying the capacity of natural systems to produce basic needs such as air, water and food our society will not be sustainable …”

Lowe goes on to suggest that economist really don’t know what they are talking about. He writes,

“The entire notion of economic planning has been abandoned in favour of a naive faith in the magic of the market.” (pg 34)

Instead of markets, Lowe suggests:
1. We need to ensure that the total scale of human activity is ecologically sustainable,
2. We should distribute resources and property fairly,
3. We should allocate resources as efficiently as possible.

He continues,

“So there is a role for markets in ensuring efficient allocation of resources, but first, science must determine the scale of resource allocation we can responsibly allow and society needs to work out the principles of fairness within which markets can operate.” (pg 35)

In ‘The Republic’ by Plato, the ideal ruler has the virtue and wisdom of a philosopher. Perhaps Lowe is suggesting a society where scientists will be the philosopher kings?

…………..

This is part 2 of ‘As Lowe as it Gets’.
Part 1 is here https://jennifermarohasy.com.dev.internet-thinking.com.au/blog/archives/000853.html .