The difference between philosophy and science

Time was when what we call science was known as "natural philosophy." For the last couple of hundred years or so, however, science has become something quite different from the other branches of philosophy. Modern-day philosopher-scientists like Janet "Adventures in Science and Ethics" Stemwedel could very well take issue with this, but it seems to me that recombining the two is no longer feasible. Thus we have the problem of Climate Debate Daily, a web aggregrator of arguments for and against doing something about global warming.

The site is the brainchild of a pair of philosophers. Here's how one of them, Douglas Campbell, described their mission in an email to me this week:

We are philosophers and the established practice in philosophy is to debate your opponent on a level playing field where both sides get equal space to put forward their point of view. Once you are there on the level playing field you set about trying to crush and skewer your opponent with superior arguments and evidence. I think there is room on the big old internet for at least one website which provides that sort of level playing field.

That might work in an abstract world, one devoted to exploring ethics and ideas in general, but I don't think it works for climatology, or any other field that deals with the real world, one that relies on evidence and experiment.

The simple fact is, when it comes to science, not all opinions are of equal value. Those derived from the application of the scientific method and skeptical reasoning are worth more than those born of ideological conviction and wishful thinking. To give each variety equal billing and hope that the truth will out sounds like a good strategy, but it assumes that most readers are capable of evaluating the merits of the opinions. It assumes a level of expertise and critical thinking skills that are sadly absent, particularly from those readers Climate Debate Daily is trying to attract, namely skeptics. While a level playing field might work in a philosophy class, a web forum devoted to the climate crisis, in all likelihood, is more likely to reinforce existing beliefs.

The North American journalism establishment has only recently figured this out. After years of giving equal space to both sides of the argument over the existence, and more recently, the cause and severity, of anthropogenic global warming, editors finally realized that they had bolstered in the minds of their readers, listeners and viewers the false idea that the scientific community hadn't already settled those issues. Sure, a sufficiently well-informed reader with the luxury of the time to fact-check and critically analyze the statements of both scientists and the so-called skeptics could have seen through the latter's logical errors and falsehoods, but good journalists are supposed to do that for the reader, aren't they?

The owners of Climate Debate Daily are playing a similar role whether they intend to or not, and in my humble opinion, it should be their responsibility to apply some kind of filter to the material to which their lists link. If they, as philosophers, don't have the necessary scientific training required to do this, then perhaps they should leave the task to those who do. As it is, all we get on CDD is a list of arguments for action on climate change in one column, and a list of arguments against action in the other, with no effort to distinguish the amateur from the professional, the informed from the ignorant, the honest from the mendacious, the true skeptics from the false.

The site does this in the name of a "debate," but the real debate is among scientists and involves matters such as the relative role of climate forcings and the strength of the meridional overturning in the Atlantic, not whether fossil-fuel emissions are warming the planet. The site is mischaracterizing the debate, and in so doing, the owners are doing the public a disservice.

So, 10 out of 10 for good intentions, but, as Douglas Adams almost said, minus 10 million for poor thinking.

I raise this because CDD recently was named one of the top 50 eco-blogs by the Times of London, and if the level of traffic it recently directed to one of my recent posts is any indication, it has become a popular place to go for those interested in what's happening to the climate.

Of course, I'm pleased and honored to be considered worthy of a link. But I worry about all the folks who are following the links on the dissenters' column to such drivel as that produced by Terence Corcoran, a Canadian business columnist who displays a blatant disregard for the facts and a remarkable ability to misrepresent the science. (His most recent "contribution," for example, again conflates short-term weather with long-term trends in climate.)

Even worse, today's top dissenter on the site is non other than S. Fred Singer of the right-wing Heartland Institute. This is a guy who has been caught lying about his funding and the scientific content of papers.

I have no objection to amateurs taking part in the discussion. I'd just like to see such efforts, which are clearly the result of considerable time and energy, give the scientists who have devoted their lives to understanding an incredibly complex and challenging field a little respect instead of equating carefully chosen analysis with the baseless opinions of those who get their news from Rush Limbaugh.

Surely philosophers, even those with no science background, can see the difference, and why it matters.