Friday, March 30, 2012

Empirical Imperatives

From Climate Resistance:
There is a belief that you can simply read imperatives from ‘the evidence’, and to organise society accordingly, as if instructed by mother nature herself. And worse still, there is reluctance on behalf of many engaged in the debate to recognise that this very technocratic, naturalistic and bureaucratic way of looking at the world reflects very much a broader tendency in contemporary politics. To point any of these problems out is to ‘deny the science’. ‘Science’, then, is a gun to the head.
Shrinking the Sceptics


  1. Hi Josh,

    "The data do not speak for themselves." This is such a well known logical fact that it may be a bit unfair to accuse anybody of making the mistake of saying otherwise. Especially a person trained in science or technology. Surely the error has to be more subtle? For example: science can not only be used to describe how the world "is," but how the world "ought" to be? That theory can become so well established that not only does it become a law of Nature, but a law passed by Congress? That to oppose the law is to oppose Nature herself?


  2. More empirical imperatives:
    "The situation we're creating for young people and future generations is that we're handing them a climate system which is potentially out of their control," he said. "We're in an emergency: you can see what's on the horizon over the next few decades with the effects it will have on ecosystems, sea level and species extinction."
    Nasa scientist: climate change is a moral issue on a par with slavery

    I guess I'm just surprised that old people and present generations currently have control of the climate system...