Philosophy

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 .

E-journal Online Opinion published a piece today titled Evolutionary science isn’t a closed book about the pros and cons of teaching Intelligent Design (ID) in schools and universities.

I read about the concept of ID in the August 15 issue of Time magazine.

It seemed to me to be just a rehash of the creationists argument that because we have such magnificent adaptations, e.g. the human eye, we must have been created by god (… for some ID believers, designed by an alien).

According to the article in Time magazine there has been lots of outrage because President Bush suggested “lessons in evolution include a discussion of Intelligent Design.”

The piece at OLO includes,

The battle lines are rigid. The US science establishment is adamant that ID casts doubt on well-established science, using specious evidence and faulty logic. The attempted incursion into the classroom is not to be tolerated. End of story. Add to this the legal campaign to maintain an iron wall of separation between church and state, and you have a belligerent “them” and “us”.

For their part, the ID leaders are a different breed from evangelical creationists who insist on a literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis and Bible Belt morality. They hold PhDs in biology and mathematics from leading universities; some are tenured professors. Their organisational base, the Discovery Institute, located in Seattle, Washington, makes effective use of online, print and DVD promotion. By such means the institute reaches any teacher or student curious enough to run a Google search. Those who look discover telling points scored against the standard position, at least for those at the beginner level, and this embarrassment partly accounts for the science establishment’s anger.

I actually agree with Bush in so much as contrasting belief in ID (and creation)with the theory of evolution is a good way of illustrating the difference between belief and faith versus evidence and science. Let the students learn the difference (between faith and science) and make up their own minds.

PS I really enjoyed discussion of Gould and Ethridge’s ‘punctuated equilibrium theory‘ when I was at university.

Hi Jennifer

I’ve read an interesting article, written in 1989, about ‘herd
behaviour’. You are probably aware of the piece anyway, but just in case I thought I’d mention it. Here’s a section that looks like it relates to current controveries, even though it largely predates it:

Suppose you have some curve between the extreme of this opinion and the extreme of that opinion. You have some indefinite, statistically quite insignificant distribution of opinions. Now in that situation, suppose that the refereeing procedure has to decide where to put money in research, which papers to publish, and so on. What would happen? Well, people would say, “We can’t really tell, but surely we shouldn’t take anybody who is out here. Slightly more people believe in this position than in any other, so we will select our speakers at the next conference from this position on the opinion curve, and we will judge to whom to give research funds,” because the referees themselves will of course be included in great numbers in some such curve. We will select some region there to supply the funds.

And so, a year later what will have happened? You will have combed out some of the people who were out there, and you will have put more people into this region. Each round of decision making has the consequence of essentially taking the initial curve and multiplying it by itself.

Now we understand the mathematical consequence of taking a shallow curve and multiplying it by itself a large number of times. What happens? In the mathematical limit it becomes a delta function at the value of the initial peak. What does that mean? If you go for long enough, you will have created the appearance of unanimity.

The full article is here:

http://www.amasci.com/freenrg/newidea1.html

Stephen Dawson
28th July 2005

“The trouble, at least on the surface, seems that any government department would rather spend a dollar on simulation than a dime on in-service testing, and the simulation frequently misses vital points while stressing irrelevancies.”

… from a reader of this web-blog

There has been a bit of discussion at this web-log about GM versus organic food. My position is well known including that I consider the aversion to GM irrational. I have written in the IPA Review (March 2004, Vol 56, No. 1) that GM is the new ‘taboo food’ and suggested that organic food might be the equivalent to the Jewish kosher and Moslem halal.

Rog sent me some links this morning to information about a fellow called Marvian Harris. Harris (now deceased) wrote about ‘cultural materialism’ which is apparently “…based on the simple premise that human social life is a response to the practical problems of earthly existence”.

Harris had some interesting ideas about food as culture including:

The Hindu ban on killing cows? Absolutely necessary as a strategy of human existence, Dr. Harris contended: they are much more valuable for plowing fields and providing milk than as a one-time steak dinner.

“Westerners think that Indians would rather starve than eat their cows,” he told Psychology Today. “What they don’t understand is that they will starve if they do eat their cows.”

In Dr. Harris’s view, then, a manufactured “divine intervention” was needed to encourage people simply to do the practical thing.

The Jewish and Muslim bans on eating pork? Pigs eat the same foods as humans, he reasoned, and are expensive to keep. Sheep, goats and cattle, by contrast, thrive on grass, and provide wool, milk and labor.

So in Harris’ view, what would the state government bans on GM food crops be about?

The links:

http://www.faculty.rsu.edu/~felwell/Theorists/Harris/Index.htm#Web

http://www.users.voicenet.com/~nancymc/marvinharris.html