Philosophy

“The study of economics and ecology without an ethical objective, in my mind, is akin to studying medicine not to relieve suffering, but simply for something to do to.”

Tor Hundloe, In From Buddha to Bono, On pg 12.

England has produced a number of outstanding detective story writers. Agatha Christie comes to mind with her character Hercule Poirot. Another is Dorothy L. Sayers, with her diffident, yet steely-minded toff, Lord Peter Wimsey.

There were also other sides to Dorothy. She was a moderate feminist, and one of the first women to graduate from Oxford University. She was a reputable medieval scholar.

In 1947 she delivered a talk at Oxford University called ‘The Lost Tools of Learning’, in which she suggested that western education has lost its way, by trying to cram in facts, rather than first developing skills. She pointed to the medieval trivium as a good way of giving students the ‘tools of learning’, namely logic (to think clearly), grammar (to write and speak clearly), and rhetoric (to mount a persuasive argument).

We see plenty of environmental rhetoric on this blog site, but is it all logical? Is there too much quoting of ‘facts’ (some might say ‘factoids’), and not enough sound argument? Is the use of scientific jargon and acronyms intended to obfuscate or impress, rather than to seek the truth? Should not all ‘models’ be accompanied by a clearly written statement of their assumptions?

In my view Dorothy’s argument was valid in 1947, and is even more valid now. She also wrote it up as an essay, which is available at several websites. Search on (sayers tools trivium). Have a read – it’s only a few pages.

Dr. David Naugle (search on naugle trivium sayers) has reviewed her essay, and the benefits of the trivium have been discussed elsewhere, for example in the book ‘Chaucer and the Trivium:The Mindsong of the Canterbury Tales’, by J. Stephen Russell.

I suggest that the humanities, and the medieval trivium, have a great deal to offer in current political and environmental debate. It might help people to cope with the torrent of ‘news’, advertising, and ‘spin doctoring’. Any comments?

Green and Medieval Davey Gam Esq.
Perth, Western Australia

Earlier this week, Clive Hamilton, Professor of Public Ethics at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics, threatened to boycott Australian e-journal On Line Opinion because it publishes article by so-called ‘climate change denialists’. Today, the journal’s Chief Editor, Graham Young, responds:

“The idea that truth is relative has taken over some areas of the humanities through postmodernism, theory and forms of Marxist analysis. That’s the school that Clive Hamilton’s argument on global warming comes from… We instinctively know that things do have objective reality and are not power constructs. That it doesn’t matter how many people say it is true if it isn’t.”

In today’s article Graham Young emphasises the importance of trying to understand the facts-of-the matter rather than as Clive Hamilton does, deferring to authority.

While Clive Hamilton has decided that “there was no way I could pretend to have a comprehensive grasp of climate science … [so] I had to decide not what to believe but whom to believe.”

Graham responds, “How do you decide who to believe if you have abdicated your right to analyse the arguments?”

Again on the subject of the truth Graham writes: “We believe that there is such a thing as the truth, and that it is out there, even if none of us will ever perceive it more than dimly.”

According to Graham one way of discovering the truth is to “welcome lobbyists as well as academics, politicians, activists and citizens. We want to put citizens in touch with decision makers and those with influence, and we don’t differentiate between them because they might have a particular point of view, or draw their paycheck from a particular source.

“Our fundamental tenet is that while there is such a thing as the truth it demands constant mining and refining for it to be discerned, and that it is not our place to tell others what to think. Consenting adults can come to this site [On Line Opinion] and see opposing arguments laid out before them and make-up their own minds. Clive is under-estimating the ability of our average reader.

“An ethical approach to argument avoids ad hominem attacks and concentrates on facts and arguments. It treats its opponent’s arguments with respect, and doesn’t misrepresent them, and it researches its own arguments thoroughly and presents them honestly.”

————
Silencing dissent
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=7596&page=1

The Sad Demise of On Line Opinion
http://onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=7580

Clive Hamilton, Professor of public ethics at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics, is leading an attack by left-leaning Australian academics on Graham Young and his e-journal On Line Opinion because it publishes article by so-called ‘climate change denialists’ including Tom Harris and John McLean.

Now is your opportunity to support Graham Young and On Line Opinion by making a donation here: http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/membership/

You can read Prof Hamilton here: http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=7580

And then perhaps leave a comment here: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7580

All three staff meteorologists at [American] KLTV, the ABC affiliate broadcasting to the Tyler-Longview-Jacksonville area of Northeast Texas, joined forces last November to deliver an on-air rebuttal of the idea that humans are changing the earth’s climate.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC, representing the work of hundreds of scientists from 130 countries, had declared eight months earlier that warming of the atmosphere was “unequivocal” and that greenhouse gases from human activities were “very likely” the cause of most of the warming since the mid-20th century.

The three KLTV weathercasters – appearing in a Nov. 8 story by a station news reporter – let it be known, however, that they were unconvinced.

Meteorologist Grant Dade: “Is the Earth warming? Yes, I think it is. But is man causing that? No. It’s a simple climate cycle our climate goes through over thousands of years.”

Read more of the story by Bill Dawson at ‘The Yale Forum on Climate Change & The Media’ by clicking here: http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/features/0608_tv.htm

Further in the article there is also comment that:

The disagreements between television weathercasters and climate scientists involve “a jurisdictional war,” and “there’s nobody free of sin in this matter,” Knight said. “I’m seeing a row here, but it’s not a bad row.”

On one side, there seems to be “a disdain in the orthodox scientific research community for those who are not smart enough to get a Ph.D. or do research, and instead go into the fluff of television and just forecast the weather,” he said.

On the other side, “there’s a certain amount of disdain from television meteorologists who are predicting the weather for those who pontificate about what their [climate] models show,” he added.

Knight summed up his own view of climate change this way: “There’s no question that warming is going on. To say it’s a hoax is to deny the data. To say it’s all human-caused is foolish, too.”

Australian economist Ross Garnaut has been commissioned by Australia’s Commonwealth, state and territory governments to examine the impacts, challenges and opportunities of climate change for Australia. There will be a final report by 30 September 2008.

Peter Gallager attended a recent lecture by this well known economist who is likely to significantly shape Australian government policy, he commented:

“I hoped to find that Prof. Garnaut would use his Heinz Arndt Lecture to describe the balance he intended to strike in his recommendations between evidence for risky climate change and a growing body of evidence that the risks are low to moderate (at most). Given his well-known views, I expected to find the balance tilted in favor of the former but I hoped to find that it would be moderated by recognition of the latter. Unfortunately, Prof. Garnaut paid no attention to any scientific facts and made no attempt to strike a balanced risk assessment…

“Ross Garnaut seems to believe that ‘scepticism’ about climate change is analogous to… or is, ‘dissent’. That is, he prefers to describe critics of his views using a term drawn from religious history, identifying someone who rejects a dogma. My reaction on first reading was surprise at the use of a term that implies acceptance of man-made global warming is really a faith from which critics may ‘dissent’. Did Ross Garnaut understand that (obvious) implication, I wondered? …

“Answering the question whether it is possible for ‘dissenters’ can be scientists, Ross Garnaut invokes Gallileo, whom he wrongly describes as a ‘dissenter’—Gallileo was no such thing; Gallileo’s conflict with the Church was about the appropriate role of empricism and contained no basic doctrinal dissent—as an exception that proves his rule…

“When Prof. Garnaut concludes ‘the Dissenters are possibly right, and probably wrong’, what evidence does he adduce? None. Not a shred. This is depressingly consistent with the approach taken in his Interim Report. He does not consider that the science offered in contradiction of the IPPCC pronouncements (the hypotheses of ‘those who are best placed to know’—see p. 5 of his address) calls anything into question because it is ‘dissent’ and not science.

“So much for name-calling. What positive reason does Prof. Garnaut offer for accepting the ‘uncertainties’ of the IPCC as reasonably indicative of a probability? No scientific reason, as it turns out.”

These excerpts are from ‘Science, dogma and dissent: Ross Garnaut’s Heinz Arndt lecture’, by Peter Gallagher. You can read the complete article here:
http://www.petergallagher.com.au/index.php/site/article/science-dogma-and-dissent-ross-garnauts-heinz-arndt-lecture/

The lecure by Professor Garnaut was entitled ‘Measuring the Immeasurable: The Costs and Benefits of Climate Change Mitigation’ and given on June 5, 2008, at the Australian National University. You can read the complete lecture here:
http://www.garnautreview.org.au/CA25734E0016A131/WebObj/MeasuringtheImmeasurable-TheCostsandBenefitsofClimateChangeMitigation,ProfessorRossGarnaut/$File/Measuring%20the%20Immeasurable-%20The%20Costs%20and%20Benefits%20of%20Climate%20Change%20Mitigation,%20Professor%20Ross%20Garnaut.pdf