Archive for March, 2006
Posted on March 23rd, 2006 by Pali Gap No Comments
Pity the good people at the The Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew (London)! They started their Spring festival on March 11th but as yet, nearly two weeks later, most of the daffodils and crocuses are still in bud because of our cold, dry winter. Here in Cornwall “Daffodil Week” at Cotehele House has been postponed a month. At Thriplow, Cambridgeshire it seems they’re persevering with their festival despite only having a handful of daffodils in flower. It’s not been this bad since nigh on thirty years apparently. In South East England it has been so dry the water companies are threatening hose pipe bans. Even the economy is feeling the chill and UK retail sales in March have been poor. The British Retail Consortium say March’s unseasonably cold weather has discouraged the punters from buying spring and summer outfits.
Winters should be warmer and wetter right?
Of course this is all a bit tongue in cheek. As has been said here before “you can cut ‘n paste local weather extremes to support any conjecture you like”.
In fact running right now on one of our main TV channels (ITV) is a classic exercise in just such cut ‘n paste alarmism.
From now until May, ITV News is conducting a unique investigation as 2006 will be a crunch year in the world’s battle against global warming. Should temperatures rise by just 3C more, we could reach the point of no return when the ice caps melt, sea levels rise dramatically and the lives of billions of people are threatened. Many say society as we know it would be changed for ever. Our science editor Lawrence McGinty is travelling around the world to see for himself the environmental hotspots where climate change is most obvious.
Perhaps Lawrence should stay at home and check out the evidence in his own backyard?!
Posted on March 10th, 2006 by Pali Gap No Comments
“Politics & epistemology” – now there’s a subject!
It seems clear that you can correlate epistemological optimism with left-leaning politics and epistemological pessimism with “liberalism” (by which I mean non-authoritarian right wing politics).
A predilection for Scientism, Positivism, or any flavour of “foundationalist” epistemology is very convenient if you wish to sign up to the idea of progress through social engineering and the command economy. If you believe that Science gives us certain knowledge; that this knowledge is growing steadily; that there is effectively no limit to our quest for knowledge; and that even the laws of mind and society are fair game to Science – then you are an “epistemological optimist” and open to a Politics that believes that Society, the economy, the environment – even the Planet herself – can be managed and controlled in a rational, progressive way.
On the other hand you don’t have to be a foaming-at-the-mouth epistemological pessimist (sceptic, relativist, whatever) to believe that the tentative and conjectural nature of Science does not square with any form of Utopianism. Perhaps you think “certainty” is unattainable (and even undesirable as an aim); perhaps God does play dice (Einstein notwithstanding); perhaps Science does not progress in a simple cumulative fashion; perhaps the innate complexity or chaotic nature of some systems gives rise inevitably to a little cloud of unknowing. Any or all of these little sins of the Scientism faith are likely to make the supplicant give pause when considering grand projects such as genetically modified crops and nuclear power.
All of which is fine and dandy – except if we treat all the above as a conjecture and put it to the test it all falls apart pretty quickly! It seems folks just aren’t, well, they’re just not darn consistent between their politics and their epistemology! Is that the fault of my nice little theory, or is that their fault? “Cognitive dissonance” perhaps?
In The Global Warming Bugaboo, George Reisman points out the contradiction between their pessimistic and gloomy epistemological comfort zone (i.e. worries over the capability of Science to guarantee the safety of nuclear plants, or to produce safe pesticides, or to introduce genetic engineering without horrible unintended consequences) and their need to get up close and intimate with the men in white coats so as to support their climate change doom scenarios – which only works if you throw in a fairly heavy dose of Scientism and epistemological optimism (especially an unshakeable faith in the powers of the computer modelling of chaotic systems!).
So what have we here? It seems the global warmers are playing fast and loose with their epistemology: cheerful, epistemological optimists one minute; depressing Jonahs the next. How inconsistent of them!
- little planet/big sky
- lo! The waters will rise…
- odds 'n' ends
- March 2013
- February 2013
- December 2009
- November 2008
- October 2008
- May 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006