27 April 2007
Should a free society permit an end to “legitimate” debates?
12:30 PM
The left seem fond of declaring debate on certain matters to be closed. Most notable is Al Gore’s oft-repeated decree: There is no legitimate debate on the matter of global warming; the debate is over. I frequently listen to talk radio and liberal callers to such programs have repeated this claim over and over and over again.
Whatever we think about global warming, I think this whole notion of “illegitimate” debate is actually a dangerous one in a republic. We should perhaps spend as much time talking about this as we do global warming itself. And I can think of two reasons for this. First, the very nature and role of debate in science makes the idea of “illegitimate” debate a bit problematic. Second, a republic should not tolerate the notion of an “illegitimate” debate, especially when the propositions debated have public policy implications.
1.
Just how does a debate become illegitimate? Let’s take as relevant definitions of legitimate (a) “neither spurious nor false” or (b) “conforming to recognized principles or accepted rules and standards.” With respect to (a) I would add that in the present context spurious probably bears the connotation of deceitful. In that case (and assuming I’ve identified the correct sense of illegitimate) something about the debate is dishonest. Global warming advocates assert that what is dishonest is for opponents argue their case, the implication being that opponents very well know that advocates are correct. On this view, then, continuing debates over global warming are like debates held on the existence of God at an “atheological” seminary. It’s a show: in such a venue neither side believes the proposition, God exists. One side is pretending, for the sake of getting a little exercise, perhaps.
If (b) is what we have in mind then the assertion about legitimate debate would mean that (given who is making the assertions) opponents either conduct their end of the debate in a manner which does not conform to recognized principles or accepted rules and standards of debate, or scientific argumentation. (We might say this, for example, if participants in the debate do not offer articles for peer-reviewed journals and so forth.) Or, we could say that the debate is illegitimate if the scientists on the opposing side do their scientific research in a manner which does not conform to recognized principles or accepted rules and standards of doing science. (Of course, it is fair to ask, Recognized or accepted by whom? The answer will most like be, Some other consensus. So this consensus we’re talking about rests upon another, philosophical, consensus.)
I have not heard these characterizations. The argument I have heard on this is that debate is no longer legitimate because a scientific consensus now exists. The consensus is that global warming is occurring and humans are causing it and need to adjust their behavior and lifestyles – especially the west. The “illegitimacy” is denial of human caused global warming as contrary to this consensus. In other words what makes any further debate illegitimate is simply not going along with this consensus.
Keeping in mind that this debate is a scientific one something really ought to concern us – for the sake of science. And that is the normal function of debate in coming to, maintaining and even correcting consensus. An implication of Vice-President Gore’s decree is that the process of achieving consensus is something like voting: the polls open at a set time and close at a set time. And when the polls close, they remain closed and the tally is based on the number of eligible voters who cast a vote while the polls were open. And that final tally settles all matters for all time.
But it isn’t that way. A statement about a consensus is a statement of a condition as it stands at some point in history. History is unfolding; it is dynamic, not static. Consensus is a condition (if we are concerned to engage in science) which is subject to change. As of now, more scientists believe that such-and-such is the case than do not. And the reason the debate (“legitimate” or otherwise) is not over is that (supposedly) the work of science continues. Supposedly scientists continue testing hypotheses and theories. Did they stop doing that recently? If so, I haven’t heard of it. So, this notion of an “illegitimate” debate in science, however attractive, would really mark an end to science and the beginning of a new kind of orthodoxy.
Let’s think about this matter of “consensus”. I accept as a good definition of consensus: “1: group solidarity in sentiment and belief 2 a :general agreement : UNANIMITY b: the judgment arrived at by most of those concerned” (Webster’s New Collegiate).
Several questions about this scientific consensus arise: What is the nature of this group solidarity? How large is the total population of climatologists worldwide? Of this population how many belong to this consensus? Even if it’s a vast majority, why should we defer to the notion that they are right, especially where our liberties are concerned? Is truth now to be arrived at by majority vote? How was this judgment arrived at? Is the nature of this solidarity one of pursuits undertaken without passion or prejudice? Was this judgment arrived at solely on the basis of evidence? If so, why the dissent on the part of opponents? Is it that they do not understand the evidence? Or, is it that the evidence, such as it is, is a bit subject to interpretation? Or is it perhaps that some of the evidence is actually extrapolation, and opponents simply believe that while certain things may be extrapolated, not all extrapolations are warranted, specifically, in this case many extrapolations of, well, doom?
There is also the matter of philosophical presuppositions, as well as scientists’ other intellectual commitments. If it is acceptable to wonder (as Rosie O’Donnell has) how the fact that five Supreme Court justices are Roman Catholics is related to the recent partial birth abortion decision, then it ought to be acceptable to ask whether the scientists who are part of this grand consensus have intellectual commitments which drive their interpretation of facts and selection of models, as well as their selection of “recognized principles or accepted rules and standards of doing science .” It is not that we wish to falsify claims by making assertions about these commitments, but it does go to motive. Scientists are not as pure as the wind-driven snow. And when their debates, legitimate or otherwise, have public policy implications, their motives are fair game, just like everyone else’s.
2.
These questions do not seem to important enough to ask. We are asked to believe it is sufficient that a consensus exists. And the existence of this consensus renders illegitimate any opposition to this consensus. And questioning this consensus renders one as low as a holocaust denier. Never mind that the evidence for the holocaust rests, at least in part, on eyewitness testimony; and many of those eyewitnesses are still among the living. The holocaust is not extrapolated from computer models. Not only that, and indeed far more important, no exercise of our liberties is tied to whether the holocaust ever happened. This is not the case with global warming. The issue of global warming is certainly connected to the exercise of our liberties.
When it comes to global warming, the solutions involve more or less substantial losses of freedom. Perhaps it is necessary; we shall see. But it still makes this idea of declaring a debate illegitimate a dangerous one, even if this consensus exists. Dangerous to a free society. Debate is a fundamental right in a free society, especially in matters related to public policy. In a free society, any public policy related debate ought to be considered legitimate, even after a policy decision has been made by duly empowered authority.
In a free and open society, especially one which claims to honor the pursuit of truth and freedom of enquiry, no debate ought ever to be declared over. Not even when there is a consensus on any issue.
Several issues have been studied in philosophy for millennia. Let’s say a poll is taken tomorrow of philosophers on the subject of universals and a vast majority of them hold to the view known as nominalism. Should those who disagree yield to some declaration that, a consensus having been reached, the debate over universals is now over; there will be no legitimate debate on the question whether universals are merely names or have something like a substantial existence? I doubt it. If there is a consensus on the existence of God, ought one side or other to declare the matter settled? If a majority of “competent authorities” conclude that God exists, ought atheists to acknowledge an end to legitimate debate on the question? I doubt it. And they would rightly protest if the majority decided, by virtue of being the majority, that (1) a consensus now existed on the existence of God and (2) this consensus rendered illegitimate any further debate on the matter. God exists. The consensus says so. The debate is now over.
“But James,” you say, “those are philosophical questions. The matter of global warming is a scientific question, an empirical one. Philosophical theories are not subject to experimentation; scientific theories are. Does not that constitute a significant difference?”
That’s an astute observation. So I wonder if there are any debates on other matters, between scientists, as opposed to philosophers. If so, I further wonder if one side has declared an end to debate.
Let’s take, for example, the disagreement between adherents of big bang theory and steady state theory. At this point in time there don’t appear to be many, if any, serious, adherents to steady state theory. In large part this is due to the results of the discovery of cosmic microwave background radiation (predicted by big bang theory). Most physicists, with that discovery, if they had previously held to steady state, came over to big bang. But even today there are some hold-outs. In the history of science, so far as I know, there was no announcement on the part of big band theorists that there would be no further “legitimate” debate on the issue of the big bang. Steady state hold-outs are not referred to as the equivalent of holocaust deniers. Other examples of disputes among scientists exist. And in none of those cases, so far as I know, was an end to “legitimate” debate declared.
“But those matters are not as pressing as global warming. If global warming is taking place, and if humans are causing it, and if we can do something to halt it, then shouldn’t we do so right away?” And that right there is why we ought not accept any fiat declaration that the debate is over. Again, the solution to global warming requires deprivation of liberty and/or limitations on enjoyment of our property rights. Our Constitution requires that such deprivations not be made without due process of law (Const. Amend. 5). If there is some debate on a scientific matter which has implications for public policy, the idea that one of the parties to the debate can up and declare itself the “winner” ought to strike at our liberty-loving hearts. It is ought to strike us as authoritarian and “foreign to our constitution” that a debate with public policy implications can be declared “illegitimate”. These are people who pretty openly desire to limit our property rights and other liberties in pursuit of the solution to the putative problem. And are they going to tell us when they have successfully justified themselves to us? I don’t think so.
In a free society, for one side in a scientific debate which involves loss of liberty or property to simply declare an end to debate (and then, of course, to begin seizing or transferring property and curtailing liberties) ought to be unacceptable. It is precisely because the issue of global warming (and it’s possible solution) is so important that a free society should view with suspicion anyone, on either side, who takes it upon himself to declare the debate over and himself the winner. Aspiring tyrants may attempt it. Free people ought not allow it.
Global warming may be all that it’s proponents say it is. But to hell with the idea that they are going to declare the debate over and then push for public policies which will limit our liberties and the enjoyment of our property rights, to decide for us whether we want incandescent or fluorescent light bulbs, whether to drive a Jeep or a Prius.
A free society ought not permit the arbitrary closure of debate, even by those who are not members of the government, on matters with public policy implications. We are still debating whether we should have invaded Iraq, as well as the Patriot Act. I accept these debates, whichever side I agree with, as both proper and necessary to a free and open society. Declarations that “legitimate” debates are at an end are authoritarian in nature, like when a parent says to an argumentative child, “The discussion is over.” On hand this is understandable, liberals like to think of we the little people as their children. Well I have a father, a darn good one. His name is Jesus Francisco Solís. No one else need apply.
In a free society any proposition should be an acceptable topic for debate. And I don’t care if we’re talking about a debate on the existence of the tooth fairy. But certainly we ought not declare an end to debate, or refer to a debate as illegitimate when it has policy implications.
______________________________
Note: : The former Vice-President is not the only one who likes to talk about debates which are not “legitimate.” And, as I said above, description of a debate as illegitimate seems to refer to a debate over a proposition which is accepted by some consensus. Clearly I reject the notion of “illegitimate” debate. In the interests of full disclosure I should mention that although I happen to be Reformational in philosophical perspective, I take something of a Feyerabendian approach to science in a free and pluralist society.
Whatever we think about global warming, I think this whole notion of “illegitimate” debate is actually a dangerous one in a republic. We should perhaps spend as much time talking about this as we do global warming itself. And I can think of two reasons for this. First, the very nature and role of debate in science makes the idea of “illegitimate” debate a bit problematic. Second, a republic should not tolerate the notion of an “illegitimate” debate, especially when the propositions debated have public policy implications.
1.
Just how does a debate become illegitimate? Let’s take as relevant definitions of legitimate (a) “neither spurious nor false” or (b) “conforming to recognized principles or accepted rules and standards.” With respect to (a) I would add that in the present context spurious probably bears the connotation of deceitful. In that case (and assuming I’ve identified the correct sense of illegitimate) something about the debate is dishonest. Global warming advocates assert that what is dishonest is for opponents argue their case, the implication being that opponents very well know that advocates are correct. On this view, then, continuing debates over global warming are like debates held on the existence of God at an “atheological” seminary. It’s a show: in such a venue neither side believes the proposition, God exists. One side is pretending, for the sake of getting a little exercise, perhaps.
If (b) is what we have in mind then the assertion about legitimate debate would mean that (given who is making the assertions) opponents either conduct their end of the debate in a manner which does not conform to recognized principles or accepted rules and standards of debate, or scientific argumentation. (We might say this, for example, if participants in the debate do not offer articles for peer-reviewed journals and so forth.) Or, we could say that the debate is illegitimate if the scientists on the opposing side do their scientific research in a manner which does not conform to recognized principles or accepted rules and standards of doing science. (Of course, it is fair to ask, Recognized or accepted by whom? The answer will most like be, Some other consensus. So this consensus we’re talking about rests upon another, philosophical, consensus.)
I have not heard these characterizations. The argument I have heard on this is that debate is no longer legitimate because a scientific consensus now exists. The consensus is that global warming is occurring and humans are causing it and need to adjust their behavior and lifestyles – especially the west. The “illegitimacy” is denial of human caused global warming as contrary to this consensus. In other words what makes any further debate illegitimate is simply not going along with this consensus.
Keeping in mind that this debate is a scientific one something really ought to concern us – for the sake of science. And that is the normal function of debate in coming to, maintaining and even correcting consensus. An implication of Vice-President Gore’s decree is that the process of achieving consensus is something like voting: the polls open at a set time and close at a set time. And when the polls close, they remain closed and the tally is based on the number of eligible voters who cast a vote while the polls were open. And that final tally settles all matters for all time.
But it isn’t that way. A statement about a consensus is a statement of a condition as it stands at some point in history. History is unfolding; it is dynamic, not static. Consensus is a condition (if we are concerned to engage in science) which is subject to change. As of now, more scientists believe that such-and-such is the case than do not. And the reason the debate (“legitimate” or otherwise) is not over is that (supposedly) the work of science continues. Supposedly scientists continue testing hypotheses and theories. Did they stop doing that recently? If so, I haven’t heard of it. So, this notion of an “illegitimate” debate in science, however attractive, would really mark an end to science and the beginning of a new kind of orthodoxy.
Let’s think about this matter of “consensus”. I accept as a good definition of consensus: “1: group solidarity in sentiment and belief 2 a :general agreement : UNANIMITY b: the judgment arrived at by most of those concerned” (Webster’s New Collegiate).
Several questions about this scientific consensus arise: What is the nature of this group solidarity? How large is the total population of climatologists worldwide? Of this population how many belong to this consensus? Even if it’s a vast majority, why should we defer to the notion that they are right, especially where our liberties are concerned? Is truth now to be arrived at by majority vote? How was this judgment arrived at? Is the nature of this solidarity one of pursuits undertaken without passion or prejudice? Was this judgment arrived at solely on the basis of evidence? If so, why the dissent on the part of opponents? Is it that they do not understand the evidence? Or, is it that the evidence, such as it is, is a bit subject to interpretation? Or is it perhaps that some of the evidence is actually extrapolation, and opponents simply believe that while certain things may be extrapolated, not all extrapolations are warranted, specifically, in this case many extrapolations of, well, doom?
There is also the matter of philosophical presuppositions, as well as scientists’ other intellectual commitments. If it is acceptable to wonder (as Rosie O’Donnell has) how the fact that five Supreme Court justices are Roman Catholics is related to the recent partial birth abortion decision, then it ought to be acceptable to ask whether the scientists who are part of this grand consensus have intellectual commitments which drive their interpretation of facts and selection of models, as well as their selection of “recognized principles or accepted rules and standards of doing science .” It is not that we wish to falsify claims by making assertions about these commitments, but it does go to motive. Scientists are not as pure as the wind-driven snow. And when their debates, legitimate or otherwise, have public policy implications, their motives are fair game, just like everyone else’s.
2.
These questions do not seem to important enough to ask. We are asked to believe it is sufficient that a consensus exists. And the existence of this consensus renders illegitimate any opposition to this consensus. And questioning this consensus renders one as low as a holocaust denier. Never mind that the evidence for the holocaust rests, at least in part, on eyewitness testimony; and many of those eyewitnesses are still among the living. The holocaust is not extrapolated from computer models. Not only that, and indeed far more important, no exercise of our liberties is tied to whether the holocaust ever happened. This is not the case with global warming. The issue of global warming is certainly connected to the exercise of our liberties.
When it comes to global warming, the solutions involve more or less substantial losses of freedom. Perhaps it is necessary; we shall see. But it still makes this idea of declaring a debate illegitimate a dangerous one, even if this consensus exists. Dangerous to a free society. Debate is a fundamental right in a free society, especially in matters related to public policy. In a free society, any public policy related debate ought to be considered legitimate, even after a policy decision has been made by duly empowered authority.
In a free and open society, especially one which claims to honor the pursuit of truth and freedom of enquiry, no debate ought ever to be declared over. Not even when there is a consensus on any issue.
Several issues have been studied in philosophy for millennia. Let’s say a poll is taken tomorrow of philosophers on the subject of universals and a vast majority of them hold to the view known as nominalism. Should those who disagree yield to some declaration that, a consensus having been reached, the debate over universals is now over; there will be no legitimate debate on the question whether universals are merely names or have something like a substantial existence? I doubt it. If there is a consensus on the existence of God, ought one side or other to declare the matter settled? If a majority of “competent authorities” conclude that God exists, ought atheists to acknowledge an end to legitimate debate on the question? I doubt it. And they would rightly protest if the majority decided, by virtue of being the majority, that (1) a consensus now existed on the existence of God and (2) this consensus rendered illegitimate any further debate on the matter. God exists. The consensus says so. The debate is now over.
“But James,” you say, “those are philosophical questions. The matter of global warming is a scientific question, an empirical one. Philosophical theories are not subject to experimentation; scientific theories are. Does not that constitute a significant difference?”
That’s an astute observation. So I wonder if there are any debates on other matters, between scientists, as opposed to philosophers. If so, I further wonder if one side has declared an end to debate.
Let’s take, for example, the disagreement between adherents of big bang theory and steady state theory. At this point in time there don’t appear to be many, if any, serious, adherents to steady state theory. In large part this is due to the results of the discovery of cosmic microwave background radiation (predicted by big bang theory). Most physicists, with that discovery, if they had previously held to steady state, came over to big bang. But even today there are some hold-outs. In the history of science, so far as I know, there was no announcement on the part of big band theorists that there would be no further “legitimate” debate on the issue of the big bang. Steady state hold-outs are not referred to as the equivalent of holocaust deniers. Other examples of disputes among scientists exist. And in none of those cases, so far as I know, was an end to “legitimate” debate declared.
“But those matters are not as pressing as global warming. If global warming is taking place, and if humans are causing it, and if we can do something to halt it, then shouldn’t we do so right away?” And that right there is why we ought not accept any fiat declaration that the debate is over. Again, the solution to global warming requires deprivation of liberty and/or limitations on enjoyment of our property rights. Our Constitution requires that such deprivations not be made without due process of law (Const. Amend. 5). If there is some debate on a scientific matter which has implications for public policy, the idea that one of the parties to the debate can up and declare itself the “winner” ought to strike at our liberty-loving hearts. It is ought to strike us as authoritarian and “foreign to our constitution” that a debate with public policy implications can be declared “illegitimate”. These are people who pretty openly desire to limit our property rights and other liberties in pursuit of the solution to the putative problem. And are they going to tell us when they have successfully justified themselves to us? I don’t think so.
In a free society, for one side in a scientific debate which involves loss of liberty or property to simply declare an end to debate (and then, of course, to begin seizing or transferring property and curtailing liberties) ought to be unacceptable. It is precisely because the issue of global warming (and it’s possible solution) is so important that a free society should view with suspicion anyone, on either side, who takes it upon himself to declare the debate over and himself the winner. Aspiring tyrants may attempt it. Free people ought not allow it.
Global warming may be all that it’s proponents say it is. But to hell with the idea that they are going to declare the debate over and then push for public policies which will limit our liberties and the enjoyment of our property rights, to decide for us whether we want incandescent or fluorescent light bulbs, whether to drive a Jeep or a Prius.
A free society ought not permit the arbitrary closure of debate, even by those who are not members of the government, on matters with public policy implications. We are still debating whether we should have invaded Iraq, as well as the Patriot Act. I accept these debates, whichever side I agree with, as both proper and necessary to a free and open society. Declarations that “legitimate” debates are at an end are authoritarian in nature, like when a parent says to an argumentative child, “The discussion is over.” On hand this is understandable, liberals like to think of we the little people as their children. Well I have a father, a darn good one. His name is Jesus Francisco Solís. No one else need apply.
In a free society any proposition should be an acceptable topic for debate. And I don’t care if we’re talking about a debate on the existence of the tooth fairy. But certainly we ought not declare an end to debate, or refer to a debate as illegitimate when it has policy implications.
______________________________
Note: : The former Vice-President is not the only one who likes to talk about debates which are not “legitimate.” And, as I said above, description of a debate as illegitimate seems to refer to a debate over a proposition which is accepted by some consensus. Clearly I reject the notion of “illegitimate” debate. In the interests of full disclosure I should mention that although I happen to be Reformational in philosophical perspective, I take something of a Feyerabendian approach to science in a free and pluralist society.
Labels:
Christianity and Culture,
Culture,
Government,
Philosophy,
Philosophy of Science,
Politics,
Society
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
About Me
- James Frank Solís
- Former soldier (USA). Graduate-level educated. Married 26 years. Texas ex-patriate. Ruling elder in the Presbyterian Church in America.
Blog Archive
-
▼
2007
(187)
-
▼
April
(15)
- Should a free society permit an end to “legitimate...
- I’m a transsexual…
- Among other things, Cho rails against rich white k...
- A Copycat is Born
- I don't really care, but I'm happy about it nevert...
- Wow. I may have been on to something here. I reall...
- "Gun" control
- Eureka!
- Well, the worldwide bitchfest about our “gun” cult...
- The dreaded "H" word
- Duke Lacrosse Players v Every Prissy, Puritanical ...
- My daughter makes an astute observation about Roma...
- Saxual Innuendo
- Holy Week is the time of the year when I most miss...
- I was reading SCOTUSblog Monday on Massachusetts v...
-
▼
April
(15)
0 comments: